This is an interesting proposition. According to an article in The Memphis Commercial Appeal may stop asking employment candidates about their criminal pasts. In other words, no background checks will be re3quired for job applicants. This practice would follow that of San Francisco, Boston, and Chicago. The idea is to encourage those with criminal pasts to apply for work and to allow for those who have rehabilitated themselves to become gainfully employed.
To me, the obvious question is what about the ones who have not necessarily rehabilitated themselves. Or when temptation allows, convicted felons may return to thievery, violence, or sexual offenses. All on the city time and payroll, of course. According to the article, the applicant would be allowed to apply for employment. If the applicant was then offered conditional employment, then the human resources division can run a background check to review the applicant’s criminal history. The offer for employment can then be withdrawn.
It’s fair. In a way. But then so often, and there have been countless incidents in state, city, and public service agencies, where those responsible somehow fail to conduct the necessary background check. Or they do conduct the background check but by that time everyone is onto something else and the returned background search never gets reviewed.
So what this new process really amounts to is the intent to do away with the box that asks if someone has had previous convictions. Therefore, the applicant will be more comfortable applying for the job and can conceivably move up through the vetting process without the burden of a past criminal record to stifle or influence his candidacy. Again, this is fair.
However, in many cases when a candidate is asked if he was ever convicted of a crime and does not check the box, the employer then has grounds to reject his candidacy. The candidate was lying. And the prevailing theory is that if a candidate lies on his application, then what would he not lie about once he is employed. So in removing the box you are in one way giving the truly rehabilitated greater access to employment. On the other hand, the city is eliminating an easy grounds for rejection based on the fact the candidate lied on his application. The burden to reject a candidate is therefore that much more difficult.
Clearly, I am of two minds toward this new course of action. I do believe people should be given a second chance and be able to find work. On the other hand, without the proper scrutiny, there is a lapse in the preemployment screening process and then the hiring party is making headlines. Too often we read headlines where an employee is caught in a crime or commits a sexual offense or act of violence, and then, only then, do we suddenly learn they have a previous criminal history.
