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.

[mewzilla]

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

Last I heard, if this keeps up, to the tune of one or two House seats.

Way to go, 'Rats!

[Unmarked Package]

This is just the most recent action by the far leftist Governor who is soft on crime.

One of the first actions taken by Gov. Deval Patrick upon taking office was to rescind the state and federal agreement, arranged by former Gov. Romney, which allowed Massachusetts state troopers to arrest illegal aliens when troopers encounter them in the normal course of their duties.

[Myrddin]

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.

Old Welsh Proverb: "A man who would steal an egg will steal more."

[CTOCS]

When I interview for store clerks, I hand them the application and ask them to fill it out. While they're doing that, I inform them that I will run criminal background checks on them and do a drug screen.

Fully 8 out of 10 hand the application back to me and walk out, calling me a "Racist MF'er." (And that's just the women!)

[Titan Magroyne]

Preachin' to the choir, preachin' to the choir. :-D

[lady lawyer]

Patrick's only concern is that so many black people have criminal records. He is helping out his homies.

[Dante3]

Probably. Maybe he does not want to limit pedophiles' access to children.

[JimRed]

The background check merely confirms the answer to the standard question "have you been convicted of a crime". If the applicant lied, he should not be considered.

[Gay State Conservative]

Fully 8 out of 10 hand the application back to me and walk out, calling me a "Racist MF'er." (And that's just the women!)

I ain't no lawyer,but I'll wager that you'd be wise to do exactly the same thing with *all* applicants,lest someone hires a lawyer trained at the Jesse Jackson School of Law and sue you in Federal *and* state court.

[JimRed]

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

They should not be there long enough to get in trouble. TERM LIMITS, NOW! < /attempted thread hijack > ;^)

[CTOCS]

I was being facetious at the end. All applicants are treated the same.

[em2vn]

".... there are ways of having the record expunged."
Can you name a few? I'm very interested as to how such a thing is done.

[Squawk 8888]

Some states and Canada have a process of obtaining a judicial pardon. It usually involves keeping a clean record for a number of years after the sentence has been served.

[delphirogatio]

A friend of mine worked in a glass factory (nasty business that, what with untempered sheets of glass like razors literally flying around that place!). Anyway, there was a department that was especially dangerous with minor accidents all the time. She hired tattooed people (many with records) to staff that department. Her logic? If they're not afraid to get a tattoo on their neck, they won't be afraid of a little flying glass. Now, where did all these ex-cons come from? The local government employment commission...whom you DO NOT want on your bad side. Priceless.

[MMcC]

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.

That may be the reason you've never had hiring authority. If a person is talented and can do the job, there is no reason to hold a minor long ago incident against them. Do that and you potentially cheat yourself and your company. I absolutely look at a persons past, but I don't automatically disqualify a good candidate. It just raises a red flag that causes me to make sure I have a satisfactory explanation.

One of the best programmers I ever hired had been arrested for assault from a fight he had in a college bar years earlier. I'd have been a fool to let that stop me from hiring this guy.

[ziggy_dlo]

So let's say that the roles were changed. Let's say that you yourself had stolen some bread for your family because you had no money.

You get thrown in jail and get a charge for petty theft. I know that this is far fetched and in no way am I saying that you have done this.

Lets say that a potential employer finds out. Do you want them to say no because of something like that?

There are people who have made mistakes and they are truly sorry. IMHO, they should not be turned down for a job after they have paid back society, done their time, and are truly sorry. Apparently you do. So your type of thinking will lead to more people being on government funded healthcare and having their hands stuck out like the people out of Katrina. So more taxes will come from your business and out of your paychecks because they cannot find a job.

Oh, I almost forgot. Thanks for your selfish attitude. It is people like you that help ruin this country.

[Gay State Conservative]

If a person is talented and can do the job, there is no reason to hold a minor long ago incident against them.

My attitude goes something like this....I'm well into middle age and yet I've never been a defendant in a criminal case and have been a "respondent" in one civil case...a traffic violation that carried a maximum penalty of a $100 fine.I fought that case and it was dismissed by the judge because it had been revealed in the local paper that the police chief of the town where I was ticketed had established a secret quota of traffic tickets for his officers to write.A number of other similar cases were dismissed by the District Court which served that town.

Soooo...I figure that if I've been able to keep a completely clean criminal record in both civilian and military courts,and did so with no difficulty whatever, others can do so as well.I wouldn't expect anything of others that I haven't achieved myself.

[Gay State Conservative]

If a person is talented and can do the job, there is no reason to hold a minor long ago incident against them.

That's essentially the same attitude that the ACLU takes toward the INS...a topic that your profile suggests is dear to your heart.

And although I didn't specify this in post #37,one of the things that I *distinctly* recall having been cited when I was growing up as one of the many reasons why one should avoid committing crimes was that a criminal record would make it difficult to get a job.Hearing this is one of many reasons why I chose a path in life which allows me to make the "boasts" contained in post #37.

[Lancey Howard]

Har! Massachusetts sounds like a great place to run a business!
Get outta that place - - don't be "the last white farmer in Zimbabwe".

[billbears]

I've never had hiring authority during my working life

After reading your attitude all I can say is thank goodness. Not all of us have perfect clean pasts. I have no major violations but did get charged with street racing (and a few other misdemeanors from that original charge) as a teenager. I just applied for a job and it came up. From over 18 years ago. I had completely forgotten about it. They manager asked me about it, we had a laugh over it, and I got the job. By your standard I shouldn't have gotten the job even though it has nothing to do with travel, driving, or anything of the sort.

BTW, you may want to check the bottom of your shoes when you get home. They may still be a little wet from walking on the water....