There is a fair amount of controversy as to what is fair and what is discriminating about employment screening. Some contend that the sheer measure of checking the “Have you any felony convictions” box on most applications will all but nullify an employment candidates’s chances of being considered for the position. Some believe the employment credit report background checks are unfair as people who are otherwise skilled suffer opportunity because of a lower credit rating.
There are some who contend employer discriminate against different ethnic groups or races. Others believe it is simply unfair to exclude a job applicant from consideration because or previous criminal convictions. Of course not many but the employers contend that they have the right, within the guidelines of the law, to hire whom they please. The fact that when there is physical violence to employees or to the property, no one takes note that the employer will be liable. It will the employer who must face dealing with the death or injury of an employee. It is the employer who deals with the lawsuits and the liability issues, the public embarrassment. It is the employer who consistently must confront the most obvious question, “why didn’t you run a background check to see if someone had a criminal record or was prone to violence?” Or, another common refrain,” if you knew the person had a criminal record, then why did you hire him?”
So, to quote the Bard, “there lies the rub.” Tough call and at times there are no easy answers. On one hand people deserve second chances and past transgressions should not necessarily keep someone from find gainful employment. On the other hand, an employer would not be particularly hire a violent sex offender to work in an office of women. Or with children. And the fact that the employer, as some would have it, would work in the blind and not be able to conduct background checks as part of their employment screening program simply defies logic. At what point does common sense enter the equation?
I realize that there are employers who are biased. There are employers who are bigoted or sexist, who would not hire a convicted felon or those with an unsavory past. So be it. There are laws to prevent certain discrimination. There are even laws or contingencies that mandate an employer limit or curtail his consideration of certain criminal records, depending on their age, the seriousness of the crime, and other factors that can vary from state to state. But it should be noted that in a down economy, employers have a sizable recruiting pool and as such they should be able to choose candidates based on their qualifications. Part of that qualification standard regards the person’s past history and whether it could be deemed the employment candidate poses a threat to other workers.
I have written about this extensively as more groups push for a showdown for various reasons. Some such reasons, it can be argued, defy all common sense. One such article is entitled, The Wide Open Controversy of Criminal Records and Employment Background Checks. It is posted on the Daily Planet.
Mind you, I am sympathetic to people from different minorities and people with criminal records deserve to find gainful employment. It is both a right and necessity. I also believe the employer has a right to know about a job applicant criminal history and shouldn’t be forced to be kept int he dark about this.
Meanwhile, here are some ideas that employers in certain states may need to resolve in the future. I believe this is far from a dire situation and there can be a reasonable meeting of the minds. I also believe that certain state legislatures facing economic restraints due to job loss and the decline of industry will be less inclined to view these options all that favorably. But we shall see.
This is from the NAPBS. National Association of Professional Background Screeners.
