One great controversy is how background checks can adversely effect minorities. Although I may be imbued with sage-like wisdom, this is one challenge that I have no intention of solving here. What I do find interesting is a recent Eve Tahmincioglu article where for MSNBC.Com she writes Background Checks Can Offer Bad History Lesson.
Tahmincioglu invokes the travails of three people who have several things in common. They are out of work. They belong to minority groups,. And they were subject to background checks by prospective employers. The writer cites that one person did have a record, but for the past 17 years he has been working as a counselor for the New York Department of Corrections. Another employment candidate may have not been hired because her background check indicated a poor credit report. The third candidate partook in a peaceful protest against an insurance company and feels this one act may have impacted her employment records.
Tahmincioglu writes the following–
“Many job applicants long have thought such background checks are unfair, yet they are growing in popularity thanks to technology making it easier to dig up dirt. But there is a growing backlash against the practice, including at least two major two lawsuits, and there are changes afoot at the state and national level.”
I agree with Tahmincioglu that the past histories of these candidates, according to their background checks may have caused employers to decide unfairly against hiring these candidates. If her reporting is accurate, and I have no reason to believe it is not, then there may be some questions about compliance and legality regarding how far in the past can an employer regard historic background checks as being valid points of consideration. These concerns can vary from state to state.
I would also note that background checks are only reports and not recommendations. If the background checks are returned and they are accurate then this is merely information the employer can and will use to determine who is qualified for employment. If the reports are accurate, then the employer isn’t accusing innocent parties of criminal histories and other behavior that never really occurred. If the background checks are inaccurate, then this is another matter, entirely. But assuming the information is accurate in the background check, the employer may be biased in hiring persons with past criminal records or behavior the employer deems unfitting. But essentially, barring all legal constraints, the employer may regard the background report at its own discretion and ultimately hire the employment candidate it believes is most qualified.
There are any number or reasons the employer may reject a job applicant. In this very tough economy, employers in certain sectors often have a very large pool of talented employment candidates. They will choose the individual who they best will believe is the most qualified for the job. Some employers have told me, whenever possible they would rather not hire applicants with bad credit history as they find themselves besieged by phone calls from various creditors, wishing to either contact the delinquent employee or garnish his wages. For any employer, dealing with his own creditors may be bad enough in this challenging economic period, but dealing with his employee’s creditors may be a a burden culminating into a matter of choice where time is best spent elsewhere.
Yes, the hiring process may be unfair. And Tahmincioglu cites some exceptional cases. By any means, not all situations are clear cut examples of laudatory redemption. Because, when considering bias and coercion, it is also unfair to discredit background checks. Without background checks there is the markedly increased possibility that employers may hire convicted felons, sex offenders and other less disagreeable applicants who may later prove a danger to the workplace.
While background checks are no guarantee against workplace violence, they do assist in vetting out the potential problems. With employee theft on the rise, and with workplace violence always a concern, it would seem illogical to prohibit employers to conduct adequate background checks. Because it is the employer who ultimately must deal with his workers subjected to violence or the losses and destruction from employee theft. It is the employer who must spend money for litigation and liability concerns, must contend with the public embarrassment of loss and injury, and with the knowledge someone was hurt on the job.
So, all compliance standards notwithstanding, denying the employer the right to decide who is the most fitting for the job, deprives the employer of its essential rights. Simply put, the background check is only a report and as such it can be interpreted differently by different employers. Different employers will view it within the perspective of conforming to the criterion of their hiring standards, or not.
It should be noted that when an employer does hire an employee with a questionable record, and when that employee does hurt someone, commits sexual offenses, harassment, or steals, it is the employer who is questioned and criticized for its lackadaisical practices. The employer is the one who pays the price. Among the questions invariably asked on these occasions is–why didn’t the employer conduct background checks? Why weren’t they reviewed carefully, and why was the employee not properly vetted?
Why indeed?
