Don't you feel that employers doing background checks is ?

[blues90]

A tool or form of breaking privacy laws ?

I refer to this since they cannot ask your age on an application however once they have your SS# and do a background check and credit check then they know all there is to know about you including your medical records .

My point is obvious , how can you possibly prove you did not get the job because of age discrimination or if you smoke and they don;t desire this even if you are not allowed to smoke near the work place .

This came back to my mind because to the calif firings at circuit city wwhen most fired were 50 or older .

Yet it is said or so I hear that the reason we have a poor work force is due to education , well would it not make perfect sense to hire people in the 50's who have a good education even if it is only high school education , but then I forgot , they don't want to pay for experience or waste their time retraining some older fool because they won't get the years out of them .

You push SS to age 66 and the money will not sustain anyone these days but yet if you are past the prime 30ish age you are rulled out .

Can't win for losing . Then they bitch about boomers getting SS benefits , well hell I paid my share all the years I worked in this fucked up country .

[Time for change]

1. I think that discrimination cases can be extremely difficult to prove, unless they are blatant

Once an employer has an interview with a candidate, sh/e knows the gender and has a pretty good idea of race and age anyhow.

Having interviewed for jobs well over a hundred people in my life, it has occurred to me that if I ever chose to discriminate based on gender, age or race it would have been next to impossible to prove. There are so many subjective factors that an employer can say were considered, and in fact it is usually considered legitimate to use any number of subjective factors in making a hiring decision.

[Rosemary2205]

2. They won't get "years" out of youngers either.

The days of decades at a single employer are forever gone. Very few employers feel any loyalty to their employees anymore and at this point employees have gone on the defense and are more willing to say "FU" this other guy is willing to pay me more.

Very few companies keep employees more than 7 years.

[MessiahRp]

3. I'm not entirely sure about background checks but credit checks

are ridiculous. Many employers will disqualify you from employment if you have bad credit. It's stupid. Why do you need a job? To make money and PAY THE BILLS that come up on that credit report. When they bring that up at all and disqualify you for it they are actually contributing to your bad credit by refusing you work to make the money to pay those bills off.

We need a Workers' Bill of Rights in this Country.

Rp

[Tempest]

6. Credit checks are reasonable for most jobs

Someone with credit problems might be prone to using fraud or theft to try to dig themselves out in the same way as someone who has a gambling problem.

Also, people with credit problems can be targeted by criminals to commit crimes against their employer in order to pay off bills.

[AZBlue]

10. Maybe some. But not all.

And I for one don't appreciate being lumped in with the "bad" ones. My credit isn't great and I struggle with my bills - and I have access to thousands of my employer's funds. But never once has it even occurred to me to take $1. And I'm trying to get a new job that pays better - but because my current one doesn't pay enough, I can't get that new job???! That's ludicrous.

[Squatch]

11. You're not being "lumped in"

You're being treated equally.

[earth mom]

47. Your posts read like right wing talking points.

People should not be judged on their credit or anything that occurs in their PERSONAL lives. Employers do not OWN their employees or have any right to know anything but job history. :grr:

[Squatch]

49. Employers have the right to know if the person they are

hiring is of sound character. That determination must include aspects of professional and personal behavior.

"People should not be judged on their credit or anything that occurs in their PERSONAL lives."

So, you wouldn't want to know if a potential employee is a wife-beating crack addict with thousands of dollars in delinquent credit debt?

[Scout]

61. well, unless you've been CONVICTED of something

the employer isn't going to know if you're a "wife-beating crack addict" ... many things are immoral and illegal, there just isn't a convenient pee test or credit check that will find them out.

It's none of the employer's business if they ARE a wife-beater anyway...

[Squatch]

65. "It's none of the employer's business if they ARE a wife-beater anyway..."

Tell that to your customers.

[Scout]

70. what kind of business are you in, may one ask?

I've worked in many places, several different industries ... never, ever had a customer wonder about me or other staff members' personal business...

methinks you are grasping at straws.

[Squatch]

74. My day job is active duty military

but I also own and operate a fly fishing business. I can assure you that my customers are very interested in not only my character, but the character of my employee (who happens to be my wife).

But, prior to this, I was a project manager for a defense contract. I utilized every tool (including credit checks) to ascertain the professional and personal character of potential employees. Not doing so could have increased the risk of losing my sole customer, the US Government.

[MessiahRp]

83. Two different things...

"So, you wouldn't want to know if a potential employee is a wife-beating crack addict with thousands of dollars in delinquent credit debt?"

You're asking two different things. A wife beating crack addict has potential to be dangerous based on criminal offenses.

Much of America though has thousands of dollars in delinquent credit debt so you have just convicted a large portion of the country to unemployment by that ridiculous standard.

Being poor doesn't make you a thief, just as being black doesn't make you a gang member or being latino doesn't make you an illegal immigrant or being white doesn't make you a KKK member.

Whatever a small percentage of Americans do does not mean ALL do this. You are chosing profiling (not racial but certainly class profiling) as a way to discriminate against potential employees.

Many poor people with bad credit by the way, are the hardest most loyal workers you can find. They are in a hole and trying to dig their way out but you'd opt not only to not give them the shovel but to also take a bulldozer and dig that hole deeper before you leave them for dead because that credit check you just did actually lowered their score even more.

May I never apply for work at any place you manage.

Rp

[AZBlue]

93. I'm not of sound character because I don't have excellent credit?

How do you know that there aren't extenuating circumstances, as there are in my case? And how would an employer know that just based on a credit score?

I'd really like to hear the answers to these questions.

[Big Pappa]

103. I have a small business.

What we look for is not a person who missed a couple of house and car payments. Hell they are out of work I expect that. No what we look for is a pattern of constant nonpayment and skipping of loans. And yes when they are in the 2nd category that tells me alot.

[AZBlue]

104. You'd think that's a good way of doing it, but it's not.

First of all, unfortunately most employers don't look at a full report, they just look at the credit score. So they don't really know the full story.

Plus, I can see where you think this is a good plan, but I can tell you that the stereotype is wrong. For example, I'm not unemployed, but I'm extremely underemployed, especially for my situation and my spcecific bills - so I can't always meet my monthly bills but that's because my bills exceed my income. I'm not out eating at restaurants and buying clothes and going on trips with the money instead of paying my bills, I'm simply struggling.

So how does that tell you anything about how I do my job?

You'd assume I'm slacking off at work and an irresponsible employee when in fact I run the show here, I do 2 and a half people's jobs, I work 60+ hours a week and even when I'm sick or on vacation I'm checking my e-mail and phone messages. I know far more about this place than my boss and I have to tell him what to do on a daily basis.

So my credit score happens to be the exact opposite of my value as an employee - there's an inverse relationship there. If you judged me by my credit score and chose not to hire me, that would be your great loss! And, no, I'm not the exception - I have a couple of friends in the exact situation as me and I doubt we somehow are just flukes.

[etherealtruth]

107. Well, divorce and the fact that my former spouse ...

... filed for bankruptcy within months of our divorce (all joint debt then reverted to me) ... makes me scum and untrustworthy as an employee ... despite talent, loyalty and dedication, and a very strong work ethic ... hmmmph ... I learn something new about myself every day.

[AZBlue]

109. Yeah, tell me about it.

Apparently the fact that I lived with and co-signed some items with my ex-bf, I'm a lazy bum who shouldn't aspire to more than french fry cook assistant at McD's. Who knew?!

[Big Pappa]

110. Credit score does not tell the whole story.

Does your credit report reflect ongoing new credit cards that go unpaid? consistent nonpayment of rent and car loans? Like I said 1 or 2 adverse late or nonpayments is not what I am looking at. It is a pattern of late or nonpayments through the history of the credit report that tells the story.

[AZBlue]

114. You totally missed my whole point.

Good luck with that.

[earth mom]

112. Whoa now. The majority of people with bad credit are not druggies.

My that's a broad brush you wield. :eyes:

Don't you realize that people have problems, that more often than not most people in this country are underpaid and are living pay check to pay check?! That is reason enough alone for bad credit, though there are any number of valid reasons why a persons credit can be bad.

The bottom line is that it's none of anyone's damn business because number 1, it's a private matter, and number 2, the only person it really and truly harms is that person themselves. BTW-Exactly what part of PRIVACY do you not understand?!

NO ONE should be judged on their bank balance or lack of one, but rather only on their good intentions and good deeds.

[AZBlue]

92. How is that? Please expand on your answer.

[MessiahRp]

12. Well since most this nation is in credit debt

I suppose we all should be disqualified from work. That's discrimination based on profiling. Is a poor person more likely to steal due to their situation? It didn't stop rich Enron execs or tons of Wall Street Heavies who were quite well off from robbing their companies blind...

That's a stupid assumption in my view.

Rp

[Squatch]

13. Are all smokers going to die in their 50's?

No...but that doesn't stop insurance companies from assessing higher premiums for that indicator of risk.

[Sapere aude]

19. Nice to know your moral authorities are corporations

[Squatch]

27. It's not a question of morality, but one of sound business decisions

[Sapere aude]

38. Slavery is a sound business decision. Every decision is a question of morality,

ethics, whatever. You don't get to let your self off the hook because it is sound business. Or didn't they teach ethics where you went to school?

[Squatch]

39. Absurd hyperbole is not an effective communication technique.

[Sapere aude]

40. You can't argue the point just attack my method fine.

[Squatch]

43. Refresh my memory...who was it who began this discussion with ad hominem?

"Nice to know your moral authorities are corporations"

[Squatch]

41. It's not nice to change your posting after I replied to it.

:spank:

[ComerPerro]

25. just be lucky you can get insurance, and they don't rule smoking a "prexisting condition"

[Squatch]

29. Well, since I'm in the Army...

[ComerPerro]

46. yeah, I forgot, LOL. Stay safe

[Scout]

62. excellent points, thanks n/t

[jhasp]

102. I used to be in banking . .

and was in on the hiring process. If you had bad credit you could not get a job at the bank, especially as a teller. On more than one occasion we caught tellers skimming cash out of customers' deposit bags and we could have easily lost multimillion dollar customers so that the teller could have an extra $20 on Friday night. So yes, I agree with credit checks for some jobs.

[Sapere aude]

17. I disagree. If you have been unemployed or underemployed you probably have bad credit.

Bad credit tells very little about a person's character. People with bad credit are no more prone to a life of crime as someone with good credit.

[nashville_brook]

42. that's a load of crap -- same as saying it's unethical to be poor

[Scout]

55. so they are being convicted for crimes they MIGHT commit?

every single person born on this earth is a potential criminal, whether you have credit problems or not.

Credit checks for jobs that do not involve handling company finances are an invasion of privacy. They also lower your credit score every time an employer checks your credit ... thus you get caught in a vicious cycle ... bad credit, so no job, your credit score goes down further, no job the next time, they check again, etc.

"targeted by criminals to commit crimes against their employer in order to pay off bills"
huh? if a criminal wants me to steal money from my employer, I doubt they would let me use it to pay my bills :eyes:

[undeterred]

86. That's stinkin thinkin.

[Digit]

91. Some of the biggest frauds I know out there have perfect credit...it means nothing

They know how to game the system, that is all.
These same people (the handful that I know personally, albeit at a distance) are quite well off, but think nothing of making a fraudulent insurance claim or stealing from their employer.
That is the reason I don't associate with these people anymore.

Yet my own credit is not the best.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

106. I'd be interested in knowing if incidents of theft and fraud have went down any

...since this has been in practice.

[AZBlue]

8. I couldn't agree more!

[Blue_Tires]

90. very true....

[Matariki]

100. A law just passed in Washington state forbidding credit checks by employers

unless it directly relates to the job. Good move - hope other states follow.

[Squatch]

4. Employers have the right to know who they're considering hiring

[chaska]

5. They have whatever rights we as a society say they have and no more...

This part of our society (me) says checking credit is way the fuck out of line.

[Squatch]

7. This part of society (me) says they're not.

So, we're even.

[blues90]

21. Let me give you another spin here .

Say I don't have credit cards , say I have a long record of good employment and most jobs were at least 10 years employment . What the hell is a credit check going to prove one way or the other ?

If my work history is not good enough then what is . I am not a theif or a liar but this no longer matteres , just some corrupt credit companies personal profile based on plastic and paper , this means more than the person .

Now that we have reached a real low such as this and due to the crooks and scammers out there as always the innocent suffer , Fuck the credit check and the employers who feel so damn enpowered to sift through someones life . Lets make the damn thing fair , give the propective employee the employers credit record and back ground check because I don;t want to work for a past or present drunk or wife beater or scam artist , racist , republican or anyone who voted for bush . How about that ?

[Squatch]

31. You don't have to have credit cards to have credit history.

I see that there is a fundamental lack of understanding on you part as to what constitutes credit-worthiness.

[blues90]

45. Then explain ?

I have never bough a house or a car or anything else on credit all I have is the rent I pay so where is the credit history other than the bills I pay ?

[Bjornsdotter]

52. Not true

...my parents own two houses, paid cash for one and paid the other one off early.

They have never had a credit card, never bought anything on a payment plan and have over $100,000 in savings.

They cannot get a credit card....they have been told they have no credit history and that they are a credit risk.

Go figure....

Cheers

[Rue]

59. I don't get it.

How do the credit card companies justify that? That sounds like a major league Catch-22.

[Bjornsdotter]

89. It is

...my parents are "punished' by never owing money except for a mortgage. They can get a debit card but not a credit card; however my two college age kids can get them with no problem....even though they are unemployed. :shrug:

Cheers

[AZBlue]

95. Actually....

"I see that there is a fundamental lack of understanding on YOUR part as to what constitutes credit-worthiness." How do you think you get credit history without credit???

[kiahzero]

50. Arguments by assertion are fun, aren't they? (n/t)

[Squatch]

51. I have yet to respond to any contradiction

that argues my point on its own merits and does not resort to absurdities or ad hominem. So, no...I reject your assertion that I'm arguing by assertion. :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[kiahzero]

77. You didn't support your assertion.

You simply claimed "Employers have a right to know who they're hiring" and left it at that.

[cgrindley]

9. I've had so many background checks

for my job, for coaching Little League, for immigration, for a concealed carry permit. You sort of get used to it after a while, and each of those instances was probably necessary. But then again, I don't work for 7/11.

[Hangingon]

24. I have to agree,,,

Background checks for jobs, medical exams for jobs, and then security clearance checks. If you volunteer to work around children - school, little league etc. you get a check. It is part of life Deal with it.

[Yavin4]

14. I Am Going To Post This In Every Thread Like This on DU: FORM UNIONS

Employers are going to discriminate against you, mistreat you, under-pay you, deny benefits to you, etc. unless and until you form labor unions to protect your rights and your benefits.

If you do not form a union, then get use to the mis-treatment.

[Hestia]

20. Here here! Collective bargaining is the only way! n/t

[Hangingon]

26. How do unions help applicants?

[Rosemary2205]

35. Every EOE law on the books is thanks to unions.

Unions fought for laws requiring fair handling of the whole application process. What can be asked in interviews and what employers can and cannot demand from prospective employees. For instance, they can do testing for illegal drugs but it is illegal for them to test for precription drugs. They can do background checks but they are legally limited in what they can check. They can contact your current employer ONLY if you agree to allow them to do so in writing.

The laws are not always followed, of course, but nearly every worker protection you have is thanks to unions.

[Yavin4]

101. Easy. What Employers Could Ask In An Interview Process Would Be Screend By The Union

The union would be able to lay down the rules on what's allowed and what's not allowed.

[truebrit71]

33. Agreed 1000%.

Union. YES.

[unpossibles]

15. I think credit checks are total BS

I have no problem with criminal background checks, although that depends on the job. Sadly, people who have a criminal history need jobs too, or they'll be back to crime.

Credit checks though are like drug testing - in most cases it's a scam by the industry to sell their need to employers, and it's a total invasion of privacy. But we continue to ignore these and they keep ramping them up.

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. Credit checks might be reasonable in certain cases -

if I was hiring an armored car driver it might be good to know he doesn't have cash flow problems - but in most cases they would be intrusive.

[unpossibles]

28. well, yes, I agree that there are times/places/jobs where they make sense

again, like drug tests. If I am doing a job involving lots of money or public safety, that's fine. And my credit is in the "ok" range, but I just feel it's yet another way to keep people down. What? You made one mistake or even had something happen which was out of your control and you got behind on something? Welcome to McDonald's.

[AZBlue]

96. I agree.

I'd like to know if the CFO of my company or the accountant who has signature authorization on my account have financial problems.

[Sapere aude]

16. I worked at a place where a bunch of us were laid off. We got together and found out that

we all were over 50. We were given 3 months pay as long as we signed a form saying we would not try to fight the lay off. That form was the what got us to talk to each other to see if anyone else got one.

[Hestia]

18. I've read where firings of those in their 50s and 60s are on

purpose - the insurance premiums are higher and they are too young to qualify for SS and Medicare. That is why employers will wait to hire when you have reached that age. Wrong and evil on a massive scale, but we all keep accepting these conditions to employment, how will it ever change? It only gets worse...

[mondo joe]

22. Depends on what is being checked, and the consent of the applicant.

I have zero problem with checking on references.

If anything, I think they are not permitted to go far enough.

[Hangingon]

30. References are not reliable

I have checked given references. They are usually glowing - if I wanted to get rid of someone, I would be tempted to give them a good rating too. Also, references are often afraid of repercussions from their assessments.

[mondo joe]

34. That's patr of why I don't thinkthey go far enough. There's too much fear

about being honest, so you can't even get a really useful check most of the time.

[Rosemary2205]

37. Here's what you do

When we fire someone for good cause and a new prospective employers calls me for their reference, I confirm only dates of employment, position and salary. If they want a personal reference I tell them we need their HR manager to sign a waiver releasing us from any liability. No one has ever filled out the waiver form, but they get the message.

[meldroc]

44. Most places give useless references now.

Company policies at many places dictate that managers and HR only confirm the person indeed worked there, date person was hired, date person left the company. Some of them MAYBE are allowed to answer the question of whether the company would rehire.

There have been lawsuits not only by ex-employees hit with bad references, but by companies suing because the ex-employer gave a good reference, but then the employee fucked up big time (ran over a 2-year old with a company vehicle, or embezzled $10,000,000...)

So most companies prefer not to say anything at all.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

32. I Find It Completely Appropriate That They Do Such Checks.

It is nothing other than perfectly reasonable that an employer would want to be a bit educated on the character they are hiring. I have no problem with it at all.

[Squatch]

36. 100% in agreement with you.

[Alexander]

94. Background, yes. Credit, no.

It's a shame that concepts as abstract and complicated as money can morph into something even worse - credit.

Personally I think every American should stop using credit cards and acquiring a credit history. Then the concept, which is bullshit to begin with, would be completely meaningless.

[stirlingsliver]

48. I Find It Completely Inappropriate That They Do Such Checks

It is totally inappropriate to do such checks.

They are nothing more than intrusive invasions of privacy.

Employers should have to prove that each piece of information asked of an applicant is necessary, and they should be required to show how it relates to successful performance of the job.

Otherwise, you really have nothing more than a wide-ranging fishing expedition, in which the employer can ask whatever he wants.

And, in today's employment market, where almost any job looks good, applicants are at a distinct disadvantage.

Furthermore, employers should be required to show how they will safeguard any information gathered from applicants to ensure that it is used only for the purposes asked. And they should be required to show how the information will be disposed of once it is no longer needed.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

53. ....

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Fishing expedition. :rofl:

Orrrrr maybe they want to make sure you aren't a psychotic child molesting murderer or something.

[stirlingsliver]

54. If The Job Does Not Involve Contact With Children,

If the job does not involve contact with children, then what difference should it make whether the applicant is a child molester or not?

If the job does involve contact with children, then the employer would, in my view, be justified in asking for enough information to be able to check into arrest and conviction records.

The information requested should be used only for a legitimate employment purpose. And the employer ought to be required to demonstrate what he will use the information for, and how that use relates to the job. Otherwise, it is simply excessive intrusion into the applicant's privacy.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

57. Oh. My. God.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Squatch]

63. Holy crap, you're joking, right?

I place your chances of starting a successful small business right around...oh...zero percent.

[stirlingsliver]

68. Not Joking At All

Why do you think that my chances of starting a successful small business right now would be around zero percent?

And what does my chances of starting a small business have to do with the rights of employees to retain their privacy?

[Squatch]

69. What does it say for the character of your business

if you care not for the character of your employees?

[stirlingsliver]

76. Who Says I Don't Care About The Character of Employees?

What you are suggesting, I think, is that employers should consider the "character" of applicants when making employment decisions.

Should employers be concerned about the "character" of people who are divorced? Or people who live together but are not married? Or people who drink? Or people who have had abortions? Or people who are gay?

I don't care whether a person I hire has what YOU or some other busybody might consider good "character" -- and believe me, there are plenty of people who would say that divorced people, people who live together, people who drink, people who have had abortions, or gay people are not people of good "character" -- and that employers are perfectly justified in not hiring such people of "low character.

What I do care about is how well the person is qualified to do a job.

[Squatch]

79. And what tools do you use to gauge the character of potential employees?

Do you just take potential employees at their word, hire them, spend your money training them, only to find that a serious character flaw which could have been discovered through background/credit checks prevents them from doing the job to your or your customers' satisfaction?

[stirlingsliver]

80. Questions I Would Not Ask

Here are some quesitons I would not ask if I were an employer:

(1) Are you gay?

(2) Are you divorced?

(3) Are you living with someone you are not married to?

Here are some questions I would ask:

(1) Why are you interested in this job?

(2) What are your qualifications for this job?

(3) Why are you interested in leaving your current job?

(4) My job requires that you be able to lift 75 pounds from time to time. May I ask your doctor to provide me with a written statement saying that you are capable of doing that without injuring yourself?

(5) My job requires that you interact with others as part of a team. May I ask previous employers about your ability to work together with people of different backgrounds and education levels successfully?

(6) My job requires that you know accounting. How did you acquire your knowledge of accounting? May I check you education background to determine your level of knowledge of accounting?

[Alexander]

97. You did! You said yourself, it doesn't matter if they are child molesters

as long as they aren't dealing with small children.

Let me tell you, as someone who found his personal shrink to not only be a child molester, but also sexually attracted to me (I was 21 at the time), that it DOES matter. Someone that messed up in the head doesn't become normal all of a sudden when adults are around.

You have some seriously warped views of child predators, and equating a check to see if someone has raped little kids with a question like "Are you gay?" is not only disingenuous, ignorant and dishonest, but blatantly homophobic as well.

[stirlingsliver]

99. So, I Guess You Are Saying

So I guess you are saying that we should just condemn all those "messed up" people -- the ones that don't "become normal all of a sudden when adults are around" -- to lives of unemployment?

Or perhaps you are saying that we should never let all those "messed up" people -- the ones that don't "become normal all of a sudden when adults are around" -- deal with adults or children? Of course, that would mean condemning all those "messed up" to lives of solitary confinement.

Or perhaps you are saying that we should just kill off al those "messed up" people.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying.

[MessiahRp]

81. Let me take this one step further

I have a friend who never got in an ounce of legal trouble in his life. When he was young he had an underage drinking party and some 15 year old girls got in. My friend got really drunk and went into his room to pass out but awoke to this girl attempting to perform oral on him... the entire scenario lasted less than two minutes as he stopped her immediately but she went and bragged about it and her parents had him charged with 2nd degree sexual assault (I believe he was 19 she was almost 16). Not knowing how the legal system worked, he did not have an attorney present at his interrogation (they scared him into a confession), and eventually he got the most piss poor attorney he could find because he didn't have much money for a retainer.

Not understanding the system he was coerced into taking a deal for a 3rd degree sexual assault with a 4 years probation and not having to sign up for the offender's list. Except the probation officer forced him to sign up for the list or in his words, "he would revoke him".

So now for the rest of his life, my friend, whose main offense and only real legal encounter in life was really having an underage drinking party, struggles to find employment or move up in life because every single employer sees "Sexual Predator" when they pull up his criminal background.

He has been turned down at factories where they were offering him $40,000 a year and there are no children in sight just because of the background check. It has now been 8 years since the incident occurred. My friend is trying to get the DA office (with the help of a new attorney) to reopen the case and allow him to plea to a lesser sentence.

This affects his ability to move to a new home (neighborhood notification meetings), his ability to move up and get a better job and his ability to be an even more productive citizen.

There are a lot of gray areas when it omes to sexual predator charges. Many 18 and 19 year old men have even been charged for sleeping with their 17 year old girlfriends. A lot of parent vindictiveness can come into play when a charge that serious is at their disposal.

I think part of a workers' bill of rights should be an easing on the burden of proof for employment discrimination cases. My friend was offered that factory job and told his background check was the final hurdle. They saw the report and told him he was not getting the job. When he called about it they told him, "there's no way in hell we'd even think about hiring" him.

If he was working in a place that had access to children, I could see based on the charge, why there would be certain apprehension. However many of these places have no connection to where the crime is even relevant and thus they discriminate based on false assumptions and reasoning.

This friend BTW, still has not gotten in trouble again since the incident. He's been pretty much a model citizen.

That's the sad reality of a world where corporate hacks run everything and the everyday citizen or worker has no place in making or enforcing law.

Rp

[Alexander]

98. While the guidelines for determining "sex offenses" need to be changed,

I disagree with the idea that we shouldn't use background checks just because some convicted sex offenders are innocent.

Reform is what we need of sex offense charges - things like your friend's story, or some drunk guy pissing in an alley, are ridiculous applications of these charges and proportionality should definitely be taken into account. I doubt very many sane people would approve of denying someone work or a place to live just because they once pissed in an alley or received oral sex while passed out from an underage girl.

However, if I'm taking my kid to a grocery store (hypothetically - I'm childless), I don't want to have to worry about the employees preying on him/her. There are already enough crazies in this world to avoid; the last thing we need is customers to start fearing employees.

[Scout]

56. criminal background checks are fine, credit checks are NOT. n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

58. Health records cannot be obtained with just a SS#

They would need a signed HIPPA compliant release form for that.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

60. Depends on what background they're checking.

Education, sure...

Previous employment, sure...

Criminal record, OK...

Can't think of what else they'd have any business checking.

[stirlingsliver]

66. Education, Sure? Are Your Sure?

Suppose you apply for a job that a person can qualify for based only on experience.

You have the necessary experience to do the job.

The employer requests your approval to get your education records.

And then the employer finds that while you were in high school, you failed English twice. And you were involved in two fights by the school's flag pole.

The employer then notfies you that you are not being selected for the job -- that he has found a "better qualified candidate" for the job you applied for and for which you had all of the qualifications.

Are you comfortable with this??

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

67. I mean education as in whether or not you graduated.

For example, it turns out a local sheriff never finished high school and got a degree from a degree mill, contrary to what he claimed. Maybe they should have checked earlier, eh?

[stirlingsliver]

72. Two Issues There.

You raise two issues.

First, does the job that a local sheriff applied for require a high school degree or not? (Can the job be successfully performed by someone who did not complete high school, but who may have gained experience in some other way?).

If the job does NOT require a high school diploma, then the employer has NO business asking whether an applicant has one or not.

Second, if an applicant lists a high school diploma on his or her application, but does not in fact have a high school diploma, then the applicant has lied. And the employer would be justified in not hiring the applicant -- because the applicant has lied about his education.

But IF the employer hired the applicant without first checking to see if he had the high school diploma, and the person performs the essential duties of the job satisfactorily, then it is not at all clear that the person should, in all cases, be fired.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

75. Well, yes, it does require a high school diploma...

furthermore, lying about it on an application is an even bigger no no.

I'll agree, if it's a job digging ditches, the employer hasn't got any business looking into his education. But I doubt such employers are asking anyway.

[Madspirit]

64. Depends

I don't think credit checks are valid. After all, the biggest crooks head most corporations. The biggest crooks know how to hide their crookedness. So a credit check would mainly just show working class people who have gotten themselves in a bind.

However, I most certainly would want to know if you were ever convicted of pedophilia or rape or murder. It doesn't mean I wouldn't consider your case on an individual basis but I would want to know.
Lee

[blues90]

71. Perhaps I should have asked in the beginning who

is an employer ? and who is an employee .

I also wonder why suddenly background and credit checks became the norm . Didn't need them 12 years ago , just a physical and references .

This in a way reminds me of the people who said it was ok to wire tap they have nothing to hid . It all has to do with the right to privacy not whether one is guilty or not . With the patriot act we were asked , well actually forced to give up some of our rights and just what has this rendered as far as keeping anyone safe so far ?

Well we lost even more rights since then , Happy now ?

[Madspirit]

78. Employee or Employer?

You think that would make a difference? Probably but since you put that right after my post, let me say, I have lived in poverty my entire life; I have been homeless and right now I am so poor and unemployed and uninsured, I can't even get the medication I need.

Still, I would absolutely want to know if I was hiring a pedophile, rapist or killer. Those would be about the only things I would think my business, since they could endanger other employees.

I wouldn't care about or ask about their credit history. I am not even saying a criminal history would stop me from hiring them. I have been in jail, more than once but never for a crime like the ones I list above. Your potential to harm your fellow employees or their children would be my business, in my opinion.
Lee

[blues90]

82. I understand what you are saying .

How do you know the employer is not a criminal since you are not offered the the same rights as they are .

People are asked on applications if they have ever been arrested and checking into their records would not be difficult at all .

Some of these back ground checks go back into your childhood and schools . I applied for a job at Pepboys and they wanted access to every thing with pages and pages of questions and my signature releasing anything and everything . I feel this is going a bit too far , they even asked if I would report any employee even if I knew they used drugs outside the work place or drank , is this my job to be the care taker ?

I have nothing in any record , I do feel the credit check is insane and as far as not putting your birthdate on an app is useless , they can find out with your SS# so this is a joke .

Trouble with a background check so intense is that you never know even with a clean past if say a divorce or anything else comes into play .

I feel that if one has a record of crime then it is up to the police to keep and provide records at the request . However there is no assurance that even with a clean past one is not thinking about some criminal act or is balancing on the edge of break down . People that were well known to the neighbors or spouse never knew and were shocked that their spouse suddenly shot someone or snapped , just never knew or saw it coming . Who the hell is really safe these days ? Sure you can limit risks but this should be based on known criminal records and even then people with a past may have become the best citizens on earth and will not get a break .

Still to be fair you should be allowed the same rights as the employer so they are not the power trippers , how can you tell how they will use your past against you someday , trust is equal for both sides not a one sided deal .

[Madspirit]

87. Super Good Point!!

The Employers could easily be criminals too and we don't get to scrutinize their backgrounds.
I get so irked when someone forces me to reconsider my position...<g> : P
Lee

[DaveJ]

105. I absolutely agree with your ideas and observations

America needs to move toward empowering people form the bottom up, and all these tools, background checks, drug tests, personality profiles, credit checks, etc, do just the opposite.

I think some improvement in efficiency has resulted from these measures but it is not worth people being dehumanized as a result.

Age discrimination is a particular problem in corporations today, because it seems like they can get away with it so easily. If I were looking for a job I would not even consider working at one of those places. Something needs to be done.

[madeline_con]

73. Do you want a pedophile teaching your kid?

In some situations, hell yeh we need background checks!

[Madspirit]

88. No but...

As Blues90 pointed out, the EMPLOYER could also be a criminal and we don't get to scrutinize their past, do we? You could be working next to a pedophile or rapist, it's true. ...BUT you could also be working for a pedophile or rapist.

Hmmm...goose/gander...or for us gay folks...goose/goose gander/gander...<g>

This blows all my thoughts out of the water and forces me to be unsure and unsettled and confused. Damn that Blues90...<g>
Lee

[madeline_con]

108. Yep, any of us could end up working for a criminal.

I like knowing I and my coworkers at the local school were checked out, though.

But it still offers no guarantees. We didn't know until he was found in a "compromising position" with a student that my son's former Reading coach is a pedophile. My point is, a sneaky bastard can get away with stuff for a long time, so even a background check wouldn't root him out.

But it's nice to know those who have a record won't get in.

[Big Pappa]

111. Fine, if I was the employer and

If you you want to pay the cost of doing a background check on me no problem. They are not free. So if you apply at 10 jobs and at 35 bucks a check, hey you do the math.

[bleedingheart]

84. yes and no....but recently after finding out that a woman locally

was embezzling hundreds of thousands from her employer....I think that any future company she ever works at should know that she is a criminal...(that is if she will ever get out of jail).

[undeterred]

85. I think a lot of people misuse information and don't play by the rules

They know that they cannot fire an employee for certain things but they can for other things- so they get the information one way and use it another way. I just came from a situation where I worked for a bunch of unethical, pathological liars- I think that my experience should go into a database somewhere that future employees can have access to it. How's that for fair?

[B Calm]

113. I think prospective employees should do a background check on the

employer before committing.