| If your criminal record is truly relevant to the job, then the employer should do the responsible thing and get a proper background check done. Which are factual and non-biased. Such things shouldn't be left up to google page ranking algorithms and media that tends toward sensationalisation. It's lazy and unprofessional. > Why would they hire mark over a similar employee with a clean record? Is it useful to have people with a history of low level crime habitually unemployable. Don't we want to reduce crime. > Mark needs to be given the opportunity to demonstrate to an employer hes no longer a cookie monster. Mark is innocent of further crimes until he is convicted and the employer would need to have reasonable cause to discriminate against him. We have parole and other such mechanisms where official bodies can decide how long a person needs to speed demonstrating they are no longer a criminal, and make sure the relevant people are aware of this. Why leave it up to some random employer armed with google. > He would do this by taking a lower than average pay, Why does he deserve lower pay. This is just enabling employers to take advantage of vulnerable people. > and giving the employer the option to terminate his employment at any time without cause. The employer has the right to terminate at any time for mark committing a criminal act. He doesn't need this. Plus this is europe and workers have rights |
You are essentially complaining about human nature. Here in reality people want to know if you've violated someone else's trust before trusting you. We are social beings and if you present two people - "This one betrayed a friend, this other one has not" - 99% of people will choose the later.
You will never ever convince a majority of people that someone who has demonstrated untrustability should be trusted the same as someone who has not. Regardless of how long he spent in a steel and concrete cage.