"You mean convicted?"
Posted on 11/03/2015 10:17:26 AM PST by Enlightened1
Subsequent victims should sue.
If the real world would treat those who did make a mistake in their past then I would think this was unnecessary. The problem is that the minute the box is checked, the application is null and void. The question is, do you ever recover from a mistake?
I read earlier about a California man who was fired as a manager of Taco Bell because he got drunk and beat up an Uber driver. So apparently you can fire them for doing that if they haven’t been convicted but if they’ve already been convicted of it then you cannot consider it in hiring them.
Anything to help bring down America a little more... whadda POS.
Robbing a bank is a “mistake”?
One more giant step down the road to disaster.
"You mean convicted?"
“Advocates argue that those formerly in prison should be allowed to prove their qualifications for a job instead of being eliminated early in the process due to their criminal background.”
If ‘qualifications’ is defined strictly as skills (i.e. I know how to write software, how to operate a backhoe, etc.) that’s INSUFFICIENT to make a hiring decision. I need to know your work ethic, values, etc. I need to know I can trust you. That can include being honest about your past.
I would (and have) hired people in the past who made mistakes, doing something stupid in their youth that earned a criminal record. They were honest about it and I had reason to believe they were beyond it. I would NOT hire someone however that I felt created risk to my company and colleagues. I need to know.
Having a president that has never run a business continues to bear fruit. Clueless, blinded by an ideology that leads to failure.
After they get arrested for criminal conduct at their taxpayer funded job.
No, that will be when employers are banned from inquiring into an applicant’s criminal history. All this does is to stop the applicant from admitting that they are a criminal.
Yes, they do. Or they can go back to selling drugs. A man's gotta eat.
I'm sure I'll get blasted here but I'm not entirely opposed to this.
In the old days before computerized records, a guy would do his time, get out of prison with a suitcase and a bus ticket and go someplace where nobody knew who he was. He started over with a clean slate. He could bury his past and become a new man or if he chose to continue his old ways, he'd just go back to prison again. It was up to him.
These days that conviction follows you the rest of your life. Yes, I understand "don't do the crime..." and all that but still, we have about 1% of our population incarcerated. That's a lot of people. The vast majority of them will be released at some point. If we don't give them the opportunity to become productive members of society, they're not going to simply lie down and starve to death.
Oh for God’s sake it’s a legitimate question. My company has to bond people. We can’t bond felons. Why waste their time and ours by “delaying” the question?
Actions have consequences. A convicted embezzler, for example, should never expect to be hired as a Comptroller, and a convicted child molester should never be put in charge of children. Of course, I'm not sure I'd class either of those as a 'mistake', and anyone with a conviction that calls it such probably should be weeded out of the hiring process.
Only if you intended to rob the liquor store next door.
Exactly, this could actually wind up being counter-productive.....now if I do a background check and find out the applicant does indeed have a criminal history, they will never get the job, because they willfully withheld that information from me.
But if they were forced to admit it upfront, I might be more willing to take it into consideration, because of the fact that they were upfront about it.
It’s a tribal thing.
This is old bureaucratic stuff for me. Years ago I had a position as head of a local public agency. My hiring was done through a personal resources department. At one time when looking for a specific trained kind of person I was given a list of applicants and told I could not, when interviewing, ask any thing about their court history. Needles to say when such situations happened there were always a few dead beats that made the interview listing.
That still doesn’t make up for the fact that if you are a criminal, employers will find out anyway.
So they don’t ask for it on the application. They will still catch a criminal record on any cursory background check. Or a ten year gap in the applicant’s previous employment history might just catch the employer’s eye. Are the Fed’s going to ban collecting that information also?
A background check is all about determining those elements of a person’s past that would be valid indicators of future performance.
Those that would answer no to the question - “Have you ever been convicted of a crime”, and are found to have a criminal history, show they will lie to their boss if they think they can get away with it.
I had to speak with several employees of potential contractors who needed access to sensitive areas over this question. I would ask if they recalled having ever been found guilty by a judge or admitted to a judge they were guilty and had some type of fine or punishment rendered to them.
“Oh Yeah, but that was for drug possession! I didn’t consider that a crime” was a very common response.
I am all for giving convicted individuals a second opportunity, but don’t eliminate the ability of Human Resource folks from selecting the best candidate.
They messed up big time once, They might be prone to do it again.
The next thing we will know is to have a female president wearing an ankle bracelet as part of her supervised probation.
They might have to put two together to get one on her cankles. {Oh that was bad}
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.