BF2S Forums How much information should employers be allowed?

he can't ignore it because i'm calling out his ostentation and it makes him angry. two literary references in two consecutive posts. the guy is going for term-paper gold.

i still dont think there should be a drug test. that's like saying oh since you drink alcohol you might come to work drunk and destroy shit. just because someone smokes weed every now and then with their mates doesn't make them high 24/7.

BVC wrote:

Drug testing & criminal history checks?  If I'm hiring cashiers or bank tellers I don't want someone with a history of petty theft/dishonesty offences.  And if I'm hiring dozer/forklift drivers I don't want some who turns up to work baked.

Naysayers cry all you want, being stoned on heavy machinery WILL turn you into a sloppy operator, and WILL put your colleagues at risk.  I've seen plenty of people fuck up, and I've even done a couple of minors myself on a forklight after a night of hot kniving.

Thats kind of obvious though isn't it?  We're not arguing about criminal history/drug checks.  No one here is saying that.  Employers snooping around on your facebook has nothing to do with background checks.  They are two completely different things.  Unless, of course, you're referring to dumbasses who talk about weed and alcohol on facebook and then go drive forklifts.

Spearhead wrote:

BVC wrote:

Drug testing & criminal history checks?  If I'm hiring cashiers or bank tellers I don't want someone with a history of petty theft/dishonesty offences.  And if I'm hiring dozer/forklift drivers I don't want some who turns up to work baked.

Naysayers cry all you want, being stoned on heavy machinery WILL turn you into a sloppy operator, and WILL put your colleagues at risk.  I've seen plenty of people fuck up, and I've even done a couple of minors myself on a forklight after a night of hot kniving.

Thats kind of obvious though isn't it?  We're not arguing about criminal history/drug checks.  No one here is saying that.  Employers snooping around on your facebook has nothing to do with background checks.  They are two completely different things.  Unless, of course, you're referring to dumbasses who talk about weed and alcohol on facebook and then go drive forklifts.

If I went to a job interview and they asked for a drug test I'd tell them to get fucked and walk out, and I don't even take drugs.

Jaekus wrote:

In my previous job it was a legal requirement that I took a national police check. They paid for it so I didn't mind, seeing as I've never been arrested for anything, let alone convicted.

yes but is it fair for people who do have previous (spent) convictions? i thought the idea of justice was that you served the punishment given to you by the court authority/state, and then you had 'balanced the books'. i think there should only be a very narrow band of crimes that should be listed as 'public interest', e.g. violence, severe mental illness/debility, and things like paedophilia or sexual offences. these are obviously crimes of a nature that an employer should know about, for their own personal safety, and to ensure that any aspect of their business that deals with the public isn't put at undue risk.

however when employers request a back-ground check and filter out people's resumés because they served time for a crime 20 years ago, or because they have a history of alcoholism that they're trying to put behind them, etc. then this ends up being another level of prying into individuals' personal life that is unjust, imo. people should be judged primarily on their competency/qualification to do the job. what happens nowadays, particularly in industries that are competitive, is that people use background checks or personal references as another filter-method of sorting out 'undesirable' candidates. that doesn't help anyone. for an ex-felon or someone with a stupid minor conviction (e.g. shoplifting, vandalism, public disorder offences, etc.) this is basically just the justice system coming around to bite them in the ass, even after they've served the punishment already. it is fundamentally unjust.

Extra Medium wrote:

Background checks, drug screens, criminal history, job history, driving records and credit checks.

Thats all, no more.

what more could an employer even ask for? your wife's cup size?

i would be very weirded out if an employer wanted a hair sample. for a start, chromosomatic analysis is pretty expensive, so they'd probably sooner ask you for your urine.

yeah but i mean if you're going to hire someone to have anal and oral congress with, you need the AIDS test done.

Spearhead wrote:

Thats kind of obvious though isn't it?  We're not arguing about criminal history/drug checks.  No one here is saying that.  Employers snooping around on your facebook has nothing to do with background checks.  They are two completely different things.  Unless, of course, you're referring to dumbasses who talk about weed and alcohol on facebook and then go drive forklifts.

Sometimes in this debate people just don't get it, and you just need to state the obvious if you want to even attempt to get your point across.

For example:

DrunkFace wrote:

If I went to a job interview and they asked for a drug test I'd tell them to get fucked and walk out, and I don't even take drugs.

^ A poster who clearly doesn't understand the importance of safety-driven drug tests.  Note that word: safety.  Doesn't mean universal test, that I'm opposed to.

parking offences would come up on a background check here, that's the thing.

krazed wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Extra Medium wrote:

Facebook/MySpece/Twitter usernames, DNA samples, firearm registrations, hair sample.

You can find out if someone got a parking ticket but not if they own an arsenal. Makes sense

do parking tickets come up on a criminal background check?

also you're stupid

I know you like your guns and pray for the day you can shoot someone legally but if someones drug use makes them a liability in a high stress environment or speaks to their character then so should someone's stockpiling of weapons.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

In my previous job it was a legal requirement that I took a national police check. They paid for it so I didn't mind, seeing as I've never been arrested for anything, let alone convicted.

yes but is it fair for people who do have previous (spent) convictions? i thought the idea of justice was that you served the punishment given to you by the court authority/state, and then you had 'balanced the books'. i think there should only be a very narrow band of crimes that should be listed as 'public interest', e.g. violence, severe mental illness/debility, and things like paedophilia or sexual offences. these are obviously crimes of a nature that an employer should know about, for their own personal safety, and to ensure that any aspect of their business that deals with the public isn't put at undue risk.

however when employers request a back-ground check and filter out people's resumés because they served time for a crime 20 years ago, or because they have a history of alcoholism that they're trying to put behind them, etc. then this ends up being another level of prying into individuals' personal life that is unjust, imo. people should be judged primarily on their competency/qualification to do the job. what happens nowadays, particularly in industries that are competitive, is that people use background checks or personal references as another filter-method of sorting out 'undesirable' candidates. that doesn't help anyone. for an ex-felon or someone with a stupid minor conviction (e.g. shoplifting, vandalism, public disorder offences, etc.) this is basically just the justice system coming around to bite them in the ass, even after they've served the punishment already. it is fundamentally unjust.

These days, with people rarely serving more than 1/3rd of their sentence, and most sentences being pitifully weak already, most people wouldn't really agree that the average crim has done his time and is due a second chance. Often they'll be laughing their bums off and ready to do it again.
That and the odd, minor, conviction is often the tip of the iceberg, and typically only comes after multiple warnings and cautions.

I don't even really agree with the concept of spent convictions. A criminal record is a criminal record, bad luck.
Why should the law-abiding have to meekly hold their tongues while a convicted criminal gets ahead of them?

Prison and a blighted future used to be the disincentives to crime, take away both and that doesn't leave a lot does it?

I'd go further personally, make life less convenient for criminals. For example, people with a history of alcohol, drugs and violence can't generally own firearms, they  shouldn't be allowed to own a vehicle bigger than a scooter, maybe that would remove some of the road-rage from the roads.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-06-06 04:00:56)