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

We do, and depending on the client the FE is going to support we check far byond the "normal" background check.

To respond to Computer Breath's post, we have had clients who require our FEs servicing their sites to submit to a credit check. When that happens they are usually in the financial transaction business.

Is there a limit as to what background checks are done?

Viking, would you be comfortable if a prosepective employer had a way to view all your message board posts? lol

What if a background check showed that a potential employee had right-wing political views and the employer found that objectionable?

Would you be just fine with losing the chance at a job over your political views?

What about religious views? What if your potential employer didn't like Christians and a background check revealed your membership in a Christian church and so decided not to hire you. Is that okay?

AspenValley wrote: What if a background check showed that a potential employee had right-wing political views and the employer found that objectionable?

Would you be just fine with losing the chance at a job over your political views?

What about religious views? What if your potential employer didn't like Christians and a background check revealed your membership in a Christian church and so decided not to hire you. Is that okay?

There's this thing called the Constitution of the United States, maybe you have heard of it? There are also EEO and anti-discrimination laws and they cut both ways, you can't deny anyone employment due to their political affiliation but you can if they have a criminal history. Same thing with religion, if an employer rejects a qualified candidate only on the basis of the candidate's religion, the candidate can sue and will likely win.

otisptoadwater wrote:

AspenValley wrote: What if a background check showed that a potential employee had right-wing political views and the employer found that objectionable?

Would you be just fine with losing the chance at a job over your political views?

What about religious views? What if your potential employer didn't like Christians and a background check revealed your membership in a Christian church and so decided not to hire you. Is that okay?

There's this thing called the Constitution of the United States, maybe you have heard of it? There are also EEO and anti-discrimination laws and they cut both ways, you can't deny anyone employment due to their political affiliation but you can if they have a criminal history. Same thing with religion, if an employer rejects a qualified candidate only on the basis of the candidate's religion, the candidate can sue and will likely win.

They'd have to prove that was why they weren't hired.

Think they could when there are five applicants for every open position?

Food for thought, no?

AspenValley wrote: They'd have to prove that was why they weren't hired.

Think they could when there are five applicants for every open position?

Food for thought, no?

Oh yes, the good old double standard. When a female or minority applies for a position and is told they are not qualified for a position or there is a better qualified candidate it's automatically discrimination, any lawsuit brought by the offended party will likely meet with a sizable settlement out of court. When a WASP applies and is falsely told they are not qualified for a position or there is a better qualified candidate the WASP is expected to accept the answer as the truth and not pursue the matter through legal means. The likelihood of anything good coming out of any legal action for the plaintiff is minimal.

otisptoadwater wrote:

AspenValley wrote: They'd have to prove that was why they weren't hired.

Think they could when there are five applicants for every open position?

Food for thought, no?

Oh yes, the good old double standard. When a female or minority applies for a position and is told they are not qualified for a position or there is a better qualified candidate it's automatically discrimination, any lawsuit brought by the offended party will likely meet with a sizable settlement out of court. When a WASP applies and is falsely told they are not qualified for a position or there is a better qualified candidate the WASP is expected to accept the answer as the truth and not pursue the matter through legal means. The likelihood of anything good coming out of any legal action for the plaintiff is minimal.

I'm a long way from saying it's fair, I'm just saying that being "A Okay" with an employer looking into any aspect of a potential employees life may backfire in ways people don't expect.

And there may not be a heck of a lot you can do about it.

It may sound "fair" and "reasonable" for employers to do this to weed out rapists and drug addicts, but especially in a tight job market, job seekers may find that it is being totally abused.

Just sayin'.

Once you get cozy with employers gettin' all nosey into people's lives you may not be able to limit it to discrimination against the people you thought it would discriminate against.

In my line of work - employees have access to personal information ---- and they have access to students (college age - but still students).

There's no way I'd hire without doing a background check. It's essential.

I don't want people's privacy/identity compromised --- and I don't want students attacked/harassed/etc.

I'd likely tolerate something like "disturbing the peace because I was involved in a protest...." but would certainly not tolerate anything that put people or information at risk.

bailey bud wrote: I'd likely tolerate something like "disturbing the peace because I was involved in a protest...." but would certainly not tolerate anything that put people or information at risk.

YOU might tolerate something like the first thing mentioned, but there is no guarantee others would. The problem with background checks, like all of the creeping privacy invasions, is that if used ethically, they are fine. But there is absolutely no guarantee they will be used ethically. In fact, you'd have to be a fool to think there would not be abuses.

I understand that no one wants to hire someone with a background of doing something that would be harmful to their business or the public, but I'm also concerned that the likely abuse of the information gained might do more harm than good for all but the most sensitive positions.

AspenValley wrote:

bailey bud wrote: I'd likely tolerate something like "disturbing the peace because I was involved in a protest...." but would certainly not tolerate anything that put people or information at risk.

YOU might tolerate something like the first thing mentioned, but there is no guarantee others would. The problem with background checks, like all of the creeping privacy invasions, is that if used ethically, they are fine. But there is absolutely no guarantee they will be used ethically. In fact, you'd have to be a fool to think there would not be abuses.

I understand that no one wants to hire someone with a background of doing something that would be harmful to their business or the public, but I'm also concerned that the likely abuse of the information gained might do more harm than good for all but the most sensitive positions.

Valid points for sure, but to legislate against allowing background checks by an employer is simply wrong. I doubt that those who legislate such things or the government they represent would like to compensate and employer for whatever criminal activity an employee does when hired under the no background check. There are plenty of reasons to do background checks at all levels. If you hire a nanny, would you feel more comfortable handing over the care of your children if you knew they had a clean track record? If I hire someone, I'd like to know where they worked, get references, check if their resume was made up or real. While I acknowledge there is a potential for privacy invasion, the converse is also true. A domestic or small company employee invades your privacy once you hire them. As Otis pointed out, fear of discrimination already has legislation in place to protect the employee. Furthermore, it's the criminals who benefit from such legislation the most. Honest job seekers have little to fear.