zlacker

While I agree that people deserve an opportunity to move on from their past, I still want to know who I’m employing. It’s not just about crimes that may be relevant to the role. Who decides what’s relevant?

A crime completely unrelated to my business may be very relevant to someone I already employ. I have a small business where people are working in relatively close quarters. I don’t want to put a rapist, stalker or some other kind of predator in there with the young woman I just hired. If there was ever a problem that would be on my conscience.

There are all sorts of others I don’t want to deal with either. This is a place where the people I bring in will be around my family, my employees and my customers. I have a responsibility to look out for each of them.

All that said, I wouldn’t hesitate to hire someone with a criminal background if the crime is irrelevant or I assess the risk is low. I don’t care if someone got busted with weed or that they got a DUI 10 years ago. I don’t care if it’s a one time crime related to a very specific set of circumstances that’s unlikely to ever repeat. Or a bar fight, drag racing or dozens of other dumb lapses in judgment that can result in serious charges. But I do care that I’m able to make an informed decision.

>>jm4+(OP)
The problem exist for corporations as well. A teenage girl, who was a former classmate and friend of my daughter, was murdered at work because she turned down a man's advances. She made formal complaints, but the bureaucratic corporate processes made it difficult to protect her or sufficiently separate her from the harasser/murderer. Even if the state is an at-will state, corporate policies and mismanagement often handcuff those involved to rectify situations before they get out of hand.