MemberSince99 wrote:Say you got arrested for disorderly contact in your 20s. Now some corporation extends an offer, checks your credit/criminal history/terror watch list/employement/references/polygraph/psych test/IQ test/personality test/interviews with neighbors/FBI fingerprint check etc etc etc ad nauseum, and sees that and even though it has nothing to do with your current position revokes the offer. If you were to corner them as to a reason, they won't tell you directly why because that leaves them open to a lawsuit, they will say they found a better qualified candidate or pick another reason that is legal, and what do you think the odds of you proving it in court are?
As someone who hires people now and then I somewhat agree with you on this. I work for a large organization that definitely complies with the law. So I can't make decisions on or even ask about a lot of things. But I do get to know some stuff because the environment and job duties involve and environment where things like driving record, criminal background, and even credit are relevant. Besides, in general if I have to choose between a candidate with who frequently doesn't pay bills, has a DUI, and has a history of getting in bar fights, and another one with a clean record and good credit, why wouldn't I choose the second one? Even if the first might be a little more qualified, he has demonstrated by his behavior that he is not very responsible of mature. I think that is how a lot of people think.
In my experience at several different employers, I will say that I have never seen any situation where there was any intent to break any laws regarding hiring, and I honestly don't think we ever did so unintentionally either. But at the same time I think many of the laws are too restrictive. I do not want to hire people who are going to steal from me or otherwise be a problem. If I look at their past behavior and they have not behaved very well, I am definitely going to take that into consideration even if it is not directly relevant because it shows the person does not respect the law, does not respect others, or whatever. I don't care about silly personality tests and that kinds of garbage. But a disorderly conduct arrest is something that would concern me if I were made aware of it. That candidate should at least have a very good explanation of why they behaved like an idiot and a spotless record since then to prove they learned a good lesson.
The ironic thing is, I have held high level security clearances. I have had my credit, arrests, finances, personality, drug use, and even ***ual history put under a microscope and I still got the "job." But when I hired people to work with me in that context I could not even ask about most of that stuff. i would just have to waste my time hiring and paying people for a few months until the government told me they could not be cleared then would have to get rid of them.