Background checks pay for Checkr, which just raised $100M • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by jjeaff » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 4:06 AM UTC

jstarfish wrote: post #75

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…

> just to play devil's advocate - would you get into an Uber if you knew the driver had 5 previous DUIs? 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…

Point is, there are lots of options as an employer. Might as well pick the one without a criminal record, all else being equal. And just imagine the lawsuit when someone sues you because of an accident and you hired the driver even though he had 5 DUIs.

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

#82

Post by numbsafari » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 12:52 PM UTC

dubrocks wrote: post #61

numbsafari wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I used to work for a video streaming site. They did background checks as a blanket policy for all employees. Personally, I disagree with that position. However, the team I worked for ran the subscriber management system, meaning we basically “ran the till”. For something like that, I think a credit monitoring service is appropriate. But for the rest of the team? It’s a waste and intrusive, and, as others point out, makes it hard for people with a record to reintegrate into society.

I don’t agree with blanket policies. Policies should be tailored to risks associated with the situation. Some jobs need it, most don’t.

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

#83

Post by Kalium » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 4:58 PM UTC

patmcc wrote: post #78

Kalium wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>>>a criminal history was not an bar to employment. These were not empty words. >>>required us to care about the pasts of the candidates Kind of sounds like they were empty words.

We would not have cared about, say, a past conviction for handling marijuana or anything vehicle related. We might have cared about a recent conviction for fraud. Honesty was paramount for that position, and choosing to lie to us was definitely a bar.

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

#84

Post by Kalium » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 5:03 PM UTC

ndespres wrote: post #76

Kalium wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Is it possible that you consider the flaw in the process to be of a different nature? Such as that there should under no circumstances be any interest in a person's criminal history in any hiring process? Yes. If, as you say, criminal history was not a bar to employment, why ask the question at all if you are going to run a background check anyhow? You contradict yourself by stating that "criminal history was not an…

> You contradict yourself by stating that "criminal history was not an bar to employment" but also that "The nature of the roles in question [...] required us to care about the pasts of the candidates."

I understand why you feel that way. Your heart is in the right place, and you care deeply about those suffering at the hands of a heartless society. Your blossoming of pure compassion is wonderful!

Yet, it's possible that you have not caught me in a contradiction. We would not have cared about, say, a past conviction for handling marijuana or anything vehicle related. We might have cared about a recent conviction for fraud. Honesty was paramount for that position, and choosing to lie to us was definitely a bar.

You're absolutely right that the applicant took a calculated risk and opted to lie. And we took a calculated risk by trusting their initial response. After that, we were much more cautious about waiting for background-check results.

I understand why you believe the question as you phrased it is better. It defers to the candidate's judgment and allows them to offer only the narrow bits of information that they think could be relevant. It maximizes their discretion and minimizes the risk of being discriminated against for a history that's over. It is, however, just possible that some might prefer to allow candidates the opportunity to be forthright, honest, and transparent?

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

#85

Post by Kalium » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 7:05 PM UTC

maaaats wrote: post #62

throwaway2041 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

What's sad is that in each of the cases I have encountered, the convictions that were concealed would not have been issues. It was the lying about them that did it.