zlacker

>>public+(OP)
I know this is a controversial view, but I think employers should not be allowed to run background checks unless important for the role (government work, access to children, etc) and where it is important for the role it should only return the criminal convictions that might be relevant to the role.

If you were arrested for robbery when you were younger perhaps because you had a drug addiction then that person should have a right to serve their time and change their ways later in life without the state holding and distributing that to any potential employer, practically ensuring that individual is unemployable for a mistake they made in their youth.

The reason I think this is not a good assumption to assume that someone will be a bad employee simply because they did something criminal in their past. There are terrible employees out there who don't break the law. If we're so concerned about employers hiring bad employees then state should instead build a centralised database of bad employees and their reason for termination at previous places of work. I'd argue this would be more effective if we're concerned an employer might hire a bad employee.

Secondly, making it difficult for those who have committed crimes to get back into the workforce increases their risk of reoffending. Having a good job and a nice life to lose is a great reason to not commit crimes while having nothing to live for is a great excuse to do whatever feels right in the moment.

Best of luck op. If I was an employer I'd consider you if you had the skills and seemed like you could do the job. I have no idea why your past would be relevant to your ability to work outside of select roles.

>>kypro+rK
That would create a complex regulations where everyone if fighting over what is "required for the role"

The better, faster and easier solution is a path to quick expungement, this also has the added bonus of offering people an incentive to no re-offend.

IMO once you have completed all active punishment (ie you are no longer on parole or probation) your record should be sealed.

>>If we're so concerned about employers hiring bad employees then state should instead build a centralised database of bad employees and their reason for termination at previous places of work

That would actually be illegal under most state laws as most State's have Anti-Black List laws to prohibit such lists from being created.

>>phpist+e51
> offering people an incentive to no re-offend.

Um, that "incentive" is called not going to jail. Or more generally, behaving like a moral citizen. Just like for everybody else, ex-convict or not.

Just because you've been convicted before doesn't mean morals don't apply to you and you need extra candy to behave well. These kinds of arguments are making the case weaker to hire fellons, not stronger.