Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Background checks pay for Checkr, which just raised $100M

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 85 posts

Re: Background checks pay for Checkr, which just raised $100M

#61

Post by dubrocks »

numbsafari wrote: post #51
mschuster91 wrote: post #38

This kind of company deserves to die, and the public record laws for highly personal data also. The obsession with "background checks" is a really huge part of why the US has extremely high recidivism rate. When people can't find a job even flipping burgers or distributing newspapers, they have no choice other than to go back to the criminal life. edit: as I got private feedback: it is not my intention to disrespect…

I work with hospitals and receive access to incredibly private information, as well as access to and knowledge of pharmacy data for highly controlled substances. Some of the hospitals I work with are research institutions, whose researchers are subject to death threats on a regular basis. I find it perfectly reasonable that they would want a third-party verification of my legal history, drug use, and financial situat…

Well look at you

Re: Background checks pay for Checkr, which just raised $100M

#62

Post by maaaats »

throwaway2041 wrote: post #56
greatamerican wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you understand why this is an indictment of your hiring process, rather than of those people?

Why? From the company's perspective it makes sense to ask if an applicant has a criminal record. Statistically someone with a prior conviction is much more likely to commit a future crime

Might that be because it's impossible to get a job after your first conviction?

Re: Background checks pay for Checkr, which just raised $100M

#63

Post by [deleted] »

Kalium wrote: post #46
greatamerican wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you understand why this is an indictment of your hiring process, rather than of those people?

To clarify a point on which there may be some doubt, the hiring process spelled out in quite certain terms that were in no way, shape, form, or manner less than completely clear that a criminal history was not an bar to employment. These were not empty words. The people clearly did not believe this, and made their own personal, individual choices to be dishonest with us. I absolutely understand how this was a fault i…

[deleted]

Re: Background checks pay for Checkr, which just raised $100M

#64

Post by jeffmould »

jaredhansen wrote: post #53
greatamerican wrote: post #40

This company exists solely to extend the punishment of people who have ALREADY BEEN PUNISHED BY THE COURT SYSTEM. If there is any justice in the world, this company will go out of business.

First, that's completely the wrong framing. Maybe checkr doesn't "care enough" about the people who have been punished, but it's not like the company exists out of spite. It exists to serve the legitimate business interests of people who are scared of the impact that a person with a prior record of doing bad things may have on their business, if hired. (Including: our customers are in enterprise/gov/edu and require u…

There in lies part of the problem. It is not as simple as you make it sound. While I 100% agree with you that honesty upfront is the absolute best approach, the problem is that 9 out of 10 times employers simply scan applications, see a check for conviction/arrest history, with or without notes explaining the circumstances, and discard the application. So while the applicant may have taken the best approach, it often doesn't work out for them.

The real problem with background checks is that there is loose regulation around them. Often times these companies return inaccurate or incomplete results. Often times they provide reports that are not in compliance with FCRA. An even bigger problem is that a background report provides absolutely no context to a crime. They also make it difficult at best to dispute any mistakes. This is a huge problem.

GoodHire (a Checkr competitor) are working to change this somewhat. They allow individuals to add notes and context to their own background reports. This can be done individually (the person pays for their own report and adds the notes) or after a background check is provided by a company.

Disclaimer: My company is a GoodHire partner.

Re: Background checks pay for Checkr, which just raised $100M

#65

Post by l4yao »

jackweirdy wrote: post #59
rusbus wrote: post #13

Maybe now they can buy a vowel. I say this only half as a joke. I recently had to use checkr. The first thing they ask you for is your social security number. Typing your social into a box below a misspelled URL isn't a super comforting experience

The process is even more fun when you don't have an SSN yet and the form doesn't know how to deal with that.

Or if you specify that your employment history is outside the US, and they still require a W2.

Re: Background checks pay for Checkr, which just raised $100M

#66

Post by optimiz3 »

jeffmould wrote: post #64
jaredhansen wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, that's completely the wrong framing. Maybe checkr doesn't "care enough" about the people who have been punished, but it's not like the company exists out of spite. It exists to serve the legitimate business interests of people who are scared of the impact that a person with a prior record of doing bad things may have on their business, if hired. (Including: our customers are in enterprise/gov/edu and require u…

There in lies part of the problem. It is not as simple as you make it sound. While I 100% agree with you that honesty upfront is the absolute best approach, the problem is that 9 out of 10 times employers simply scan applications, see a check for conviction/arrest history, with or without notes explaining the circumstances, and discard the application. So while the applicant may have taken the best approach, it often…

Why should someone have to pay for their report to clear allegations against them?

Re: Background checks pay for Checkr, which just raised $100M

#67

Post by crx087 »

jaredhansen wrote: post #53
greatamerican wrote: post #40

This company exists solely to extend the punishment of people who have ALREADY BEEN PUNISHED BY THE COURT SYSTEM. If there is any justice in the world, this company will go out of business.

First, that's completely the wrong framing. Maybe checkr doesn't "care enough" about the people who have been punished, but it's not like the company exists out of spite. It exists to serve the legitimate business interests of people who are scared of the impact that a person with a prior record of doing bad things may have on their business, if hired. (Including: our customers are in enterprise/gov/edu and require u…

> our customers are in [government] and require us to commit to background checks on everyone we hire

That really -- and especially -- sounds like it should be an illegal form of civil rights abuse.

Re: Background checks pay for Checkr, which just raised $100M

#68

Post by Justin_K »

mschuster91 wrote: post #48
jstarfish wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few people I've known with criminal histories only managed to turn their lives around by scraping a business together for themselves, going into home contracting (handyman, exterminator, etc.). They had done time for stuff like narcotics trafficking and manslaughter and were never going to be hired by any employer otherwise. Then, in the vein of technological progress, services started popping up encouraging potent…

> Then, in the vein of technological progress, services started popping up encouraging potential clients to do background checks on contractors. You wouldn't want to let a former criminal into your home to do repairs, after all. How in f..ks name is this even legal , to begin with?

It is legal because court records are public information.

Re: Background checks pay for Checkr, which just raised $100M

#69

Post by jaredhansen »

optimuspaul wrote: post #58
jaredhansen wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, that's completely the wrong framing. Maybe checkr doesn't "care enough" about the people who have been punished, but it's not like the company exists out of spite. It exists to serve the legitimate business interests of people who are scared of the impact that a person with a prior record of doing bad things may have on their business, if hired. (Including: our customers are in enterprise/gov/edu and require u…

I think the problem is the "bad" things I may or may not have done in the past is none of the potential employers business. The problem though isn't that liars are getting jobs but also the honest people. Valuable skills are overlooked because a past mistake has sullied their appearance.

>I think the problem is the "bad" things I may or may not have done in the past is none of the potential employers business.

But that's simply not true. Peoples' past behavior has a predictive value over their probable future behavior and we all know this, and it applies in positive directions as well as negative. I mean, this is why we ask about "experience": because we think that if you did X competently in the past, you are more likely to be able to do X competently in the future.

This predictive power is not perfect, of course, but it's silly to claim that it's "none of the bank's business that I stole $1M from the last bank I worked at", or "none of the kindergarten's business that I previously molested 15 children".

People who get turned down for jobs because they did bad things years ago (1) didn't have to have done those things, and (2) have ample opportunity to demonstrate that they have improved/moved on/"are a different person now"/etc. Companies may lose out by failing to hire some of the best of that group, but it's not insane or evil for companies as a group to be hesitant.

Re: Background checks pay for Checkr, which just raised $100M

#70

Post by dsacco »

optimuspaul wrote: post #57
gringoDan wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I 95% agree with you. We have a huge problem in the US with recidivism and once someone has paid their debt to society, their past shouldn't be held against them. However, Checkr is the result of a strong demand for this type of service, not the cause of it. If Checkr didn't exist then companies would use someone else to conduct their background checks. Sadly, I don't think we'll see a change in this mentality & prac…

> would you get into an Uber if you knew the driver had 5 previous DUIs? Yes, unless they smelled of alcohol, but at that point the DUIs are moot anyway.

Why would you get into a car with that driver? Out of the total population of licensed drivers in the United States[1], about 1% have DWI in any given year and the recidivism rate is upwards of 20% depending on the state[2][3]. Given available statistics about the relationship between alcohol consumption and likelihood of a vehicular accident[4], there's good evidence that you're increasing your risk of being in an accident by at least 60% if you get into a car with someone who has had a DWI.

Further, considering recidivism can only be tracked if people are caught and the legal limit is 0.08 BAC, a good argument can be made that an Uber driver with a past DWI would be more likely than can be predicted to have be driving under the influence again (meanwhile a BAC of 0.05 still increases the risk of an accident by approximately 100%).

_____________________

1. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/pubs/hf/pl11028/c...

2. https://one.nhtsa.gov/people/outreach/traftech/1995/tt085.ht...

3. https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811991-DWI_Recidiv...

4. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/09/how-j...

Post reply on HN