Recidivism rates are very high, so it should be up to the employer to decide whether an employee with a criminal record has reformed. I cannot think of business that is immune from damage due to theft of dishonesty. Moreover, the customers of a business need to feel that they can trust the person representing the company. Requiring felons to be given jobs could destroy a company that depends upon a reputation. I wouldn't object to the government providing some subsidy to businesses or charities that provide jobs to criminals trying to go straight, but the burden of rehabilitation should not be put upon independent businesses trying to survive.
Do you really want to hire someone who has robbed a store just like the one they now wish to work for? Or broken into a house just like the one YOU live in, or put someone on daycare duty when they have molested kids? Beaten a man until he has to relive his wedding? Or a coke taker making your burger?
I would think it is self evident. When you are applying for a job they are judging you because of your past. Whether or not you graduated high school or college. The scores you made, classes you took, and overall GPA. If they can judge based off of that, it would be justifiable to allow them to base off of criminal records. It shows them choices you made. It is always a risk to the business for them not to be able to judge off of prior records. Criminals would exploit it if a business were not even allowed to consider it.
To hire who you want. On any grounds especially criminal record. You should know who you hire. Making it so employers can't access that is knowingly endangering that person and everyone who uses that establishment. As for the job specific, that is subjective. I do not want a child molester touching my money, my bus, or my kids. I do not want a guy with a DUI cutting my lawn or serving hamburgers. It shows they are irresponsible. Maybe want a guy who got caught with meth behind the counter of your Walmart but I do not.
Employers have a right to hire their employees. They want to hire employees who are trustworthy and reliable. If an employer feels that something in someone's record casts doubt on that person's trustworthiness or reliability, they have no obligation to hire that person. The government should get out of the private decisions of employers.
That employers check criminal records reduces the chances of successful reintegration into society. There should be regulations against this, possibly of the form that an individual must state the purpose of requesting his/her own criminal record. Only when recruiting for jobs that are classified by law as requiring special security measures should there be a right to request criminal records. Different jobs might justify checking for specific types of crime. Checking white-collar crime is more often justified than checking if someone smoked pot three years ago. I can't think of any job that could justify checking for potsmoking actually.
If someone is going to be responsible for large sums of money, then the company can do a credit check, but you don't need to do a credit check on a teacher. You don't want a child molester working in a school and we don't want a person with a DUI driving a school bus. Some jobs should require a background check, such as working with children, the disabled and the elderly. Some jobs don't need a background check, such as working in a store unloading boxes. Criminals have a hard time finding a job after being released and end up in poverty. As a result, they recidivate.
Checking criminal backgrounds has a deleterious effect on society. When excons can't get jobs that are both good and legitimate they pursue criminal occupations. Countries that have limits on what can be searched for in criminal background checks have lower crime rates. France for instance only allows for limited criminal background checks for certain sensitive jobs such as banking, auditing, or defense.
And a comparison of crime rates between France and the US:
I do not agree with Backgroumd checks period. All employers need is a registry of sex offenders and even they should be able to get a job in certain work enviroments. This has and only allows an employer to hide their discrimination against the Black race . This is only another form of OPPRESSION. And to justify it by saying they have a criminal record. They have severed their time and their debt is paid to society. Look at the banks and wall street. They collasped the banking industry and got a BAIL OUT. THEY DID NOT EVEN GET SO MUCH AS A SLAP ON THE HAND FOR ILLEGAL ACTS. Background checks are DEFINATELY being used for discrimination and should be stopped and NO I AM NOT BLACK. AND NO I DO NOT HAVE A RECORD.
I believe employers should have control over their businesses including ones with criminal records but its gotten to the point now that they can fire you or not hire you for any reason what so ever. While I think most systems are designed to protect those people who lets say in this situation don't have criminal records to ones that do, its designed for the employer and the employees safety. But there is a difference between employers who think they can do anything just because they are allowed that power. There are different crimes and different things and different reasons. Not everyone who has a criminal record would be a thug if they just mixed in with the wrong circumstances. Which happens a lot actually.
Allowing corporations to deny employment solely based on criminal records will create an a large underclass. This underclass will grow and grow and crime rates with rise. The problem will spiral out of control eventually leading to civil unrest and many deaths. Corporations are not people and they don't have the same rights that people have.