Anything less than a felony shouldn't effect employment status or job opportunities, Change my mind. BTW I know this is a hot take and am very interested at the responses I get, even though I'm pretty sure which way they will skew.
Change my mind
- Thread starter Rupp'sRunt
- Start date
Okay.
You're a dad, right? Would you want a teacher teaching at a school where he/she pulled a number of well-known Joe Biden level interactions with kids? Nothing enough to make it stick as far as felonies are concerned, but a creepy reputation for being too friendly or off-color with the students?
There's plenty of jobs where someone has to be above reproach, meaning that even off- color comments (i.e., non felonies) would jeopardize one's standing as a professional. Teaching is one of them.
You're a dad, right? Would you want a teacher teaching at a school where he/she pulled a number of well-known Joe Biden level interactions with kids? Nothing enough to make it stick as far as felonies are concerned, but a creepy reputation for being too friendly or off-color with the students?
There's plenty of jobs where someone has to be above reproach, meaning that even off- color comments (i.e., non felonies) would jeopardize one's standing as a professional. Teaching is one of them.
Its funny you mention Biden bc he's in arguably one of the most powerful positions in the US yet hasn't been charged. Yet ppl that are charged with crimes with low income have a difficult position defending themselves against such charges. Makes the discussion a little more interesting IMO. Would you plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge if it meant no jail time and no real life repercussions? I think most in a bad situation would, such as trumped up charges by police. I'm playing devils advocate so don't take it personally.
Mostly talking lesser charges such as weed, DV, DUI, things of the nature.
Depends on job...you want a thief working in the bank or with checks?
Biden's on the periphery and I only mentioned him because he's the first person who came to mind as a somewhat recent example.
The bigger point I was making was that as a parent, you wouldn't likely put your kid(s) in a position around anyone who was suspected of being creepy. That goes for basketball coaches, piano teachers, bus drivers, etc. So even if you kept a potential piano teacher from teaching your kid, that would in fact fit the criteria for the standard you set in the OP. You would, in fact, affect that piano teacher's employment in regards to your not hiring him/her.
Also, what if a teacher got drunk on the job while teaching? That's not a felony, but it would cost them their job, and I think you'd agree with the school's stance if they canned the teacher immediately.
The list goes on.
Agree with you there, but I'm just more looking at the broad point of any certain charge can pidginhole any person from a field they are passionate about. But you are right.
I totally agree with you. I'm trying to look outside of the periphery. At the guy that got charged up by police on some BS and can't get a job even on a entry level business position. It's really a double edged sword that both protects and hinders.
Our system forgives certain crimes and sends us to the plank for others. It's often arbitrary, and screws over people who make one mistake (often non-violent, like drug possession or weapon possession in that states that have strict possession laws).
But hey, we live in country that's making a new Child's Play movie, so I guess we're still "evolving."
It's still crazy for me to wrap my head around on some things. Ah you got charged with Felony Domestic Violence and walked with probation but can get an multi million NFL contract, which btw I don't really have a problem with, but a dude that gets in an argument with his wife and the police are called and he gets charged with lower level no injury present DV is unhireable by businesses. And were talking a million dollar gulf. I get that NFL player present a specific skill set that unattainable by most. Some mistakes get punished far harsher and longer in my opinion than they should bc of the BS Judicial system. Just my 2 cents.
At my company, we can usually work around past non-felony convictions if the candidates are honest from the beginning. Recently, we had to turn away a guy that lied about a recent DUI that then came up on his background check. Had he told the truth, my HR would have worked with him.
I do agree that it depends on the type of job though. A past DUI would probably exclude someone from getting a job as a bus driver or UPS driver, and it probably should, but it doesn't matter as much for an office job.
I feel the same about pre-employment drug screens as long as it's not a job where you can hurt yourself or others (driving, factory work, utility linemen, etc.). Most drugs besides pot are out of your system in days, so you're really only catching people that smoke weed. To me, that's not really different from drinking alcohol, so it's just an unnecessary expense for companies IMO.
All that said, I've been in management for years and have never seen a strict policy that we can't hire people with non-felony criminal records. I'm not aware of a rule. It's just that for most hiring managers (myself included), if there are two candidates that are close, one has a criminal background and one doesn't, it's pretty apparent which one will be selected. Doesn't mean those people shouldn't be given a 2nd chance, it's just that most managers want somebody else at some other company be the ones to give them that chance.
I do agree that it depends on the type of job though. A past DUI would probably exclude someone from getting a job as a bus driver or UPS driver, and it probably should, but it doesn't matter as much for an office job.
I feel the same about pre-employment drug screens as long as it's not a job where you can hurt yourself or others (driving, factory work, utility linemen, etc.). Most drugs besides pot are out of your system in days, so you're really only catching people that smoke weed. To me, that's not really different from drinking alcohol, so it's just an unnecessary expense for companies IMO.
All that said, I've been in management for years and have never seen a strict policy that we can't hire people with non-felony criminal records. I'm not aware of a rule. It's just that for most hiring managers (myself included), if there are two candidates that are close, one has a criminal background and one doesn't, it's pretty apparent which one will be selected. Doesn't mean those people shouldn't be given a 2nd chance, it's just that most managers want somebody else at some other company be the ones to give them that chance.
All I know is that anything less than the best is a felony.
You own a trucking company so its your money on the line if one of your guys causes a multi-fatality accident. Do you want to hire someone with a bunch of drug misdemeanors even if they can pass a pee test? I wouldn't, there is such a thing as negligent hiring.
I also wouldn't want dishonest people who write bad checks, commit theft by deception, and other petty thefts from dealing with money (either cash or in an accounting department).
I also wouldn't want dishonest people who write bad checks, commit theft by deception, and other petty thefts from dealing with money (either cash or in an accounting department).
Last edited:
I know an engineer that has a felony on his record. He got into a dispute with his (then) wife. He went outside to calm down and mow the yard. She came out to pursue him and got bumped by the lawn mower. She went to the hospital and was released. She later went back to the hospital and stayed for the night.
By state law, the guy was charged and convicted of a felony (injuries resulting in hospitalization). Otherwise he has a clean record, not even a traffic ticket. And he’s pretty good at his job and well liked by coworkers.
Every situation is different. Strict policies are dumb. These situations call for some professional judgement.
By state law, the guy was charged and convicted of a felony (injuries resulting in hospitalization). Otherwise he has a clean record, not even a traffic ticket. And he’s pretty good at his job and well liked by coworkers.
Every situation is different. Strict policies are dumb. These situations call for some professional judgement.
The job has everything to do with it. If you have a company car or drive a truck for someone traffic violations could get you terminated.
So, in your black and white world, should a guy who got caught with weed or got a DUI in college be punished by employers in when he’s in his early 30s?
I’m on the side of evaluate on a case by case basis because there’s a lot of variables involved. Do the potential employee’s past crimes affect aspects of the business(ex DUIs for a driving company; cold checks for a bank)? All crimes aren’t equal. How old was the person at the time of offense vs how old are they now? Did they pay their debt to society? How extensive is their record - shows mistake vs pattern of bad decisions.
Seems to me it is case by case. I think the OP (as well as many in government) is opining for is making it a law where businesses can't take that into consideration. I'm more inclined to let businesses handle it as they want to handle it.
I would personally hire people with a non-violent criminal background, provided they haven't been in trouble lately.
I would personally hire people with a non-violent criminal background, provided they haven't been in trouble lately.
Employers already do what you're suggesting. Typical pre-employment background checks only go back 7 years (10 or more years for some jobs like teaching or government jobs), so whatever misdemeanor DUI or public intoxication someone got in college is irrelevant by their late 20s.
And again, most employers will work with a candidate on things that come up on the background as long as they're honest up front.
Felonies are a different story, of course.
Multiple traffic tickets of any kind can affect any job that relate to driving a company vehicle at any time, and they should. insurance policies cost lots of money if you have "bad' drivers. Alcohol and drug related crimes can affect jobs in the energy industry for sure, sometimes if they are old they can be worked around if they are old, and you are upfront.
Whether or not a business will hire you has nothing to do with the judicial system.
Hireability depends on the job and the company.
Different businesses have different standards. If hiring someone to work with kids, I'd want to know if a person was a law violator period. Alcohol, drugs, pot.....if they have court record, it's a good possibility they are not a one time user. Traffic violations? May make a difference in some jobs but probably not if you're a factory worker.
Depends on the job and the company.
One problem for business owners is the litigious society we live in. Say you hire a person that has a record of intoxication (alcohol, drugs, etc...) or tests positive for weed. On a day he comes in partially, even minutely impaired, he makes a mistake that results in another employee suffering an injury. There will be a lawsuit.
Any good lawyer will look around to determine deep pockets and culpability. Once he finds out that you, Mr. Business owner, knew this guy had a history of impairment, yet "suffered" him to work you (more likely your insurer who will later drop you) will be writing a check.
I made this post buzzed watching the NFL draft. I'm surprised its made it this far