Rob's House Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 I got an email From a recruiter about a federal government job the other day (a job that I can't imagine anyone with the required credentials would apply for, but I digress) and it stated that in order to pass the background check you had to have, and I'm quoting, "no criminal convictions." (I should mention that this job did not involve high level security clearance or anything of the like.) Does this seem extremely !@#$ED up to anyone else? I understand that a private company can put such restrictions on hiring practices because It's their company, but where does the government get off pulling this ****? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) First I would say that if the job has access to any sensitive information (ssn/pii/account info) at all, it's fine if restricted to crimes of disohnesty. Period. I would also recommend credit checks for anyone exposed to sensitive info, anything like that. For anyone. And that is a sound opinion and based in reality. There is a real problem with that stuff. If it definitely has no access to sensitive info and is truly a blanket "no criminal convictions" that is ridiculous. If someone has a mild DUI and is substantially the same as the guy without one...choose to take the guy without one this "qualification" is unnecessary. Edited January 31, 2015 by Rex'sOffense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 31, 2015 Author Share Posted January 31, 2015 First I would say that if the job has access to any sensitive information (ssn/pii/account info) at all, it's fine if restricted to crimes of disohnesty. Period. I would also recommend credit checks for anyone exposed to sensitive info, anything like that. For anyone. And that is a sound opinion and based in reality. There is a real problem with that stuff. If it definitely has no access to sensitive info and is truly a blanket "no criminal convictions" that is ridiculous. If someone has a mild DUI and is substantially the same as the guy without one...choose to take the guy without one this "qualification" is unnecessary. That part I don't disagree with. If the job is of a nature that there is a logical connection between the prohibited crime and the functions of the job I understand. But a blanket statement, like no criminal convictions period, and for a job that doesn't grant one access to terribly sensitive info just seems completely wrong to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 In my opinion, job applicants with prior criminal convictions should be considered on a case-by-case basis. I know several people who have done hard time in the past that I would hire if I was ever in a position to do so. I also know a few people who have only had minor charges brought against them that I wouldn't trust to wash my truck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) The broker/dealer I work for will kick you to the curb I'd you've been charged, not convicted but charged, with certain misdemeanors. Now unknown you're talking gov't positions but I've lost some damn good recruits due to this. Edited February 2, 2015 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Government, private sector, it's incredibly difficult to get any sort of decent job with a criminal record... unless you're very wealthy. The whole idea of "jail" is supposed to be punishment and rehabilitation, but instead, we skip the rehabilitation, and also continue to punish them once they get out of jail. I suppose that's bound to happen when it's a for-profit business. It's in their best interests to keep people coming back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Government, private sector, it's incredibly difficult to get any sort of decent job with a criminal record... unless you're very wealthy. The whole idea of "jail" is supposed to be punishment and rehabilitation, but instead, we skip the rehabilitation, and also continue to punish them once they get out of jail. I suppose that's bound to happen when it's a for-profit business. It's in their best interests to keep people coming back. The punishment for the commiting of crimes goes beyond the scope of the prison and criminal justice system. There are societal punishments as well, many of which stem for private individuals desire not to associate with convicted criminals, which is entirely legitimate. Criminal convictions often speak to a lack of morals, poor decision making and critical thinking skills, a questionable value system, a lack of reliability, and a willingness to cut corners and take the easy way out. None of these are things that a prospective employer look highly upon, and in a saturated labor market, there is no need to scrape the bottom of that particular barrel when there are far more qualified candidates lining up in droves. Further, the government is specifically and uniquely empowered to discriminate against convicted criminals. Both gun ownership and the franchise, two Constitutionally protected Rights, are denied to them by government. Some types of criminals are required to register on various watch lists; a condition which follows them the remained of their lives. Even non-criminals can be placed on no-fly lists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 The broker/dealer I work for will kick you to the curb I'd you've been charged, not convicted but charged, with certain misdemeanors. Now unknown yoire talking gov't positions but I've lost some damn good recruits due to this. I'm guessing pot heads are on that list of verboten as they should be. What did your good recruits do to get themselves in trouble? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Government, private sector, it's incredibly difficult to get any sort of decent job with a criminal record... unless you're very wealthy. The whole idea of "jail" is supposed to be punishment and rehabilitation, but instead, we skip the rehabilitation, and also continue to punish them once they get out of jail. I suppose that's bound to happen when it's a for-profit business. It's in their best interests to keep people coming back. What?! First - how many 'very wealthy' people are concerned with their ability to be employed? If you had said something along the lines of how many of the very wealthy can't afford high-powered attorneys who can cut them a deal I might agree. Second - according to anything I can find, as of 2010, a little less than 10% of inmates are held in private prison facilities. Public prisons so not generate profit: http://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-the-u.s.s-growing-for-profit-detention-industry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 The whole idea of "jail" is supposed to be punishment and rehabilitation, but instead, we skip the rehabilitation, and also continue to punish them once they get out of jail. I suppose that's bound to happen when it's a for-profit business. It's in their best interests to keep people coming back. Who said "jail" is for rehabilitation? In order for inmates to rehabilitate themselves, they have to be willing to change. It's pretty similar to other liberal ideas where just anyone will work their ass off if given the opportunity. Idealism at its finest. Good luck with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts