New rules set on background checks for job seekers!!!

FINALLY!!

New rules set on background checks for job seekers.

Federal regulators Wednesday approved new rules that could make it easier to find work for convicted criminals and others who have gotten into legal trouble.

By a 4-1 vote, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission approved the rules for employers who use criminal background checks, calling for careful consideration of how and when such reviews can be used in pre-employment screenings and in the workplace because of their potential to be biased against certain groups, such as racial minorities.

“The new guidance clarifies and updates the EEOC’s longstanding policy concerning the use of arrest and conviction records in employment, which will assist job seekers, employees, employers, and many other agency stakeholders,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline Berrien.

The changes are seen as a boon for workers who have been unable to land jobs or have lost jobs because of their criminal histories.

I have been denied jobs after jobs because of one mistake I made in 2005. I have been fired from jobs when they have found out my background. Let me tell you that if you have a criminal record in Amercia it is practically a death sentence. I had a drug problem during my arrest (non-violent) and the state stuck it to me. I'm a college grad, a father, and a wonderful human being but in the eyes of others I am a criminal.

Earlier this year Pepsico’s Pepsi Beverages unit settled charges of hiring discrimination related to its criminal background check policies.

The company was using arrest records and convictions to deny job applicants positions, but the EEOC suit charged the practice impacted minority employees disproportionately and as a result was illegal under the nation’s labor laws.

Employer advocates were pleased the EEOC did not entirely bar the use of criminal background checks.

“The new guidance may require employers to tweak existing policies, but is largely a collective restatement of the EEOC's longstanding guidance documents on employer use of criminal background checks,” said Katharine Parker, an employment attorney for Proskauer.

The EEOC does not have the authority to ban “all uses of arrest or conviction records or other screening devices,” said EEOC spokeswoman Christine Nazer. “The EEOC simply seeks to ensure that their use are undertaken carefully to ensure that employment opportunities are not denied inappropriately.”

To that end, she added, the new guidance from the EEOC:
•Focuses on criminal record screening and employment discrimination based on race and national origin.
•Discusses the differences between the treatment of arrest and conviction records.
•Reviews the disparate treatment and disparate impact of such reviews.

Criminal background checks have become increasingly popular in the last few years partly because technology has made it easier to dig up dirt and partly because hiring managers want any tools to help them weed through the many applicants, given the tight labor market.

Once upon a time, employers only used such background reviews for workers who were in sensitive positions where they handled money or worked with children. Today, their use has become widespread no matter what the gig. About 73 percent of employers use criminal background checks on all employees, according to the most recent data from the Society of Human Resource Management.

The update to the rules has been a long time coming for employee advocates.

“The last guidance was written before anyone even knew what the Internet was, and a criminal background check was rarely used because it required so much personal attention to detail,” said Nancy Zirkin, executive vice president of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. “This update reflects the reality of a 21st century workplace, where background checks are widely performed and applicants are thoughtlessly denied en masse.”

bottomline.msnbc.msn.com...

I believe in second chances and the law should too. I've paid for my actions a hundred times over and I'm still paying for them. I can only hope and pray that one day, I'll be able to put my mistake in my past and not be seen as a criminal, but as a human being with hopes & dreams.

This is one step closer!

reply to post by chrismicha77


From what I understand this only helps you if you are considered a minority. Maybe I'm missing something but I too have been denied work. Just last month I couldn't even get a job stocking shelves at WalMart. I nailed the interview and they had me sign a job offer for a position. Then after all that they do a background check and deny me the job solely based on that. You make one mistake years ago and you might as well just off yourself because if you can't even get a job stocking shelves there isn't much you can do. Luckily for me my state has expungement laws that will allow me to erase that mistake next year.

They really need to separate non violent, non theft offenses out of the screening system.

Something like 17 years ago I was pulled over by a small town cop w/ my loser ex brother in law in the car. (We were called late in the eve to come pick him up after he got kicked out of some hick bar in the middle of nowhere and his "friends" refused to leave with him or give him a ride).

The cop did the standard, I need to search your car, etc, etc I said OK because I had nothing to hide. Well, I didn't, my jerk ex BIL had some substances he managed to shove under his seat at some point.

The cop found this, did the "who does this belong to, if no one admits it everyone goes to jail" and asshole stood there and kept his mouth shut. Despite being completely innocent, no record, nothing I end up in front of a hick town judge who hands me a conviction based on "mandatory drug laws" but suspends the jail time so I don't have to deal with that.

FFWD ten years or so and I have an excellent career. I work for one of the largest tech firms in the World in a high dollar position and do work for the US Govt, Foreign govts, military etc. I explained my story in the back ground checks and the company looked into it and hired me anyway.

Unfortunately, despite being bonded for millions of dollars by the company and passing their checks, every now and then a client would want to run their own back ground check. This meant giving my ss number and info to all these 3rd parties I did not work for and having some of them come back and tell my company I couldn't do work for them. Now, try to understand - I actually held a top secret clearance at this time which I shouldn't have had. By having a previous clearance before the incident from another job and being granted an exception based on my interview and investigation, I was cleared for all kinds of stuff but some of the most ridiculous companies you ever heard of wanted no part of me doing work for them.

Needless to say, I never had any issues, no missing info or misused data, etc in my entire career.

We need to reform how and when background checks can be used. We also need to reform how and when credit / financial checks are used. People who can and would do perfectly well w/ no issues at these jobs are denied employment every day for reasons that would make you laugh if you knew the full stories.

Originally posted by fuzzy0087
reply to post by chrismicha77

 

From what I understand this only helps you if you are considered a minority. Maybe I'm missing something but I too have been denied work. Just last month I couldn't even get a job stocking shelves at WalMart. I nailed the interview and they had me sign a job offer for a position. Then after all that they do a background check and deny me the job solely based on that. You make one mistake years ago and you might as well just off yourself because if you can't even get a job stocking shelves there isn't much you can do. Luckily for me my state has expungement laws that will allow me to erase that mistake next year.

No, fortunately it's not just for minorities. I just think they are referencing that companys can't discriminate against minorities and this new law falls under that if you've commited a crime.

It's even hard to find a woman now days because they do background checks themselves. Like I said it's practically a death sentence.

reply to post by fuzzy0087


Getting a record expunged, at least in my state is possible in theory but impossible in practice. You have to be able to pay off someone high up in the state govt or be related to someone to make this happen.

Some people relocate to new states and legally change names. This can actually work in some cases.

I've also heard of people who put down a different date of birth (off by a few days or even 1) on the background check form and this has allowed them to pass. I don't know if this was a limitation of an older system or if it still works but I tried it once a year ago just to see on a job interview I did not plan to follow through on and they came back and said they were unable to find anything at all on me - I did not exist. I passed the check but they wanted to know why I didn't even show up on the Internet. I told them the truth, I have made sure I have no identity online = no myspace, no facebook nothing. Nothing online in my own name.

They didn't like it but they had to pass me. So there you go, it might be worth a try if you feel like experimenting.

a reply to: ecoparity
Hope this law is implemented in Australia as well we have more stupid laws than US even misdemeanors (not even called that here) are treated the same as the most serious crimes.
All the major recruiters use it discriminate over any minor rubbish. TIme legal/ law enforcement stopped trying to create police state.
They criminalise minor offences e.g disorderly conduct because they want to create police state.
Its not theirs to create folks need to remind coppers the limits of their job.
For example I have your badge No and name is usually enough video camera. Lastly anyone citizen that doesn't know the difference between a misdemeanor and felony is an ignoramus priss that needs to enter the real world and find out before they pass their holier than thou judgment of such things.

I don't get it. How can you treat background checks differently based on race? Does this mean ignore a criminal record if the person is of the favored minority in order to meet statistical quotas? That is unbelievably stupid!

FWIW, I have no record, never even been fired, but my applications are routinely ignored probably due to age, which although illegal, nobody in EEOC cares about.