First, that's completely the wrong framing. Maybe checkr doesn't "care enough" about the people who have been punished, but it's not like the company exists out of spite. It exists to serve the legitimate business interests of people who are scared of the impact that a person with a prior record of doing bad things may have on their business, if hired. (Including: our customers are in enterprise/gov/edu and require us to commit to background checks on everyone we hire).
Secondly:
I don't understand all the hatred here. Who, exactly, is this going to prevent from getting a job? People who were honest in their application when asked about prior convictions/etc, or people who lied?
Why should businesses be forced to hire people who lie about past misdeeds? There's a perfectly reasonable way for people who have done bad things, and been "PUNISHED BY THE COURT SYSTEM") to handle it: you tell the employer "x years ago I was convicted of X bad thing. I was guilty, but I learned from the experience and changed. Here are three character references who have known me both before and after, and I'm happy to tell you more about this if you want to know".
If you are honest in your application, a background check will only corroborate your truthfulness. And if you're not, why should we as a society object to someone taking that into account when considering whether to trust you?
I think the problem is the "bad" things I may or may not have done in the past is none of the potential employers business.
The problem though isn't that liars are getting jobs but also the honest people. Valuable skills are overlooked because a past mistake has sullied their appearance.
>I think the problem is the "bad" things I may or may not have done in the past is none of the potential employers business.
But that's simply not true. Peoples' past behavior has a predictive value over their probable future behavior and we all know this, and it applies in positive directions as well as negative. I mean, this is why we ask about "experience": because we think that if you did X competently in the past, you are more likely to be able to do X competently in the future.
This predictive power is not perfect, of course, but it's silly to claim that it's "none of the bank's business that I stole $1M from the last bank I worked at", or "none of the kindergarten's business that I previously molested 15 children".
People who get turned down for jobs because they did bad things years ago (1) didn't have to have done those things, and (2) have ample opportunity to demonstrate that they have improved/moved on/"are a different person now"/etc. Companies may lose out by failing to hire some of the best of that group, but it's not insane or evil for companies as a group to be hesitant.
> I think the problem is the "bad" things I may or may not have done in the past is none of the potential employers business.
Baloney - if I'm going to trust you with my customers, my business data, and my reputation, I darned well do deserve to know if you've done things that might make you undeserving of that trust. Lying on a job application would be a very good example of that.
There in lies part of the problem. It is not as simple as you make it sound. While I 100% agree with you that honesty upfront is the absolute best approach, the problem is that 9 out of 10 times employers simply scan applications, see a check for conviction/arrest history, with or without notes explaining the circumstances, and discard the application. So while the applicant may have taken the best approach, it often doesn't work out for them.
The real problem with background checks is that there is loose regulation around them. Often times these companies return inaccurate or incomplete results. Often times they provide reports that are not in compliance with FCRA. An even bigger problem is that a background report provides absolutely no context to a crime. They also make it difficult at best to dispute any mistakes. This is a huge problem.
GoodHire (a Checkr competitor) are working to change this somewhat. They allow individuals to add notes and context to their own background reports. This can be done individually (the person pays for their own report and adds the notes) or after a background check is provided by a company.
It is not necessarily about paying to "clear allegations" against them, it is about adding context to convictions/arrests listed their background report.
For example, someone may add this to a drug conviction listed on their report: "I was 18, a freshman in college, and away from home for the first time. I was at a party where drugs were consumed and I was subsequently arrested for possession. Since that time I have obtained my college degree and maintained an active, drug free, lifestyle. I learned my lesson, changed my life and drugs are no longer a part of my lifestyle."
If the receive a copy of their report due to an adverse action by an employer there is no charge to add the statement. I do agree, however, that, like a credit report, background reports should be free to obtain at least once a year. There are countless cases of mistaken identity and incorrect information on criminal background reports that are often found out after it is too late. Often times too, many arrests/convictions can be removed from your report depending on the type, state, and age of arrest/conviction. Many college students don't realize the long-term repercussions of simple indiscretions. It is only after they apply for a job and are turned down because of a background check that they realize the beer they were caught drinking at age 20 in their college dorm room had bigger consequences than the $50 fine.
Why? Verifying the veracity of information on a job application with public records seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and nowhere in the realm of 'civil rights abuse'.
I've personally witnessed background checks used to catch people who flat-out lied in the hiring process.
You're absolutely right. Those people had already been punished by the courts for their misdeeds against society. They were not going to suffer further at our hands.
When they chose to lie to us during the hiring process, however, they committed a new misdeed that some might say justified additional reaction.
To clarify a point on which there may be some doubt, the hiring process spelled out in quite certain terms that were in no way, shape, form, or manner less than completely clear that a criminal history was not an bar to employment. These were not empty words. The people clearly did not believe this, and made their own personal, individual choices to be dishonest with us.
I absolutely understand how this was a fault in the hiring process. The hiring process of the company should have been much more patient for background check results. That way we would have caught that we were being lied to earlier. The nature of the roles in question - and the access to private and sensitive material involved - required us to care about the pasts of the candidates.
Is it possible that you consider the flaw in the process to be of a different nature? Such as that there should under no circumstances be any interest in a person's criminal history in any hiring process?
>Is it possible that you consider the flaw in the process to be of a different nature? Such as that there should under no circumstances be any interest in a person's criminal history in any hiring process?
Yes. If, as you say, criminal history was not a bar to employment, why ask the question at all if you are going to run a background check anyhow? You contradict yourself by stating that "criminal history was not an bar to employment" but also that "The nature of the roles in question [...] required us to care about the pasts of the candidates." so it's difficult to understand why you are so firm on this point. Anyhow, there are plenty of protected groups of people that a prospective employer can't legally discriminate against, yet the discrimination still happens.
The applicant has to take a calculated risk when deciding whether to answer the question about criminal history honestly. Maybe a better question on the application, rather than asking outright about criminal history and discarding an applicant when you catch them in a lie, is asking about relevant convictions that might have some implications about whether that person has a history of violations in your area of practice, or present a conflict to your customers.
> You contradict yourself by stating that "criminal history was not an bar to employment" but also that "The nature of the roles in question [...] required us to care about the pasts of the candidates."
I understand why you feel that way. Your heart is in the right place, and you care deeply about those suffering at the hands of a heartless society. Your blossoming of pure compassion is wonderful!
Yet, it's possible that you have not caught me in a contradiction. We would not have cared about, say, a past conviction for handling marijuana or anything vehicle related. We might have cared about a recent conviction for fraud. Honesty was paramount for that position, and choosing to lie to us was definitely a bar.
You're absolutely right that the applicant took a calculated risk and opted to lie. And we took a calculated risk by trusting their initial response. After that, we were much more cautious about waiting for background-check results.
I understand why you believe the question as you phrased it is better. It defers to the candidate's judgment and allows them to offer only the narrow bits of information that they think could be relevant. It maximizes their discretion and minimizes the risk of being discriminated against for a history that's over. It is, however, just possible that some might prefer to allow candidates the opportunity to be forthright, honest, and transparent?
We would not have cared about, say, a past conviction for handling marijuana or anything vehicle related. We might have cared about a recent conviction for fraud. Honesty was paramount for that position, and choosing to lie to us was definitely a bar.
Why? From the company's perspective it makes sense to ask if an applicant has a criminal record. Statistically someone with a prior conviction is much more likely to commit a future crime
What's sad is that in each of the cases I have encountered, the convictions that were concealed would not have been issues. It was the lying about them that did it.
If there is any justice in the world, this company will go out of business.