Rules of Engagement.....

I think it's reasonable to check for felony convictions - you have a responsibility to protect your employees and customers. But for the rest - I'm agin' it.

I agree. I feel that anything else borders into invasion of privacy.

Kinda of makes you curious as to why we have prisons. If they can't work when they get out why not just put them out of their misery.

No one said anything about not allowing ex-felons to work. A banker would be criminally stupid to hire a bank robber. A day care center would be equally stupid to hire a child molester. An engineering firm might be happy with either.

This is not a difficult concept.

If is was easy for an ex-felon to get a job there would be less crime.

The prison system is broken. It doesn't retool the skills of the prisoner. If the ex-felons truthfully state where they've been during their interview most companies won't hire them.

Talk to some ex-felons and get their take.

Almost 9 years for something I didn't do.

Very hard to get a job. And nine months after I got out to find a lawyer (I'd trust to touch it).

Corruption in a system that has more people in prison than the rest of the world combined. Broken is an understatement.

You are not presumed Innocent. You are not in a common law court. It is a Tribunal under equity rules. The conspiracy nuts got a little right, they just assume the wrong conclusions.

No job yet, but about to file 16 on counts of perjury in my grand jury hearing.

Never Knew Failure analysis and root cause problem solving could be so enlightening.

I should be Sui Juris by late spring.

Brad

I, although a convicted criminal, am not a felon. I have found myself, surprisingly, unemployed after 5 weeks on the job. Both of my managers and countless others have come to my aid but to no avail. So for the holidays I go from $116,000 annual to $0. Son of a bitch.

My employer begged them to give me clearance - they (global security) would not. My charge? A misdemeanor; assault with injury from 5 years ago.

It is baffling to me. I am disappointed and a little upset but more than anything I am just shaking my head dumbfounded. How is this allowed? How absurd is this!? I accept responsibility for my actions and have always been forthright and honest about the event - but Samsung didn't even ask - they simply performed the check and came back about 6 weeks later and said, sorry you are being dismissed, we can not grant you a security badge. The end. As I said many people offered up very moving references for me - to no avail.

The thing that kicks me is that 2 months prior I had taken a job with Applied Materials, who had no problems with me working for them! What a bunch hypocrisy - I really just don't see how the seemingly arbitrary nature of these things is considered NOT to be discrimination or unethical or something! It is very unjust.

Oh well. I wonder what I am going to do next? I am very excited though. I can't wait to find out! I hope I like it!

cr3

As I understand it you are now facing a job search, If I am right I wish you all the best with that and hope you will find something soon and that you do like it (as you said yourself).

I was convicted as a kid, for throwing stones at a train that drove past. We did (me and 2 friends) NOT do this particular offence but had done similar things in the past so still guilty I suppose.

Ended up doing a short stint of community service (which I cannot even remember anymore) and a small fine (which I also cannot remember anymore because my parents had to pay that)

This was however some 30 odd years ago and well before this pc stuff about searches and records. I can , somewhat relieved, safely say that it has never haunted me and probably never will.

your comment;

"we can not grant you a security badge. "

One thing about security whether it's national or private, you are more of a risk if you have financial problems.

i.e. you could be bought.

Oddly this one I agree with to some point. As I do with background in general. I fully agree that there is some need and that it is different from scenario to scenario.

For example I have a friend that was convicted of Vehicular Manslaughter some years ago as a result of a DUI. I know this man and know what his life is like today and the personal burden he carries. I guess perhaps it is a matter of empathy. I don't know the answers. It just seems to be one of those things that is wrongfully unfair.

I don't know, we all have our cross to bear.

I agree, if the person truly feels remorse, he may not not a criminal.

And the price he pays, is his conscience can be torturous, that can be compared with the victim's survivors

But the FBI hired an ex-con that wrote forged checks to teach them how to help banks improve their system. There was a movie made about it.

Is that the rule or the .1% exception!!

Felony convictions - I think any employer should have the right to check and verify, otherwise these types of checks are an invasion of privacy, except in the following situations (at least the ones that immediately come to mind):

Employment within high finance (bacnking, stock brokers, etc.)

Security and law enforcement

Those running for political office

I think you nailed it!

And you mean for those running for political office and have a prior felony would be more eligible than someone that doesn't?

If you look at my link in post #14 the politicians in that instance claim that a prison record is a positive advantage. Our previous prime minister had to be questioned by the police in the 'cash for honours' affair & our current prime minister faces being questioned about party funding.

Sometimes it seems that the only difference between politics & crime is that the politicians have the opportunity to change the rules.

There is a larger list with specific checks that come to my mind.

Child care, teachers and scout leaders should be checked for pedophile history

....urm, ok only one more but I am sure there are more.

So far people are in agreement to what seems necessary.

But this is not what IS happening.

The fact is, that people, behind closed doors are determining the moral qualification of one applicant over another based on the litmus paper of public record. In some instances without asking anything of the applicant. Simply saying you must agree to sign permission for a background check.

How/why and what the heck!

In the marine industry the TSA is in the process of implementing the TWIC, Transportation Workers Identity Card. Every person who will have unescorted acces to a shipping facility needs one of these cards. Which means that every employee and contractor of every refinery, chemical plant, or cargo terminal with a dock has to have this card. This will effect thousands of people on every coast.

I went to get mine last week, and the TSA wants a passport, or two forms of ID, they take pictures (with the latest gizmo to save the dimensions of your face for matching) and fingerprints. Then they do a federal background check.

Getting access to a refinery is now almost as complex as access to a nuclear plant (I've done both).

"TSA wants a passport, or two forms of ID"

You need all of that plus a registration document just to buy new number plates for your car in the UK.

I had to undergo a CRB check recently because we agreed to allow a group of college students to visit our company to gain some insight into the real world relationships between the various engineering & commercial disciplines. We had 9 students accompanied by 3 teachers, 1 coordinator & 2 people from the organising group. I can understand the need to be careful who you have meeting these students but, as a company, we had to carefully consider if we wanted to go through all of the time involved in being checked. I can imagine that many companies would simply decline to be involved.

It hasn't got that far in the UK (yet) for general employment. This...

"If you are going to work as a paid employee or as a volunteer for an organisation and your work will bring you into contact with children or vulnerable adults, you may be asked to apply for a CRB check. For example, if you are to work as a teacher, care worker, scout & guide leader, registered childminder, sports coach, youth club worker, foster carer or adoptive parent."

... is an extract from the Criminal Record Bureau Notes for Applicants.

Apart from these cases, I'd agree with Chris (post #3).

I don't know what the Police & Armed Forces do for checks. As for most 'public figures', the media seem to be able to ferret out everything about them since the day they were born.

What is the basis for not allowing persons with prior convictions to hold public office? In the U.S. a felony conviction already strips citizens of several rights that are supposed to be guaranteed in the Constitution, unconditionally. Once one has served their complete sentence should they not be allowed the same freedoms as everyone else? If not, than why have anything but a life term? Perhaps addressing the conditions that allow for as high of a rate of crime instead of the crime itself would be a better course to stay. There is no easy solution. There will come a time when the number of individuals who have made mistakes is high enough that they will no long stand for second class treatment.

I never said that convictions should not allow someone to hold public office or any of the other jobs, just that checks to determine if these events happened should be allowed. It would then be up to the potential employer to determine if the value the potential employee would provide balances off their previous conviction.

Do you believe that the public does not have a right to know that a political candidate has a criminal background?

In the UK a criminal record doesn't prevent anyone from holding public office, one of the more notable examples is Jonathan Aitken.

"Once one has served their complete sentence should they not be allowed the same freedoms as everyone else?"

No, because they have a proven disposition toward abusing those freedoms. In general, crime is a choice, and a bad one at that.

"If not, than why have anything but a life term?"

I think you are comparing apples with oranges.

"Perhaps addressing the conditions that allow for as high of a rate of crime instead of the crime itself would be a better course to stay."

The incidence where commiting a crime is necessary for survival is fairly rare, at least in the US. Addressing conditions linked to high crime (again, at least in the US) would first of all mean addressing the issue of drug and alcohol abuse.

I agree whole heartedly that those are two issues that need to be addressed.

An employer should do everything in his power to protect his interest.

I think an employer has the right to decide who to employ or not and would be considered foolish when employing a repeating offender. The employer can never be expected to employ a person showing a trend to commit offences.

Once a person has paid the penalty, served a sentience or is out on parole he must be considered innocent. A person not convicted yet is also innocent. - Basic rights.

The normal employer cannot discriminate against anyone on any grounds but when having to decide between 2 or more equally qualified / experienced applicants he has a right to base a decision on it.

The driving record for a non driving post sound a bit wide but I suppose they use a one form fits all. The applicant can ignore the question.

I can understand the criminal background & driving record checks.

Even if you are not applying for a driving position you may need to drive a company owned vehicle at one time or another.

Unless you are applying for a financial position, what does a credit check prove?

Even your insurance policies are based on your credit rating. Whats a Credit rating got to do with how I drive? I don't drive any different now that I have a low rating than when I had high one. But my insurance company wanted to raise my rates last time I got the bill because I had to file a Chap 13 last year. I simply told them I'd switch companies after being with them for 25 years and they backed off.

Mr. Rummel, a good question which strikes at the heart of these darkening days.

I thought, as did another writer, that when you send some one to the joint,

they either (a) pay their debt to socity

or

(b) become "rehabilitated".

==================

Common sense must be employed: which it usually is not.

The greatest % of prison inhabitants are there because of drug violations.

The W O D (war on drugs)

a. Does not work

and

b. Generates legions of folks that are looking to get even.

It's BS, it is.

meanwhile, the greatest cost to our society arises from the useage of tobacco products.

Basically, I would say do away with prisons, and require everyone to carry a sidearm.

OK so as to not have to check the "is this off target" box,

"arrests" is totally bogus as an indicator of an individual's application for a job,

as "law enforcement" is just a better armed gang, with as much perfidious activity

as many "street gangs". This may b overstated, but not entirely.

IMHO, credit checks and driving records also shold not be legally used unless those items directly refer to the job position function.

My advice is to do what you want, wisely.

I'll be the resident asshole who will play devils advocate.

If you knowingly broke the law, aware of the consequences, you have no room to complain.

You can lick your wounds all you want, but dont put the burden on everyone else who has come to the cross roads and done the right thing.

Wrongly convicted? you didnt do it? not this time but why were you in a place/position to have been thought to be guilty in the first place.

We all like to play in the grey areas in this black and white time we live in. Again, we all know the price to play.

some of us are smart enough to know when not to play

oooh please.

The thing about bein' on such a tall horse is it's a longer fall once bucked. And every cowboy gets bucked!

Reminds me of what my GranPa used to say, "Boy, be careful of the toes you step on today. They might be carryin' the ass you kiss tomorrow"

thats unfair to SGQ,

you posted, he responded.

And to things that I am sure you heard before, and I feel he was not talking down to you.

"but why were you in a place/position to have been thought to be guilty in the first place" - does that mean we all have to sit at home with the doors bolted?

Where I live, just stepping outside puts me in the danger zone, re. place and time. You can get mugged (or presumably mug) any time of day or night around here.

I'll be the resident asshole who will play devils advocate.

What about you just be the resident asshole and we kick your butt?

Never heard a more stupid generalisation of anything in my life, boy you must be dumb!

I am just glad for you your world is simple enough for you to understand otherwise you might yourself think you were stupid too, now that would be a living hell, wouldn't it?

Go play elsewhere.

period

I'll dance with the devil

"why were you in a place/position to have been thought to be guilty in the first place?"

Recovering from burns from a faulty Radiator/cap; in a major car wreck as a passenger ( car stopped in turn lane when struck by truck from behind); on pain killers, muscle relaxer, multipliers; accusations made "on or about 90 days"(can you account for 90 days the prior year); my Public pretender made prosecutor, my prosecutor now works in attorney generals office, attorney general made governor; 2nd car wreck while going to court( my sports car totaled by new U.S. citizen); Told all my evidence no good (they didn't even check it); signed a plea for a year in jail with work release and five years probation, it was an Artifice to defraud(fake contract); judge modified plea and gave me ten years and life probation. So bad the court recorder and bailiff commented to us about it; do to direct Grand Jury question the arresting officer had to commit 16 counts of perjury to get the indictment; reversed and remanded by the 9^th Circuit where the article 4 district court has sat on it for over three years(normal). I've been in court for over ten years now. The supposed victim says I didn't do it. No evidence. There is more but just the reply to my Writ of Habeas from the Assistant attorney general is 1200 pages. A lot of ass covering and squirrel casing.

I did find out that the Officers of the court are allowed to lie by Supreme court ruling(they use a nice synonym) if you don't know your rights. The judge, prosecutor, public pretender, police officers, members of the BAR are all officers of the court. Fair warning.

If you take a plea you are a terrorist or on the death penalty (your rules are hid there).

I have learned more about law than most lawyers. and none of it was what was taught in public school.

Article 4 courts are Tribunals( look for the gold fringe on the executive flag)

American juris prudence defines client as "a person of unsound mine and therefore a ward of the court".

Do not expect the system to protect you or the public, all courts in 1986 where combined into equity courts and that is all about money.

I could go on and on.

"but dont put the burden on everyone else who has come to the cross roads and done the right thing"

We don't own our country, Our courts are bank courts, Our money is fiat, Our states gave up their rights to become States of.

Who did the right thing?

I'm not really mad at the system but disappointed when the glamour was revealed, would have rather kept paying my taxes, doing the right thing, not knowing the illusion.

Brad

Indeed, well wishes to you.

And to the Jackass devils advocate.

I did not want to plea guilty to a charge at all so the prosecutor offers up a greater charge with 2.5 years probation, defferred adjudication if I cop to a higher charge. So I say okay. 2.2 years in, all fines, dues and restitution paid ahead of time, community service completed way ahead, and I show up to my probation officers office. He says I smell like alcohol. (I had been out the night before and did smell of drink). The do a test which says I had consumed (I had already told him I had). The test did not prove I was intoxicated only that I had consumed - period (which I had already said I did).

So off I go to serve my sentence in lock up (40 days, no big deal I had done longer in my youth). The only problem is now I have a conviction for a charge I was not arrested for as a result!

That's Williamson County for ya' (they are legendary in TX as being redneck railroaders)

I'll advocate your devil ass! oops did I say that out loud?

I did say devil's advocate didnt I.

Keeps the coversation lively.

if you dont like the post, move on. life is short and this is just the internet.

if you dont like the post, move on. life is short and this is just the internet.

I don't need patronizing, nor advice on how to handle the likes of you. Yes you did say Devils Advocate (DA), however the resulting post glistened with the self rightousness of those who do not know first hand the minor atrocities that occur daily in the lives of simple, good men. Nor do those types understand the length of a lifetime and the difficulties an entire family may experience as a result of real or perceived trans- gressions against society.

See, there is a funny thing about a criminal record. It does not go away. Ever. There is no public record which states that some men, now, contribute a large portion of their financial and material resources to others in need, unselfishly. Nor is there a record for those who are supplying a Library for inbound patients. Nor is there public record for the countless hours spent consoling the loved ones of very sick people in dark hours. We do these things knowing there is no such record. We do these things out of love. Yet we are yolked by the system which we support by continuing to obey the law, paying taxes and performing civil service. Asking little or nothing in return.

Devil's advocate my ass. You said what you felt. Which is fine. Now I say to you. If you don't like the feedback directed to the DA, then move along. I encourage all to state their opinions wholeheartedly. Just please do so openmindedly.

It's like my GrandPa used to say; "Boy, never fear bein' wrong, approach every situation as if you might just be. But always fear dishonesty, your own more than any others"

respectfully,

cr3

I took no offence but I did find it as ignorant as I was before this endeavor began.

Things like "if their not guilty they just got caught for something else". Tells me the person has done something they should go to prison for but did not get caught. Hey it's their logic.

When playing the big DA expect to be shot at and hit. Much like my postings of the LAW, I have the Supreme Court cites etc. to back them up, not just some quotes but the cites for anyone to look them up by.

If you are going to dance you have to pay the fiddler.

Brad

Sounds like back-pedalling to me, some might argue that when you are confronted with overwhelming evidence of your wrong, you just apologise for the offense, intended or not! Instead you made it worse, now go figure!

Just my piece for what it is worth

We call backpedaling - crawfishin' down here.

I agree with you, life is not black and white.

And at times one is put in a position from the path one chooses.

I do not fully understand some of these examples posted, but I experience them, thou I was never convicted or arrested. Because the types of people I was working with if they would have pressed, they were not clean. And unfortunately, due to bad attorneys, some governmental systems, I ran out of money to pressed charges against them. It's difficult to have a positive attitude, even if I have a trusted nature, its hard.

you were dealt a hand bad hand and may have played them the best you could.

and unfortuntunatly you have to carry it the rest of your life.

good luck,

phoenix911

and I show up to my probation officers office. He says I smell like alcohol. (I had been out the night before and did smell of drink). The do a test which says I had consumed (I had already told him I had). The test did not prove I was intoxicated only that I had consumed - period (which I had already said I did).

What are you crying about? Having a drink before showing up to your P.O. ....it probally was from the night before. How could you be so stupid.

Be a man, its your fault.....not your grampa....YOU. Integrity does not run in the family. And neither does intelligence, you just proved it Don't try to make it sound like it does.

I am not complaining. I am very much a man.

The point I wish to make is simple. An arrest record does not accurately indicate what crimes a person has COMMITTED. Therefore it seems to be an unfavorable tool for determining ones ability to perform a job. That's all.

TexasCharley The guest saw something most of us refused. YOU have a problem. Global securities did their job. And they could care less if you could do yours…….if you were sober. They cared how trustworthy you are.

You were to accomplish some things for your parole officer or who ever you had to see. And one of those was to stay sober, and you failed. Why do you think they should give you a pass….because you admit it.

Hell they give you a blood test to confirm, because you are not to be trusted. That in itself you deserve a boot. What is past is past, but they look into that also, if you assaulted a person, do you have any training in self defence, such as Karate, and if you did, you are screwed, because lot of self defence is control and not aggression.

They do not know you from jack. . So they read your history about you, because that's the only thing they have of you of you they can depend on. They don't give a shit about a note from your mother or who ever. Hell, you think they going to run a security check on them.

And your problem whether you admit it or not, in this case probably not. Is typical of alcoholics.

I am not an expert on this, though I dated a girl for 5 years that worked here

Eventually I would hear it after shes been somber for days because a teen commited suicide. But the professional also has problems. The biggest, I don't belong here. And then play on colleague's empathy. Does any of this sound familiar, or do you want to kick some asshole on a high horse because you think he's patronizing you because I don't see it your way…..sound familiar.

Now tell me, are you still blaming Global Securities for your problem.

In a security type of environment………you were a risk. Get help.

p911

Dear God man (men).

I blame no one for anything that takes place in my life. Missing the point altogether friend.

I really don't have any hard feelings toward anyone for anything. Though I do find pomp and self rightousness unsettling expressions of the few.

I simply feel that these types of security checks can be unfair. Just my opinion. I am of the opinion that it would be nice if at the very least these events (checks) were reconciled prior to employment. Particularly when full disclosure was offered up front, prior to my family expecting a pay check or my supervisors integrating me into a position.

What disturbs me here, as in other areas of life, is how people can take a few simple words and twist them into some kind of snot nosed self pitying? At no point have I personally felt I was done some injustice. I don't like what happened but I don't blame anyone. I am aware that the company has a job to do. It just seems to me that it is ripe with oppurtunity to discriminate.And at the very least is an ass backwards process that is being utilized.

It is the people who speak as you have, mincing and twisting words that illustrate my point the most completely. It is hurtful to hear some of the responses men such as yourself offer up. A tragic condition in today's society.

Stay tuned. I am sure that I will post elswewhere on other topics. Please feel free to assess judgement there too. Only I ask that you not insert or imply what I have not. Be it pity or what not.

Good day.

I had reread all the posts a number of times since the guest posted. not reading anything in or twisting words.

Its not whether you could do the job, I am sure you could, it was a matter of security, which was what Global Security had a job to do, nothing with the tasks of the job, but only security at hand, which unfortunately....you had failed.

A friend of mine was a Lieutenant in the army. He was an attache to Colin Powell when he was stationed in Germany, before Powell was transfer to the Whitehouse.

My friend had a very distinguished career, but he left the military, (no chance of promotion, and the Army was full of Luey's) he was what I would call a capital venturist...which basically he started businesses. As soon as it took off, he would start another. Well one fell flat and he had to declare personal bankruptcy. Foolish on his part, but he learned from it.

Went back to work for Homeland Security. He had one hell of a time getting security clearance. Not because he could not do his job. But like yourself, did not have a clean record. And his was only bankruptcy. Serious yes, but a spot on his record. Having to submit a number of years of his financials. To show everything was above the table. It was hard, but unlike yourself, he understood the importance of having a clean record for security clearance, and not of job tasks competence. because along with that he also realized that position required trustworthiness and integrity.

No matter how long ago, can you say that same showing up with alcohol on your breath, and breaking your I probably would have to say court agreement, and one does not look at it how the agreement was or the situation on how the agreement took place.

What I have read and reread, I see a problem. And I have seen your posts before on other threads though its been awhile, some of which I agree and others disagree. one big part. I look for inconsistencies, we all have them. it's when they are easier to find that spooks me. could be coincidence, but in the past when I took that stance, it wasn't.

btw, it is hurtful. yet I posted, I look at these posts more as a support group from ones peers anonymously (with a sign-in name to identify with, one good thing about it), but not as a guest, as I have used them that way also. to vent and when I stepped across the line and it is pointed out to me with an explanation and not distraction or misdirection which can also be difficult. But in both situations, the buffer is a sign-in name

The seemingly unfortunate part. The past is always there, no matter how long ago.

Having had experience, bottom line....Global Securities did do their job. Whether you like to hear it or not.

and imo, a problem may still exist

p911

Thank you for your terrrific insight.

_{<scratching head, confused yet still hopeful for society as a whole>}

As I reread your reply I was out right flabbergasted at the sheer audacity you present in your leaps of judgment.

I would encourage men such as yourself not to be so presumptuous. My experince shows me that the more I judge others the the more accurate the reflection of myself becomes.

Best of luck to you. Seems you may find use of it - luck that is.

Thanks, I'll post when I find the conclusion to this crucible.

Brad

I have a bad habbit of expressing what is on my mind with out regard to the impact to others. That is the problem with the free flow of a forum. Once the thought is out there it can be cherry picked from the list and commented on by anybody. Just like I did in the first place.

In conversation there is meaningful exchange of ideas. The problem is that you only spend a few fleeting minutes reading a post then move to the next topic of interest.

I put my generalization out there. It struck some individual nerves. If you are the vistim of circumstances, I can feel for you. Believe it or not. But I have learned from my past, and that gives me my center to make what comments I choose to make.

I dont apologize for being an arrogant SOB in the minds of the criminal minority.

From my interpretation of the flow of the thread, you seem to be "an arrogant SOB" in my mind (and I have, to date, no criminal convictions).

This is for anyone who thought the thread was about my inherent arrogance or ignorance depending on your slant.

The thread was really about background checks for employment...

...for the war against unemployment?

Background checks that cover not only criminal convictions but also arrests (regardless of conviction) as well as credit checks and driving records for non-driving positions are very common these days.

How do we feel about this? Where do we draw the lines? Should this be legal? What is the goal? Does this work?

hi everyone,

there is one solution that confounds the system. start your own business. then provide your own security clearance.

You can do this, but it fails if your customers need you to have clearance to get on site. They won't take your word for it!

I don't know about USA but here in Europe they want to see some qualification of reference or security clearance. That normally means they will not accept this as evidence as long as the source is connected to you. Simple conflict of interest that would make this inadmissable.

Sorry but no cigar

What you are saying may make sense, but your are on very thin ice legally speaking.

In wisconsin, workers have rights and in the case of Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development (DWD) . If this agency will defend the employee even if evidence is show that this employee or empoyees commited fraud. Because thats not DWD job. Ones only hope is to have it transfered to the District Attorney, and have them though it out.

but your statement that you put out there;

"Background checks that cover not only criminal convictions but also arrests (regardless of conviction) as well as credit checks and driving records for non-driving positions are very common these days."

One has to look at it on an individual basis, because things as bad credit could have come from anything that the individual had no control over, such as an accident or health issues.

And only to a certain extent, driving also, In my earlier days I have had minor traffic violations, but I was not habitual, only immature.