Lose a Job Offer Over a Traffic Ticket?

[Nbadan]

Nov. 17 – The FBI wants to start including "non-serious offenses" on criminal-history reports to employers – a move some say could unduly taint people’s job prospects and spread misinformation.

If the proposal goes into effect, many employers using the FBI’s system could discover a job applicant had been convicted for drinking in public, or had been arrested for vagrancy as a teenager, among other offenses.

"This new policy is bound to destroy a lot people's lives," said Roberta Meyers-Peeples with the Legal Action Center, which helps people with criminal records rejoin the workforce.

In joint comments filed with the FBI, labor and civil-liberties groups warned that the plan, coupled with other efforts to expand the criminal-data system, would foreclose employment opportunities for an untold number of people, disproportionately impact people of color, and invite the abuse of sensitive information.

Under the proposal, which has not yet been finalized, the FBI would report minor offenses on "rap sheets" – records used by employers for screening job and licensing applicants and employees. These offenses – which can range from traffic violations to urinating in public – would be reported through the FBI’s nationwide fingerprint databank.

Standard News (http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3903)

Add another government proposal the M$M is not telling us about that is expotentially eroding our Constitutional protections.

[Clandestino]

it is an employers right to know who they are hiring.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

it is an employers right to know who they are hiring.

Oh, come on!? Your employer does not need to know about your misdemeanors. It's the right of the average citizen to privacy concerning issues that don't affect their work, like whether they were done for drinking in public back in 1996 or got a speeding fine last year.

Why do you think that corporate institutions should have more power over a person's information that individual citizens? The road towards a Big Brother society is advanced by this kind of thinking... particularly ironic when you consider your sig - "land of the free..."

[PixelPusher]

I'm not sure how would affect hiring practices; I'm guessing many companies would recognize the pitfalls of severely narrowing the applicant pool based on speeding tickets and public intoxication.

[Clandestino]

Oh, come on!? Your employer does not need to know about your misdemeanors. It's the right of the average citizen to privacy concerning issues that don't affect their work, like whether they were done for drinking in public back in 1996 or got a speeding fine last year.

Why do you think that corporate institutions should have more power over a person's information that individual citizens? The road towards a Big Brother society is advanced by this kind of thinking... particularly ironic when you consider your sig - "land of the free..."

yes, you're free to do whatever you want...but there are consequences for your actions as well.

[ChumpDumper]

More paperwork to keep us from stopping the "real" criminals. Clan loves his big government, doesn't he?

[Clandestino]

not more paperwork, just allowing the employers full access. you guys have never been business owners. you'd want to know what kind of employees you are hiring.

[ChumpDumper]

not more paperworkOf course it's more.
you'd want to know what kind of employees you are hiring.You want to know if they parked too close to a fire hydrant twenty years ago?

[Clandestino]

public intoxication... sure, that may be something an employer would like to know.

[ChumpDumper]

That wasn't the question.

[Clandestino]

okay, then no. i could care less about the fire hydrant scenario, but the public intox yes. and that is an offense that would be listed on the new report. and overall i am for less government. i would love to get rid of social security, medicaid, etc...

[ChumpDumper]

but the public intox yes.Why?

[Bob Lanier]

public intoxication... sure, that may be something an employer would like to know.
As an alcoholic employer*, I couldn't care less. What drugs my employees indulge in on their spare time, and how, is none of my business; much less what they did before I employed them.

*obviously whether someone has personal experience as either an alcoholic or an employer should have no bearing on their judgment

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

yes, you're free to do whatever you want...but there are consequences for your actions as well.

Yeah, thanks for the lecture. Actually, I'm quite aware that with rights come responsibilities. :rolleyes However, that is not the issue here.

The justice system has already punished you for the 'wrong' you have performed, whether it be a fine or community servvice or whatever, so why should that "black mark" then have further repercussions on your employability? People occasionally do silly things, and they mostly regret them, but they aren't relevant to your employer.

The other issue here is privacy, and the degree of power which employers should be able to exert power over individual citizen's lives. This is clearly an unnecessary violation of people's privacy. We are not talking about felonies here, we're talking about misdemeanors.

[spurster]

Traffic infractions are a gateway crime to terrorism so of course it makes sense.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

public intoxication... sure, that may be something an employer would like to know.

So let's say a guy, otherwise excellent for the job and a responsible citizen, had a public intoxication beat on his rap sheet. He happened to be walking down the street with a beer in his hand and some cops stopped and ticketted him. You wouldn't give him the job?

See context comes into these things too,and that's why it's dangerous to judge people on what are probably isolated lapses in judgement.

Sure, if someone has a history of criminal behaviour, you want to know about it, but I'd vouch that most people with a criminal pattern go beyond misdemeanors. The only thing this law will do is make life more difficult for people who once did something stupid.

[01Snake]

Traffic infractions are a gateway crime to terrorism so of course it makes sense.

Lets take a drug company rep for instance. If a drug company hires a drug rep and provides them a company car to spend 5 days a week driving from doctors office to doctors office, you don't think that persons driving record is important?? Are they going to want someone with a bunch of speeding tickets out driving their cars for business? Thats a serious liability exposure for said drug company. You cannot tell me that an employees past driving records is irrelavent.

[ChumpDumper]

Then wouldn't they already be asking for the driving records without involving the federal government?

[Zunni]

Exactly. Local matters should be handled locally. If it isn't a federal offense, what the fuck is the federal government doing disseminating that info? This is a PERFECT example of that "big government" you people are constantly crying about.

[Clandestino]

As an alcoholic employer*, I couldn't care less. What drugs my employees indulge in on their spare time, and how, is none of my business; much less what they did before I employed them.

*obviously whether someone has personal experience as either an alcoholic or an employer should have no bearing on their judgment

however, more often than not, people who use drugs are more of a liability than an asset to your business.

[Clandestino]

So let's say a guy, otherwise excellent for the job and a responsible citizen, had a public intoxication beat on his rap sheet. He happened to be walking down the street with a beer in his hand and some cops stopped and ticketted him. You wouldn't give him the job?

See context comes into these things too,and that's why it's dangerous to judge people on what are probably isolated lapses in judgement.

Sure, if someone has a history of criminal behaviour, you want to know about it, but I'd vouch that most people with a criminal pattern go beyond misdemeanors. The only thing this law will do is make life more difficult for people who once did something stupid.

you could ask him about it and find out what happened.

[Bob Lanier]

however, more often than not, people who use drugs are more of a liability than an asset to your business.
I'd like to see some empirical evidence of that. It certainly hasn't been my experience that people with recreational drug habits (I'm fairly certain that people under my supervision have used at the least alcohol, marijuana, nicotine, opiates, caffeine, and psychedelics) have been liabilities so long as they aren't under the influence while on the job (a very rare problem).

[xrayzebra]

Yeah, thanks for the lecture. Actually, I'm quite aware that with rights come responsibilities. :rolleyes However, that is not the issue here.

The justice system has already punished you for the 'wrong' you have performed, whether it be a fine or community servvice or whatever, so why should that "black mark" then have further repercussions on your employability? People occasionally do silly things, and they mostly regret them, but they aren't relevant to your employer.

The other issue here is privacy, and the degree of power which employers should be able to exert power over individual citizen's lives. This is clearly an unnecessary violation of people's privacy. We are not talking about felonies here, we're talking about misdemeanors.

Some traffic violations can be felonies. Like a second DWI.
And how about a bus company/cab company/trucking company, they
don't need to know about a person's driving record.

Or a company that furnishes a person a company car?

You see RNR there may be many reasons to look at persons driving record.

[Clandestino]

I'd like to see some empirical evidence of that. It certainly hasn't been my experience that people with recreational drug habits (I'm fairly certain that people under my supervision have used at the least alcohol, marijuana, nicotine, opiates, caffeine, and psychedelics) have been liabilities so long as they aren't under the influence while on the job (a very rare problem).

and people who use drugs and/or smoke are more likely to miss work, be sick, etc... overall they cost the company more money. that is why insurance companies charge them more. they HAVE THE EVIDENCE.

[boutons_]

People who are overweight or obese, both not illegal, will have more fat-related diseases, and suffer more from fat-complicated symptoms and diseases. There also, "they HAVE THE EVIDENCE."

A lot companies who offer group health refuse, secretly of course, to hire older candidates because older candidates tend to have higher medical claims and run up the company's health coverage premiums.

So Clanny, should employers refuse to hire candidates who are, say, more than X% body-fat or have an elevated BMI?

Or do you want to deny employment only to candidates who have committed non-violent "morality/mores" crimes?

Typical simplistic radical right, always elevating yourself to holier-than-thou perfection while wanting to hammer and punish anybody who dares be imperfect, by your legalistic, moralistic, self-righteous definition.

My group is good, your group is bad, so I'm gonna punish your group.

[ChumpDumper]

So every right winger supports this big government expansion that, in their best example, merely duplicates what local and state governments already do.

Ok.

[boutons_]

Velcro Man dubya would of course be disqualified for the years of alcohol and supposed hard drug abuse.

[xrayzebra]

So every right winger supports this big government expansion that, in their best example, merely duplicates what local and state governments already do.

Ok.

What is expanding government got to do with
checking someone's driver record?

Get a life, Chump. The record exist to begin with,
has for years. It is computerized. Insurance
companies check them on a regular basis. In
many cases it is public information. You know what you liberals always wanted. Freedom of
information. No expansion here, move along.
:sleep

[xrayzebra]

Velcro Man dubya would of course be disqualified for the years of alcohol and supposed hard drug abuse.

He wasn't so disqualified that it kept him from
whooping your folks ass twice.

One damn off year election, where you gained
what is a norm, and you think you now own the
world. But your "Velcro man" still holds the
"veto" pen and you haven't got the votes to
override.....oh, my, mama, he is picking on me
again....... :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Go Big Government! Get bigger! Do things local governments already do better!Upon closer inspection, x is a liberal -- along with the rest of you so-called right wingers. Did you switch because you were beat so bad in the midterms or what?

[Clandestino]

People who are overweight or obese, both not illegal, will have more fat-related diseases, and suffer more from fat-complicated symptoms and diseases. There also, "they HAVE THE EVIDENCE."

A lot companies who offer group health refuse, secretly of course, to hire older candidates because older candidates tend to have higher medical claims and run up the company's health coverage premiums.

So Clanny, should employers refuse to hire candidates who are, say, more than X% body-fat or have an elevated BMI?

Or do you want to deny employment only to candidates who have committed non-violent "morality/mores" crimes?

Typical simplistic radical right, always elevating yourself to holier-than-thou perfection while wanting to hammer and punish anybody who dares be imperfect, by your legalistic, moralistic, self-righteous definition.


yes, they should. just like some employers make smokers quit.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

you could ask him about it and find out what happened.

Yes, you could ask the person about it, but by far the greater likelihood is that the person would not get an interview and would thus effectively be written off for something stupid they once did. We're living in the real world, not some happy friendly super-place...


Some traffic violations can be felonies. Like a second DWI.And how about a bus company/cab company/trucking company, they
don't need to know about a person's driving record.

Or a company that furnishes a person a company car?

You see RNR there may be many reasons to look at persons driving record.

Thanks for picking on me Ray, but I never mentioned someone's driving record, and I reiterated twice that we are only taking about misdemeanors, because I think an employer should have a right to know about your felonies.


you don't think that persons driving record is important??

For a job that involved driving as part of the job, I think a company could already check your driving record, and fair enough. That was not the general case presented in the OP.

[Clandestino]

Yes, you could ask the person about it, but by far the greater likelihood is that the person would not get an interview and would thus effectively be written off for something stupid they once did. We're living in the real world, not some happy friendly super-place...


GREAT! saving the company TIME & MONEY, but not having to interview someone they would not hire..

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

GREAT! saving the company TIME & MONEY, but not having to interview someone they would not hire..

Um, you were the one who suggested they'd ask the person about it.

Clan, by your rationale, anyone who has done anything "wrong" in their lives (which we all have) and been caught (most of us haven't for our misdemeanors), no matter how trivial or isolated the incident, that person should be blackbanned from employment for the rest of their lives. That makes sense... :rolleyes

How you can have such a blinkered, black and white perspective on life, I will never understand.

I'm curious - ever had a traffic ticket?

[RandomGuy]

it is an employers right to know who they are hiring.

Find that right in the constitution, you judicial activist.

[Clandestino]

Um, you were the one who suggested they'd ask the person about it.

Clan, by your rationale, anyone who has done anything "wrong" in their lives (which we all have) and been caught (most of us haven't for our misdemeanors), no matter how trivial or isolated the incident, that person should be blackbanned from employment for the rest of their lives. That makes sense... :rolleyes

How you can have such a blinkered, black and white perspective on life, I will never understand.

I'm curious - ever had a traffic ticket?

it would depend on what the offense was. some offenses they just wouldn't waste their time with the person.

and it would be the employers choice to decide. they wouldn't blackball everyone, but it would give them more stuff to determine who they want to hire.

and of course i've had a ticket. and in the industries i've worked in they have had access to all my info.

[Clandestino]

Find that right in the constitution, you judicial activist.

haha..stfu dumbass.. not every single fucking thing is in the constitution. tell me where it says dumbasses like you are in the 10% marginal tax bracket in the constitution.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

it would depend on what the offense was. some offenses they just wouldn't waste their time with the person.

and it would be the employers choice to decide. they wouldn't blackball everyone, but it would give them more stuff to determine who they want to hire.

and of course i've had a ticket. and in the industries i've worked in they have had access to all my info.

My point was that I think those with any sort of record would be tossed in the discard pile in the first cull, and that is a bad situation.

If you are making hiring and firing decisions on the basis of whether or not someone got done for public urination when they were 19, your HR department is crap.

I seriously don't see how the "rights of the employer" override the right to privacy in this case. Committing a misdemeanor or two in your past does not make you a bad employee, but that's the outcome from a law like this.

Oh, and if this law comes in, how many companies are going to go through their current employee's records and start firing people on the basis of misdemeanors??? Very few, if any I bet (unless there are specific low-performing staff they want a reason to get rid of). So, why should misdemeanors only count against new employees?

[johngateswhiteley]

i want to be able to fuck up as much as possible and still be able to get a good job. also, if one has messed up a bunch in the past or currently messes up a lot it does not mean that person is incapable of performing well in their job.

...i hate all this crap. there should be a difference between your work life and personal life.