Removal of Pre Employment Background Checks

[furious]

The same logic should be applied to gun purchases should it not? If a person has done their time so to speak, why should they continue to face restrictions to their fundamental rights? Touchy subject, but should committing a crime prohibit a ex-con from being able to defend themselves against an attack after they have been charged and been released from jail/prison and are no longer on parole? I believe this question will become of utmost importance as many of us who use this site may find ourselves in that category if many of the gun regs being pushed are voted into law. Pretty simple approach actually. Ban previously legal guns and the owners who refuse to comply become criminals and lose their second amendment rights...

That's already law in most states. It's called the First Offender Act. Do your time/probation and stay clean for the next 7 years and you get your rights back. After that, only a judge can find your record.

 

[Duck74]

That's already law in most states. It's called the First Offender Act. Do your time/probation and stay clean for the next 7 years and you get your rights back. After that, only a judge can find your record.

Agreed, I believe the law to be well intentioned, however a tremendous amount of change can and would likely take place in that 7 years + whatever the sentence would be. I believe the push to increase the list of NFA items will ensure the government the ability to charge many with federal felonies but we will find out soon enough if things continue as they have for the past few years. Thanks for the response...

 

[41mag]

The law-abiding applicants are the ones who will be penalized.

It always is...

 

[GAK9]

BS. Not true. Do not have any hiring experience?
It will hurt people just starting in the work force.
Some companies check before doing interviews. Why interview a sex offender for a job in daycare? A thief for job in a bank?
So now people whose applications and resumes are "stronger" will be interviewed, even though they do not qualify for a job due to their criminal record.
Less qualified applicants, with weaker resumes, but no criminal records, will not get interviews and a shot at a job, because a criminal took that spot. There are only so many interviews you can do.

Uh, whut? I’ve hired 17 people over the past year for security related positions. At no time during their interview did I ask them if they had a criminal background as I knew it would be discovered in their background investigation once I instructed the recruiter to offer them a position. You certainly don’t interview 1 person for 1 position. IF one of those people I offered were to be disqualified due to a criminal history, I would have moved on to the next most qualified person.

 

[Jeddak]

Uh, whut? I’ve hired 17 people over the past year for security related positions. At no time during their interview did I ask them if they had a criminal background as I knew it would be discovered in their background investigation once I instructed the recruiter to offer them a position. You certainly don’t interview 1 person for 1 position. IF one of those people I offered were to be disqualified due to a criminal history, I would have moved on to the next most qualified person.

But if it criminal background was marked on their application, you would never have interviewed them in the first place. Now you will waste your time interviewing a person who should not have been in a pool to begin with.

 

[GAK9]

But if it criminal background was marked on their application, you would never have interviewed them in the first place. Now you will waste your time interviewing a person who should not have been in a pool to begin with.

Quite possibly, and I understand what you’re getting at, but I’ve excluded applicants from other things besides a criminal background. Lots of people get excluded from jobs after interviews.

 

[GeauxLSU]

How about we let the EMPLOYERS decide what is best for THEM instead of the Feds using extortion (and that's what it is, given over half our economy now is dependent on .gov spending)? Just a thought.
But yet another lesson in "lay down with dogs, wake up with fleas" I guess....

 

[Jeddak]

Quite possibly, and I understand what you’re getting at, but I’ve excluded applicants from other things besides a criminal background. Lots of people get excluded from jobs after interviews.

And now you will exclude honest people with weaker resumes, who would have scored an interview in the past, had not criminals looked better on paper and took their interview spot, only to fail a background check later.

 

[GAK9]

And now you will exclude honest people with weaker resumes, who would have scored an interview in the past, had not criminals looked better on paper and took their interview spot, only to fail a background check later.

Again, I don’t interview 1 person for each position, I interview multiple candidates, then, if I exclude one I have more to choose from.

 

[K79540]

No need for a driving test either...no reason to have commercial endorsements...skill what's that?...