[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?