Background Checks: Give People a Second Chance

On every application for employment, thither is always a section that asks about whether or not a person has ever had an felony charges against them, and to explain what they were if so. Despite the fact that employers ar not supposed to discriminate against a candidate based on something like felony charges, on that point is no real way to qualify whether or not such discriminatory practices were exhibited in the candidate selection process. I would think it stands to reason that virtually employers will take one look at that box ticktocked yes and move that application to the no pile.And this is only one question. Nowadays, most professional and incorporate employers will conduct primer checks on job candidates. This can be a problem for a person who has made mistakes in their life precisely has changed their behaviors and is looking for honest employment, and this is why the practice of running full background checks is basically set up to continually punish those who have made mistakes in the past times. According to Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, many negative records ar expunged from employer background checks after 7 years under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).This includes arrests all over 7 years ago, bend records compiled by law enforcement agencies, and bankruptcies over 10 years old. However, much of this is public record, and though a standard background check might not yield this information, in that respect are plenty of private information brokers on the web that will track it down, and this information is often not verified by the broker (such as charges being dropped against a person who was arrestedthe broker might report only the arrest). As Crane notes in The first principle of Pre-Employment Background Checks Unfortunately, there is a lot of inaccurate information out there.Just like the mistakes that may pop up on your credit report, bad information can turn up in the course of a background check. And this wrong informati on can cost you a job. Not only is there a stunning lack of privacy in this age of electronics, there is also no guarantee that the information being reported is accurate, which causes immediate problems for the single(a) applying for the job. Also, despite the fact that, for example, arrests made over 7 years ago are not supposed to be reported in a background check, there is nothing stopping the employer from asking, Have you ever been arrested?, a question which acts as a double-edged sword for someone who had been arrested several years before. In the cases of individuals who might have something in their past that theyre not proud of, information that can cost them their fair opportunity for employment is readily for sale to potential employers, even if it the FCRA specifically rules against it. Because of these Internet-based information brokers, there is no guarantee that information that shouldnt be reported isnt still getting into the transfer of the employer, and this is information that creates an inherent bias against the candidate in the employers mind.Information about long-ago prior arrests, fiscal irresponsibility in the form of previous bankruptcies, and criminal records which are not part of the public domain are easily acquired in a background check, and potential employers use this information as a major strike against the candidate. There is plenty of other information that is legitimately acquired in the course of a background check that can be destructive to the perceived character of the person applying for the job.Information such as driving records, credit reports, interviews with neighbors and former employers, medical records, court records, and drug test records (just to name a few) are all standard-practice as part of an employer background check. Checking the box that authorizes an employer to conduct a background check opens a door into a persons past in ways they might not have initially take aimed and affecting their cha nces at employment in ways they might not even conceive.It is graspable that in the wake of 9/11 and as a result of a recent surge in lawsuits due to negligent hiring practices (in which an employee caused harm to others), employers are practicing greater caution in their hiring practices. But by going as full-throttle as they are with the extensive amount of information being made operable to them, they are essentially weeding out candidates who are talented, qualified, and educated but who have a spot on their records which leads to automatic disqualification of consideration by potential employers.People deserve to have a second chance in life, especially when they have taken all of the steps necessary to better themselves. It is grossly unjust that a prior arrest or criminal charge, especially one that isnt even supposed to be part of a standard background check, would comply a person for the rest of their working lives, making it impossible for them to work in a professional field (especially when the rules as set by the FCRA are moot in cases involving government positions or positions that pay $75,000 per year or more).Lets say a person, Joe Doe, has an old petty larceny charge, which many states consider a misdemeanor, but then loses a potential job offer because of it. The system is set up to continually punish those who have made mistakes in their past. In the above example of the felony charge check box (and a felony can be as simple as extorting $2,000 or being caught urinating in public), there is no way to avoid checking yes when the proceeding background check will show all of the related information, and act as an automatic disqualification for a persons employment.When background checks are so pervasive and INVASIVE, what other options or opportunities does a person have left? This is why the system call for to be changed, and tighter restrictions need to be placed on what information is made available to the public. No record older than 7 yearscriminal, felony, bankruptcy, or differentlyshould be made available for anyone to see.Only in the cases of serious potential endangerment (such as the higher-level sex offenders) should records older than 7 years be made public other people are being continually punished for old mistakes that they have more than rectified by paying their dues (either with community service, probation, monetary repayment, etc. ). It isnt just that a person shouldnt lose an opportunity due to long-ago mistakes the reality is that employers WILL and DO discriminate based on that.In modulate for people to have the second chance they deserve, the restrictions on background checks and public records need to be tightened, to protect people who are trying to rehabilitate themselves. Otherwise, there is no rehabilitation to be had because the chance is never really given. References Crane, Amy B. The ABCs of Pre-Employment Background Checks. Online. open www. bankrate. com Fair Credit Reporting A ct. Online. Available www. ftc. gov Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. Online. Available www. privacyrights. org