Dear Employers:
I need some clarification.
How can a person be “disqualified” prior to actual employment because of a criminal background, particularly a drug charge?
If I am disqualified it means I am unable to do the job. Which is not something that can be known or inferred from a criminal history.
If everyone were given x amount of time to demonstrate they can do what is required of them, then anything prior to proving the ability to produce a profit, arrive on time and do what is required, is completely irrelevant.
There are obvious exemptions. For example, it is an excellent and understandable policy to screen for jobs where the employed would work with children or at-risk communities, like battered women or the disabled. I get that. Everyone gets that.
But with other work where the extent of human interaction will be with other adults either as co-workers or customers, I don’t get doing a background check at all. How does a drug charge from 5 years ago indicate a level of competence to complete the job for which the interviewee might be hired?
While you may have some or all of the most important qualifications, like relevant work history, you are disqualified and will not be able to do what is required of you because you smoked and perhaps sold some pot. This doesn’t make any sense on its face, it doesn’t even need to be analyzed further.
Why? If I haven’t started working yet, how do you know I won’t be able to do what is required of me (read: be productive and punctual) based on an irrelevant part of my history as it relates to the job?
Are you saying not a single applicant who was ostensibly qualified [did not have a criminal history etc] to do the job was never “fired” shortly thereafter for demonstrating they couldn’t? And, more importantly, that an applicant you took a chance on ended up in an administrative position?
Oh I know, you’re afraid I will be doing so while at work. Which I totally understand. That’s why I don’t go to work high … nor drunk. You don’t mind if your employees drink, just not on the job, right? People are there to work, a job should not be an individual’s life, and what they do outside their work is no one’s business but their own and the people they allow to experience it with them.
===
In other words, people aren’t what they say, they’re what they do. If it’s been 5 years or more since they were arrested, then “doing” crime is not them, they are not criminals. We all have youthful and/or adult indiscretions, some get caught, others don’t. The length of time should at least indicate to you better choices are being made. Give them a chance.
Make a mandatory 30/60/90-day probationary period part of business policy for all professional businesses where the basic education and work experience requirements have been met.
You literally and logically cannot disqualify a qualified [education, work history] person on paper who hasn’t had a chance to demonstrate their competence.
discursivedesign 
Leave a comment