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

Baloney - if I'm going to trust you with my customers, my business data, and my reputation, I darned well do deserve to know if you've done things that might make you undeserving of that trust. Lying on a job application would be a very good example of that.

For example, someone may add this to a drug conviction listed on their report: "I was 18, a freshman in college, and away from home for the first time. I was at a party where drugs were consumed and I was subsequently arrested for possession. Since that time I have obtained my college degree and maintained an active, drug free, lifestyle. I learned my lesson, changed my life and drugs are no longer a part of my lifestyle."

If the receive a copy of their report due to an adverse action by an employer there is no charge to add the statement. I do agree, however, that, like a credit report, background reports should be free to obtain at least once a year. There are countless cases of mistaken identity and incorrect information on criminal background reports that are often found out after it is too late. Often times too, many arrests/convictions can be removed from your report depending on the type, state, and age of arrest/conviction. Many college students don't realize the long-term repercussions of simple indiscretions. It is only after they apply for a job and are turned down because of a background check that they realize the beer they were caught drinking at age 20 in their college dorm room had bigger consequences than the $50 fine.

See, this is the very problem with using criminal history as a form of profiling.

What about his history indicates that he drinks on the job, or will be drunk when you get into his car? If those DUIs all occurred off-the-clock, involving no passengers or collisions, after long shifts of driving stone sober, what's it to Uber?

The irony is, if we deny him employment opportunities based on past behavior unrelated to his job performance, he's going to have plenty of free time to indulge such vices. Being unemployed sucks.

Meanwhile take a 20-something with a habit of getting high behind the wheel. He's still young so he's got a clean record and few (if any) reviews. You'd get into his deathmobile simply because you don't know any better.

Traditional background checks are very blunt tools, where decisions are very binary. If an individual is a felon, there is typically zero room for negotiation. This is often the case even with just a misdemeanor. There is usually very little trusted, low cost, easily accessed data, which can balance out or provide a more nuanced view. A service like Checkr is able to provide a much more comprehensive picture, with more depth and nuance, so that employers can be more discerning and less binary.

Also, it's not as if applications don't already specifically ask for information on criminal record. The standard is that employer has this information, without doing any actual background checks. I imagine a comprehensive background checking service would mostly serve to incentivize an employer to hire a subset of previously convicted individuals that they otherwise wouldn't have, and not the other way around.

For employers:

- They are looking out for their own asses. That's the reason why these background check companies exist in the first place. If there wasn't a liability that could potentially fall on the business from someone they hired, then this industry wouldn't be as big as it is.

- If everything was 100% transparent in the hiring process, there would probably be way more criticism from lots of other things. Prior crime convictions aside, there's many reasons a candidate might be arbitrarily overlooked. Maybe the business searched for their social media accounts and didn't like what they saw. Maybe the person is ugly. Maybe the hiring manager has a negative opinion about their education history or what part of town they live in. Who knows. If they know what the laws are, they can also figure out how to get around them while still seeming compliant.

- They do not give a shit about giving someone a second chance. They are not Make a Wish and thinking they are doing a solid to someone out of prison trying to get back on their feet. I would believe it if most applications submitted with the "prior criminal convictions" box checked are automatically filtered out of the applicant pool. The potential risk is just not worth the reward for the employers, which is why they choose to use services like checkr.

- If the employer does keep applicants with prior convictions, they are probably going to lowball the candidate to hire them at a discount for the position, knowing the candidate has slim options with little leverage.

- I don't see small businesses (outside of ones working with children, the government, or similar such instances) using a background check service as much as larger corporations that make lots of hires. The cost of multiple candidate background checks mounts quickly, so the business will likely only a background check on 1-2 people at most, probably after multiple interviews and at least 1 in-person communication.

For employees/candidates:

- It's like a shitty butterfly effect, where a mistake you paid for continually rains on your parade the rest of your life. There are no "fresh starts".

- Knowing that most employers will throw your application in the trash if you have a criminal record, therefore limiting your own chances to try to improve yourself and be a contributing member of society, there is basically an incentive to lie on the application for the sake of just hoping the business won't find out. Essentially, by lying you reason to yourself you have more to gain than to lose. (Aside: Perhaps this is not the best kind of behavior to enforce for a person that just had to reconcile with their shitty behavior in prison).

- Can we trust the companies behind the background checks? Their incentive is to profit, so they are not looking out for the people their services impact as much as the services their customers are buying.

- How can peoples' rights to privacy and confidentiality be restored? This requires a lot of discussion and legislation to make a meaningful impact. These background check companies will not go down without putting up a lobbying fight.