Patrick seeks to limit background checks

Boston.com ^ | February 12, 2007 | By Andrea Estes

[BigFinn]

Governor Deval Patrick, returning to one of the more contentious issues of his campaign, has begun quietly putting together a plan to limit employers' access to the criminal records of potential employees.

Aides have been meeting with lawmakers and advocates working to limit the scope of the Criminal Offender Record Information law, which gives many employers broad access to criminal records. Activists argue that many applicants are rejected for jobs based on minor criminal convictions, crimes unrelated to the post, or records that contain errors.

[BigFinn]

I wonder if he objects to checking the backgrounds of pilots? What on earth are they smoking in that state?

[Ouderkirk]

I wonder if he objects to checking the backgrounds of gun owners.

[hometoroost]

I think his chief concern is that lawmakers will have trouble getting jobs when they leave office.

[keepitreal]

And when the employee of the repair company that comes into someone's home commits a crime, who will be sued, the governor or the company???

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

How about all people running for office or employed by the government provide their FBI files to the public?

[mewzilla]

What's the matter, Patrick? Folks not bugging out of MA fast enough for ya?

[Squawk 8888]

This is absurd. For ex-cons who really have cleaned up their act, there are ways of having the record expunged. The only legitimate concerns are the accuracy of the records and the branding of "sex offenders" by vindictive ex-spouses.

[Paine in the Neck]

And when the employee of the repair company that comes into someone's home commits a crime, who will be sued, the governor or the company???

Of course, we all know the answer to that. MA is so anti-business it's hard to believe they could be more so -- but, alas, they'll try and succeed.

[RexBeach]

You are correct, mewzilla. The stampede will get worse as Mr. Patrick plays "King for a Day" every day for the next four years.

I am so delighted to have left Massachusetts 30 years ago. I never regretted that move for a moment.

[Gay State Conservative]

It's not unreasonable for an employer to deny *any* potential employee a job for *any* criminal conviction,regardless of how "minor" the crime and regardless of how indirect the connection might be between the crime and the job being sought.

[Gay State Conservative]

You are correct, mewzilla. The stampede will get worse as Mr. Patrick plays "King for a Day" every day for the next four years.

It might not be four years.It's common knowledge here that The Devaluator's real ambition is a Senate seat.

Teddy's liver has gotta be on the verge of collapse and Kerry certainly could perish in a windsurfing accident.....

[pabianice]

Lawful gun-owners, however, will still be checked at every renewal...

[keepitreal]

How discriminatory of you! Why would an employer assume that just because a guy writes hot checks he might steal from a customer, or if he beat up his wife he might hit a fellow employee, or if he has a DUI he might drink while driving a company vehicle? /sarc

[Brad from Tennessee]

Why doesn't the commonwealth hire these people? They would fit right in with the Massachusetts legislature and the bureaucracy.

[TYVets]

Only in Massachusetts, how many times has that been said?

[delphirogatio]

And, in this day of "discrimination this" and "discrimination that" the employer will usually have a reason besides a conviction for a minor crime unrelated to the position itself as the reason for not hiring the person. It might contribute to the overall decision, but that's all. His argument is a red herring.

[Gay State Conservative]

I've never had hiring authority during my working life but if I did I'd refuse to hire anyone with any kind of criminal background...regardless of how minor and regardless of how long ago it was or how old the person was when the crime(s) was/were committed.

[tiger-one]

I feel sorry for you folks from MA, but this may save NH, my state from being overrun by the criminals form MA. Maybe even our bad guys, and those from your state who decided to "work" up here will go back.

Thanks Patty D.

[Titan Magroyne]

Bad, bad idea.

And who's to decide if any particular offense is relevant to a position for hire, the gate keepers of information???

From my own personal experience, I'd say it's relevant that a person is of a criminal mindset, period, no matter the nature of the offenses. I learned the hard way to avoid entanglement with my jailbird neighbors.

[jackieaxe]

What on earth are they smoking in that state?

How dare you ask. You sound like someone who would deny someone a job who is "turning their life around" over something small like armed robbery or aggravated assault. /sarcasm