Local governments like ours are being more straight on why they are doing this and trying to pass their own legislation:
"SEATTLE -- A Seattle City Council proposal meant to help ex-cons get a second chance at life would ban employers from asking applicants about their criminal history.
It's a job application standard: that check-off box that asks applicants if they have ever been convicted of a felony. But if some Seattle City Council members get their way, most employers will have to remove the "crime box" from their applications.
"I think it should be on the job application for sure. I think the employer has the right to know," said Malia Soares of Seattle.
Opinions about the proposal are mixed, and on Monday the council will decide who's right.
Councilman Bruce Harrell, who introduced the legislation, said the proposal is about second chances and reducing crime.
That's an opinion that many others, such as Daniel Seymore of Seattle, seem to share.
"I do think they should take it off," Seymore said. "When you go into prison, you go in to be reformed. When you get out, it shouldn't make a difference that you were in prison to begin because you are reformed now."
Harrell and Councilman Mike O'Brien insist the biggest obstacles for repeat offenders are access to jobs and housing.
"When employment increases, crime reduces," Harrell said. "So this is a means to reduce recidivism and make our streets safer once again and give people another opportunity to get on and reenter society."
O'Brien said the proposal is about fairness for workers.
"Bruce's legislation is a great step," he said. "It's not going to solve all the problems, but there are people out there qualified to do work that have something in their background -- often something that happened 10 or 20 years ago -- and because of that their application gets thrown in the trash before they even have a conversation."
Both councilmen insist that most business owners favor some variation of the proposal, but admit there's been some push-back from the business community.
"If someone committed a crime, like a felony, I think people have the right to know," Soares said.
If the measure does pass, it will not ban employers from ever asking about criminal backgrounds, but it would keep that information from them until after their initial screening.
The measure also says employers can only reject an applicant with a criminal background for a "legitimate legal reason." It would not effect jobs where workers deal with vulnerable people, such as children or the disabled."
I see the motivation and the good that may be in it. What I don't like is trying to argue with the government with my own dollars, attorney fees, etc. on whether I was justified to do the background check. My company for example works on estates of very wealthy people. Would I be justified to do the background check or not? I hate having to go in front of a magistrate (arbitration judge) and bring a ton of evidence to prove that case when a random auditor who knows nothing about our business says we should place people with criminal records in these jobs.
It is strange also that they say most business are in favor of this. If most of them are, what is stopping them from removing the checkbox and screening themselves? Waiting for government to tell them to do that??? I suspect there is not a lot of support for this.
All of this said, sure, I feel for one-time offensors (sp?) who are reformed but can't get a job. If the government wants them to get a job, how about they provide indemnification to employees that should something go wrong because of this, they would make good financially for employers? They are in the best position to asses that risk. They know if the person they are letting out is reformed far better than any employer can. Or at least come up with a system where such disclosure can be given. They can give them some kind of certificate or online database that says this guy stole a paper clip and was sorry about it and won't do it. And withhold it when the guy stabbed another inmate and was let out on the last day of his sentence.
