[BobaFloutist]

It's also toothless when the employer's insurance company can require a (post-hire) background check to cover the employee and failing it is grounds for canceling the hire.

I don't see an obvious solution, because compelling commercial insurance to cover someone with repeat duis/reckless driving/addiction issues in a work truck doesn't feel quite fair, but there needs to be a path to gainful employment for ex-cons if we want our supposedly rehabilitative justice system to have even a chance of working, and there's not a lot of options that aren't customer facing, don't involve driving, and don't put you in some sort of security context or in charge of accounts or money.

Basically, any job that pays worth a damn requires a bit of trust, and we simply don't trust ex cons. And they're probably statistically somewhat less trustworthy, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have a path out. For our sake as much as theirs.

[lupusreal]

Ideally the insurance company only cares about crimes that are relevant to the job; theft or embezzlement for workers handling cash. DUIs for drivers. Etc. There are certain combinations of crime and job that are sensibly going to be risky, but how do you prevent companies from being overcautious? An insurance company that was more optimally cautious than overcautious won't gain much for it.

[pc86]

Why do you need to "prevent companies from being overcautious?" It's their money they're spending, it's their customer relationships they're putting at risk, it's their liability they're increasing by having someone with multiple DUI convictions driving around the work truck.

Criminal history is not a protected class (nor should it be), there's nothing wrong with a company saying it doesn't want to hire people with criminal histories in the recent past for certain jobs, or any job.

[tyingq]

Collectively, blackballing people with a criminal past has negative effects not just for those people.

[lupusreal]

We don't "need" to but we'd all be generally better off if ex-cons can find honest jobs to support themselves.

[pc86]

> There are certain combinations of crime and job that are sensibly going to be risky, but how do you prevent companies from being overcautious?

Your words imply we do need to do that.

[Eisenstein]

While your words imply that you have an ideological opposition to telling businesses what to do, and that external effects need to be ignored. Why do businesses have the right to do things harmful to society so that they can make money?

[pc86]

Businesses get told what to do all the time, that's not necessarily a bad thing. But businesses have a right to choose how they spend their money and who their employees are.

[pc86]

I'd be more than happy having a period of time where these things can't be taken into account (like bankruptcy). But if you have repeat DUIs / reckless driving incidents, you've proven that at least currently you can't be trusted to drive safely. Having a job where operating a vehicle as part of your job isn't a human right so I don't see anything wrong with saying "you're not allowed to have this job." Isn't it much more humane to do that in the application process than firing the candidate in their first week because the insurance will not cover them? Isn't it wrong to force the insurance to cover someone at a loss, or force the employer to pay more to cover this person who probably shouldn't be driving anyway?

[tyingq]

The argument isn't about whether to disqualify someone for a job that involves driving if they have a DUI, at least to me.

I mentioned the Australian system...when the employer sends the candidate name/info and the complete job description, and a government agency replies yes/no. I assume they have some criteria for how long ago the offense was, etc. And that candidates generally know if they apply for a job that's not a good match, they will get a "no".

In the US system, even for a job where driving is not involved, the employer gets the full record and gets to decide what to do with that information with whatever arbitrary opinions they have.

[pc86]

Good - they're the ones hiring, they're the ones taking on risk, it's their money they're spending. It should be up to them whether a particular criminal history is relevant to the job. Even if it's not relevant and they just don't want to work with someone with a particular criminal history, isn't that their right?