[GizzyGirl]

Why would a company pay for background check without meeting first to determine if they would like to possibly continue with this person. It would be a total waste of money, so there has to be a bigger picture hidden here and more laws coming? Or more tracking and then more accused discrimination? I don't know but it just doesn't make sense, why would anyone pay before at least one meeting?

[grania]

Could it be a first step in making background checks illegal? Could it give a person who reached the step of a background check a chance to scream "discrimination" if it's deemed by some court or law that's in place that the offense is not enough to get the person disqualified?

I'm just guessing. I'd think that anything that interferes with the hiring process can only lead to bad places.

[EBH]

I do a lot of ‘checking’ before sitting down with a potential employee these days.

I look at everything on their resume/application, make a few phone calls to references, check their social media, and if all that is clean...authorize a background check and credit check.

People who work for me have access to clients homes when the client is either not home, away on business, or on vacation. If they are already telling fibs on the resume/application...their out and no, I don’t want to waste time interviewing them or fielding repeat phone calls from them to find out if the got the job.

Is it time and money well spent for me to do all this...before the first interview? Yup!

[Vaquero]

your logic is sound. of course it is no business of the government to make the determination that it does not make economic sense.
Like you said....there must be something else in the wind....the bigger picture as you say.