Should you be allowed to do a background check when hiring?

Just curious what you think? Since San Fransisco is trying to pass a law asying that you cannot do a background check on potential employees. If it is my company, I feel that I have the right to know their past and history, including employment and criminal. Is that wrong?

So far New York, Mass., Hawaii, and Philedalphia have all passed that law.

And a poll shows that only 18% of Americans agree with it.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... hen_hiring

Thoughts?

As long as you tell applicants,before they apply, that is a requirement, just be upfront.

jmc wrote: As long as you tell applicants,before they apply, that is a requirement just be upfront.

Absolutely. I can agree with that.

Since we live in such a lawsuit happy society, I would never want to hire someone without knowing what their background is. Since I'm responsible for the actions of my employees, why should I not be able to know how much risk I'll be taking on by hiring en ex-con,a sexual predator, or just a serial dirtbag? Does that mean people can't hire nannies knowing where they worked last or if they are ex criminals?

I don't know what percentage of the population are criminals, but if our 9% of unemployed were mostly criminals, I would feel a little better about that high rate.

Employment and crimminal, I've never had a problem with. I've had to do a traffic violation check to drive a cab. None of these are a problem. I've had to do the others to be a school bus driver, a teacher, a museum docent.

What I have a problem with? Credit checks. Poor credit does not make one a crimminal - especially not the past several years. It reflects people unable to make payments for whatever reason - usually related to health or lack of income. Yes, some folks are crimminals as well with bad credit scores, but treating a potential employee as if they must be a crimminal because their credit score is low is pure bullcrap.

THAT needs to be outlawed. The rest? fine by me.


Bill? They aren't. Plain and simple. Most unemployed folk right now are normal law abiding citizens like you and me, stuck with bad credit and unable to get a job because apparently inability to pay your bills is an unlegislated crime and must be punished by keeping them in a position to still not be able to pay their bills.

I would like to see a time frame limit - maybe 10 years?

YES! and RENTING and BABY SITTERS and CARE GIVERS

I work in the security industry. Many background checks are just par for the course in my job. I had one when I joined the company, and at least three a year depending on the the different customers we do work for. It's all part of the industry I work in. I wonder how many industries (banking, education, etc...) will relocate outside the city, or claim a special exemption.

So what do you guys think businesses think of the laws in the 3 liberal states, Hawaii, New York and Mass., and the liberal cities of Philly and soon to be S.F. not allowing background checks? Is this just another reason that people are looking to open their companies in more business friendly states?

Like someone said on here. Cn you imagine the liability if you don't check and hire a convicted rapist and they rape someone working for you? Or a pedophile for a job that has kids around and they molest a child? The government should not be able to pass laws telling you that you can't check someones criminal background.

I believe it depends on the function of your company. If you are in a security position, one that handles money and needs to be bonded, or one that works with the elderly or young...then a background check to see if you have any criminal actions is necessary.

If you are working as a busser or dishwasher in a restaurant...maybe a criminal background isn't necessary.

I do believe that potential employers doing a credit check is wrong...maybe the person fell on hard times or got a divorce and was stuck with all the bills or had enormous medical bills that they couldn't pay.

Just because you can do a credit check doesn't mean you have to.