What do you think about background checks when applying to a job?

What do you think about background checks when applying to a job?
Isnt it somewhat contraproductive for reintigration of criminals into society?
Dont get me wrong, i see that they're needed in *some* places, but aperrently theyre done for almost every job in the usa.
I mean - who didnt do something stupid when they were young?

Other urls found in this thread:

snelling.com/2012/12/31/4-hidden-costs-of-being-understaffed/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Well, no. Not everyone did something stupid when they were young. Thus not everyone has a criminal record. Thus background checks are an easy way to separate impulsive retards who are prone to criminal activity and those of us who are smart enough to not commit crimes even from a young age.

So sorry you are a piece of criminal scum, but those are the breaks. Yes, you shouldn't be punished twice by the criminal justice system, but if I am running a business I can't have someone who is a criminal working for me if I have the choice of someone else.

Companies want to hire people they can trust, looking at their background is generally a good way of doing this. Some jobs should always have a strict policy on background checks, especially if the job handles or has access to large amounts of money/drugs/dangerous substances.

Also if you are hiring someone you deserve to know of any crimes they may have commented.
>taxi service would not hire someone convinced of theft, reckless driving, kidnapping...
>bank wouldnt hire bank robber
>drugstore wouldn't hire drug abusers.

Hm, that's a way to see it.
I think the system should be able to "forget" past mistakes - with a waiting period depending on the severety of the crime.

>Isnt it somewhat contraproductive for reintigration of criminals into society?
It's a mechanism that created recidivists. Sure, pedophiles shouldn't work with children and compulsory thieves shouldn't be allowed anywhere near banks, however, everything beyond that is just for pleasuring society's aggregated, not to achieve anything of value

well, if you want to produce a whole sub-society of criminals, that's the way to go. that's pretty much how modern niggers were created though ofc their "background check" was limited to skin color. the nigger from the 50s was nothing like the modern nigger. needless to say, modern british or french blacks are not niggers. the only way to effectively punish criminals and thus discourage them from being criminals, is to deprive them from their rights and property. if you make sure that they have none, how can you discourage them from criminal activity?

huffing your own farts and showing everyone what a good boy you are may feel nice to your peepee, but it's completely counterproductive for everyone, including yourself

and no, i'm not a criminal. my record is spotless

>for pleasuring society's aggregated EGO

I had to work with one of those ex-cons. He was a mouthy and emotive manchild that walked like a woman. He would try to renegotiate his working instructions to his convenience. After threatening a few others and telling to many to go to hell, he was fired.

>be me
>Get hired at Wal-Mart
>Pawn shitbox one for things I'll need
>Waiting
>Denied because I wrote a few hit checks TEN YEARS AGO
>steal drinks from them daily now because they owe me an Xbox
Fuck them

bump you fucking niggers

Here's the thing, OP. Companies are not run by stupid, naive people. There is an implicit understanding that the prison system, though it may call itself "rehabilitative," simply fails at doing any sort of rehabilitation. Indeed, for many of the incarcerated, it just makes the problems worse.

Imagine that you're working in HR for a company. With a constant outflow of labor and talent, there is an existential need for your company to hire productive and loyal talent. Otherwise, there will be an ever-growing spiral of decreased workforce, leading to increasing workload on those remaining, leading to people quitting and exacerbating the problem. And now, lo, before you is someone with a felony record of violent manslaughter. You know that there, in your stack of applicants, there must be someone who could not only stem the tide of out-flowing talent, but might actually prove highly beneficial to the company's overall bottom line. Do you really want to risk polluting your company's labor force with someone ill-equipped to deal with the real world, when you know that any of this felon's failures would also be considered your own failure?

Don't be silly, OP. People who come out of the prison system aren't rehabilitated. The state has failed. It shouldn't be the responsibility of private companies to do the rehabilitation work, when they have a real existential reason to avoid such risks.

I've worked in HR before, I know how it goes.

Manslaughter, though?

Accidentally killing someone out of negligence is different than having deliberate intentions to harm someone. Recidivism for manslaughter must be some of the lowest for any crime, on account of it being a matter of circumstances outside control generally alongside negligence.

It's actually technically illegal for an employer to not hire someone based on a criminal record, so backgrounds check are kind of a way to look at someone and discriminate against them in an under-the-table way that's illegal for employers.

> Do you really want to risk polluting your company's labor force with someone ill-equipped to deal with the real world
Well i'm not a murrican, and some years ago i was caught with a bit of weed. Charges were dropped because it was so little, but there was this remark in my file. I don't know if it ever gets deleted, or was deleted as it doesn't change anything for me. Now if i were in the usa i'd be fucked for life because even if i do a good job with my degree i'd always be "the criminial" to possible employers which i'd consider disproportionate.

>It's actually technically illegal for an employer to not hire someone based on a criminal record, so backgrounds check are kind of a way to look at someone and discriminate against them in an under-the-table way that's illegal for employers.

Though illegal, literally every for-profit company does this. With the stakes so high, and the nonexistent odds of someone proving that your non-hiring decision was due to the criminal record, this practice will continue. Again, like I said, the private sector is not stupid and has an implicit understanding that the prison system very often does not fix violent offenders' underlying problems.

Through anti-discrimination laws, the state tries to shift the burden of rehabilitation to private employers. Considering that the state has no risk of going under but private companies do, don't you think it unfair for private companies to bear most of the risks and burdens of rehabilitation?

It was the state's job to rehabilitate criminals, and they have largely failed. Private companies don't want to martyr themselves, so they don't, and they get away with it. We're left with a population of untouchables.

The state needs to accept responsibility for its own failures and institute meaningful prison reform.

In my country they would use common sense, and if they don't it's not the kind of place you'd want to work.

Robbed a petrol station with a shotgun? nope. Sold the scripts of a previous company? nope. Got caught and told not to start fires/take drugs when you were 14? meh. Punched a guy who tried to mug your phone? meh.

Also, unfortunately some things are signs of a really bad mentality even if they did happen 10 years ago. Like a kid who steals.

In my state, employers are only allowed to ask about convictions. If the charges were dropped, then the employer can't ask. Also excluded are are convictions that were sealed or expunged.

Even if you were convicted, possession charges aren't a barrier for many jobs nowadays, and especially in fields with younger demographics.

Manslaughter includes voluntary manslaughter, which includes when someone has the intent to kill but has luckily failed in doing so.

I was convicted of two felony thefts many years ago and I am now a licensed teacher. In my case it was about the passage of time, plus, I am a damn good teacher.

In Canada pretty sure most jobs it's illegal for employers to do background checks, but I know to work in a school or in court you need one done.

>deserve to know of any crimes they may have commented
Doesn't that violate their privacy?

>Otherwise, there will be an ever-growing spiral of decreased workforce, leading to increasing workload on those remaining, leading to people quitting and exacerbating the problem
Nice logical fallacy there

If you have completed your sentence then your debt is paid and you get all your rights back. If you have a problem with someone getting full restoration after x years for y crime, then increase the penalty, but the bottom line is there needs to be a finite date.

If someone is so dangerous they need to be on a list for the rest of their lives, be prevented from owning a gun, register with the local police, notify their neighbors, THEN MAYBE THEY SHOULDN'T BE OUT OF PRISON.

the only time criminal history should come into play for a job is when that job requires a security clearance.

Employers should not be permitted to ask about arrests if there are no convictions associated with it.

How is a positive feedback loop a logical fallacy?
snelling.com/2012/12/31/4-hidden-costs-of-being-understaffed/

You lose your right to privacy when you violate an innocent person's right to privacy/life/liberty/property you criminal scum.

The key word here is "should." In a perfect world, criminals should and would be rehabilitated. But the truth of the matter is that, in the U.S., they usually are not.

The reality is that, while the government is touting all these "shoulds," it is failing to do any real rehabilitative work, and instead outsources the work to private companies and society as a whole.

>off by one.

I get what he means, but you dont "lose a right to privacy"
Before any criminal background check you have to sign a waiver allowing them to access your criminal background.
With good reason. Ive worked for a few places that this process is essential. By example, a 3rd party logistics company that handles pharmaceuticals or expensive shit would check for drug charges or theft charges.