[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.

[Eisenstein]

'How they spend their money' and 'who their employees are' is literally all a business is. If not that, how else are they to be regulated?