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'.
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?