Law would delay background checks on job applicants
»Play Video
SEATTLE -- Looking for dirty laundry? You might have to wait.
Business owners in Seattle could be in for a surprise when it comes to how they hire people in the future.
"This is so wrong-headed and so ridiculous and I think it opens up employers to lawsuits," said Annie Davis, owner of a small Ballard business. "Most employers are not going to want to hire someone who has a felony conviction."
Under the proposed law,, it would be illegal for employers to do a criminal background check on a potential employee until after a conditional job offer has been made.
This allows applicants to have a fair shot regardless of their criminal past, argued Councilmember Bruce Harrell, sponsor of the legislation.
"This is a policy change that our society needs to embrace, our country needs to embrace when it comes to how we treat people who've committed crimes," Harrell said. "They've paid the time. They've paid their debt to society and they're just trying to find work."
Harrell argues that criminals continue to commit crimes if they're not given access to good, upstanding jobs. He also believes that public safety increases when job barriers are reduced.
"I think this is a smart approach," Harrell said. "We want to help these people get off the streets and into work."
Davis fears she could open herself up to a lawsuit by revoking a job offer based on a background check.
"I think that (Harrell is) coming from a good-hearted place," she said, "(but) I don't think it's the right thing to do."
Davis, owner of Annie's Nannies, a nanny agency, says all of her workers undergo rigorous background checks. Her office workers handle finances and would fall under the new law; nannies would likely be exempt because they work with children.
Other exemptions include employees who work with senior citizens, law enforcement, and employers who are required under federal law to inquire about criminal histories.
Harrell says employers would be protected from potential lawsuits under the legislation and points to places like Newark, NJ, and the state of Hawaii as success stories.
"What we're trying to do is encourage employers to look at the totality of the person," Harrell added. "We are denying people great opportunities to work because of a policy that discourages them up front"
Business owners in Seattle could be in for a surprise when it comes to how they hire people in the future.
"This is so wrong-headed and so ridiculous and I think it opens up employers to lawsuits," said Annie Davis, owner of a small Ballard business. "Most employers are not going to want to hire someone who has a felony conviction."
Under the proposed law,, it would be illegal for employers to do a criminal background check on a potential employee until after a conditional job offer has been made.
This allows applicants to have a fair shot regardless of their criminal past, argued Councilmember Bruce Harrell, sponsor of the legislation.
"This is a policy change that our society needs to embrace, our country needs to embrace when it comes to how we treat people who've committed crimes," Harrell said. "They've paid the time. They've paid their debt to society and they're just trying to find work."
Harrell argues that criminals continue to commit crimes if they're not given access to good, upstanding jobs. He also believes that public safety increases when job barriers are reduced.
"I think this is a smart approach," Harrell said. "We want to help these people get off the streets and into work."
Davis fears she could open herself up to a lawsuit by revoking a job offer based on a background check.
"I think that (Harrell is) coming from a good-hearted place," she said, "(but) I don't think it's the right thing to do."
Davis, owner of Annie's Nannies, a nanny agency, says all of her workers undergo rigorous background checks. Her office workers handle finances and would fall under the new law; nannies would likely be exempt because they work with children.
Other exemptions include employees who work with senior citizens, law enforcement, and employers who are required under federal law to inquire about criminal histories.
Harrell says employers would be protected from potential lawsuits under the legislation and points to places like Newark, NJ, and the state of Hawaii as success stories.
"What we're trying to do is encourage employers to look at the totality of the person," Harrell added. "We are denying people great opportunities to work because of a policy that discourages them up front"
It is the employers business that is at stake in some positions... we got a background check on our applicants talked to them about it and we still decided to 'give the person a chance' unfortunately these cases we tried this and we ended up having to fire them. Seriously businesses give felons with records a chance but honestly any felony has consequences and honestly if felons are disappointed at having that stamp they should have thought of that before they committed the crime...
I think this is great! I have a family member that made a mistake at 18 and has been paying for it ever since. He wants to work, but when asked if he was convicted of a felony, a potential employer wont even look at him. He committed the crime 10 years ago and hasn't reoffended! A provisional offer is just that, provisional, and if a background check came back dirty they don't have to formalize the deal!
"nannies would likely be exempt because they work with children." WTF? Shouldn't people working with children have a background check???
@Northend The law would keep employers from doing a background check, nannies would be exempt from the law which means they would still have a background check regardless of the law.
This is a hire at will state. I think asking businesses to follow this new law is B.S. When someone is convicted of a crime that is public record. Honestly, I think (most) employers are savvy enough to get around it because all this info is pretty much available on the internet.
Consequences for crimes include other things than just the time you do or don't do in jail.
Â
Actions have consequences. Â
Â
Employers should have the choice on whether to give someone a chance, or not. They should not be forced to hire blindly.
Â
I would take my business out of Seattle before I would submit to this insane proposed law.
Â
Â
 @newspuppy:Â
But for how many years or decades do you feel a person should have to pay? Say a person commits a minor crime (shoplifting) when they are 18, they are convicted, they do their sentence. Should that preclude them from getting hired when they are 30? When they are 40? When they are 50? How much is "enough" for holier-than-thou people like you?
I have mixed feelings abut this. I work for a company that was just purchased by a large corporation and this corporation fired one of our top employees who has been with our company over 10 years because of a 16 year old DUI which I completely disagree with. I do believe depending on what you were convicted of that some people do make mistakes and they should be allowed a 2nd chance. However I think it is a waste of time to go thru the interview process and hiring process to find out later that someone was convicted of rape, murder or child molestation or has been in and out of prison most fo their life. These types of people in my opinion do not deserve a 2nd chance.
 @tkyed If they've been in & out of jail multiple times, they've already had at least one 2nd chance & have used up that option. I totally agree that firing someone for a 16 year old DUI conviction (if that's the only issue) is unreasonable.
So my question is probably going to get me a lot of thumbs downs......how are those who have a record going to make a living? Is it to the discretion of the employer that they hire the person or not?
Â
Dave's killer bread was started by a guy with a record and does hire people with records.....I think that is a noble thing to do.
Â
What do you think?
@Vince -- I think, if you have a criminal record and are really trying to change your life, then you need to be upfront with your potential employer. You don't lie, you tell the truth and the whole truth. Too many people lie on applications when asked if they have ever been convicted of a crime. To me, that's a deal breaker if I find out in fact you were convicted of a crime. You've already lied, how can I trust you in the future?Â
@Bianca What about those that are refused a chance, even when they are completely honest? I see your point, but unfortunately not many companies would give someone the time of day!
@lgconservative Just because someone is honest regardless of how qualified they are that does not mean they deserve a chance. In my opinion it depends on the crime and how long ago it was. If someone has been in and out of prison their whole life then no and if someone went to prison for rape or hurting a child then no too. It all depends!!
It's like buying a house. You make an offer but it is based on the inspection report.
This proposal is a waste of time for the business. Instead of rejecting a person with a criminal past during the screening stage, they will have to reject those people after all the interviews have been done.
Â
You always hear stories about people turning their life around but you hear it in the media because those types of stories are that rare. Live with the decisions you made in life
 @Nathan Boi Wrong on so many levels.
Â
It is rare that the media reports on people turning their lives around. There are many who have turned their lives around, but cannot get a job because of hiring practices against those with records.
Â
Why not reject the person who is not qualified for the job? I obviously concede that certain jobs (school workers, daycares, etc) need extra scrutiny.
Â
Â
More Liberal Nonsense. If he wants to Hire felons then let him, but people who put their whole lives into their business want to find an Honest , hard working good citizen, and not have to rely on some liberal feel good law, that may get them sued.
 @sportbuff01 I am a pretty hardcore conservative besides in respect to gay rights and birth control, and this law makes sense. It simply rearranges the hiring process, it doesn't take away the rights of employers.
In my experience you get an offer letter that declares a salary/wage, and explains that the offer is conditional on you submitting a urinalysis sample within 48 hours and passing a background/credit check. Without knowing what their compensation will be, why should potential employees have to submit all their personal information? This proposal makes all kind of sense and if someone loses a job offer based on the result of the background check there is no one to blame but themselves.Â
@SoTweetie -- I agree. If you truely want to change your life, then just be upfront with what you did. Discuss it during the interview. Explain, explain, explain. This way it will not come as a shock when the employer finds your record, because they will. There are no secrets in 2013.Â
Unfortunately when an applicant puts on an application they have been convicted, regardless of what it is, they are usually tossed in the round file and not even given a chance to explain.
@swansong68 That is the real shame! Let's stop the cycle by allowing people the chance to change, and I think this proposal would help!
If Harrell wants to hug felons that much he is an idiot.Â
 @Citizen#3457899654 Shut up Citizen. People should be a second chance not all felonies are bad. One of my best friends, in college, spent $40 on two marijuana bags- one for him, one for his girlfriend.. got busted by the police for "Intent to Distribute" because there were 2 separate bags. Was he really intending to sell it- NO. He just bought 2 bags and didn't even smoke that much, it was a special thing for his 21st birthday. This felony charge has ruined his life. He was able to finally recover 10 years later is now The Director Of Operations at one of the most well known technology companies in the Seattle area. He makes well into 6 figures but struggled for almost 10 years with this. Stupid! So, think about what you say before you just throw out judgement because we all make mistakes and not every felony is bad- you are the idiot, idiot!Â
"Harrell argues that criminals continue to commit crimes if they're not given access to good, upstanding jobs" Are you freaking kidding me?? What does this guy really think that if someone was charged with let's say child molestation or maybe attempted murder that their life is supposed to be easy when they get out and they are entitled to be treated lke you or I?? Thsi si absurd. The good thing is that this is an at will state so employers are entitled to fire you for no reason at all whihc is exactly what I would do if I found out I hired a child molester.Â
 @tkyed People who get out of prison have served their time. Their punishment has been served as dictated by the law and the state. Why should their punishment continue under a cold callous heart like yours who doesn't even think about giving them a second chance? Life is hard and the continuing punishment once released back into society only happens when people like you are in charge - cold, hardhearted, and unwilling to forgive. Mind you, forgive does not equate forget.
Â
If the state deems them releasable back into society, then I believe society should afford them the same chance at jobs as others, with the exception of daycares, school workers, etc. Having a job is critical to their continued success.
Â
I'm not saying you should "hug a thug" Â - to borrow a phrase that I hate - but I do think a person should be given a chance at equal employment opportunities based on their skillsets, not their criminal record.
@commonHuskyfan Let me clarify what I was saying. I meant people that have been in and out of prison their whole life. Obviously when they were released the had a 2nd, 3rd and 4th chance but they chose to keep going back to crime. Also in my opinion there are certain crimes that one can commit where I do not feel like they deserve a 2nd chance. I have a beautiful 8 year old son and if I found out the guy sitting next to me at work had been to prison for killing a child there is no way in hell I would be able to control myself, kid or not!!
This council memeber is a total idiot, get your head out of where the sun never shines you mororn
He wants this law in place so the politicians voted out of office stand a chance of getting hired at a real job...
Remember, this is Bruce Harrell, the same guy who thinks that banning guns will keep criminals from using them.Harrell, go away before you destroy even more businesses in Seattle. Â
I should have re-read the story. Â He actually believes that Newark, New Jersey and Hawaii with their high crime rate are a "success" story.
Â
Explains it all. Â Murder, rape are okay if we can keep the numbers "tolerable"
So Seattle. Â Then the non-political people, the average person who actually works each day gets his home burglarized, his daughter raped, his son shot, or finds his neighbor mugged.
Â
Keep inviting vermin to live with you Seattle; stay a Sanctuary City. Â It worked well for Oakland California; it will work well for you. Â Meanwhile, the felons and convicts getting out of other state prisons are being welcomed with open arms.
Â
Who votes to elect a person like this to a City Council?
Want a fair shot at the job? Be up front about your criminal past with me on your applicationa and YES I am going to ask about it in the interview. we'll take it from there. That said I will still be running a background check and if you did in fact lie to me, guess what, I'm not hiring you.
@Jeff Valdez If all employers offered the same chance, there wouldn't be an issue. The issue are those employers who throw away an application without even talking to an applicant and getting an explanation.
This comment has been deleted
@Seattle So Jeff is a prick because he expects his employees to be honest? I think you have a skewed sense of what is right and wrong.
 @Surveyor1 How dare an employer expect his applicants and employees to be honest!  What's the world coming to?
 @Seattle  @Jeff Valdez Seems pretty even handed to me. Approach an employer with honest intent, be up front. If you are qualified, and you are considered, Jeff here would run a background check. If it all checks out, you are hired. How is that being a prick? Would you rather someone lied to a prospective employer and then get found out later? that's how you end up with a crap job history and back into crime.
@timbo8819 I don't have a criminal record but I would like to have you as a boss. Not everyone who has a record is a total loser. I agree, some just made a bad decision. Good for you in working around your obstacles to overcome. I am sure you are not looking for a pat on the back but, it's real life stories like this that give people hope and another chance. Congrats.
@TheBronze @Seattle @Jeff Valdez If only the world and the business world worked that way. There are lots of felony convictions to good people. 20 years ago I, while going through a nasty divorce,went to a bar had some drinks and watched a ballgame.IÂ got into an accident and hit someone breaking their leg on the way home. I was convicted for vehicular assault. Now I am not excusing my actions and in fact I deserved punishment and never have I whined one bit about that. However I am unemployable except for self employment. No employer is going to look past this when there are other applicants without a conviction. I have tons of experience with a terrific track record, I was never in trouble before or after, I never, never drink and drive, not once not one drink never. How many holier than though's can claim this. I raised a daughter instilling in her the same conviction with regards to driving after drinking.
At one point in my working career, I was in charge of hundreds of people and made the hiring decision on many many employees. I am not sure the total answer here but I do think at some point no matter the offense the person should be allowed to integrate back into society without prejudice. Good people sometimes make bad mistakes, should they pay certainly, for the rest of their life? I do not buy that. As an employer myself, I think that some past convictions if they pertain to the job should never go away. I would not hire someone with a theft back ground to handle money, I would not hire a sex offender to work with children. However most of the offenses are not of this nature, they are stupid mistakes by people. At some point in time - ten years or so these mistakes should fade into the pastÂ
If the "conditional" job approval includes the possibility of rejection if a felony conviction is found then I see no problem with changing the law. That caveat should absolve one from any kind of law suit or legal action for not hiring someone they find with an extensive record or a conviction that would be unacceptable to the employer. Â
 @LongBeachBum It's a solution in search of a problem.  It WILL in fact cost the employer more money because there will be lawsuits.  This is giving Felons rights that law abiding citizens don't have.  He's trying to make them a Protected Class.
It has been a long time coming, how do you stop the revolving doors to our prisons when people who screwed up and found themselves behind bars. Then you complicate the issue by not being able to get a job, that leaves only crime; as an occupation. Kids that get busted below 18 should have their records cleaned, unless they murdered someone or committed multiple serious crimes. There are good people out there that for some reason or another screwed up, why punish them forever?
 @darkhelmet Get busted, do your time. Get released, and work your way back up to a decent job. Look folks, when you go to jail,  you are punished for crimes against society. Just because you get out doesn't mean you get to go back to the life you had and the job status you had. Those things are earned. Trust has to be regained. You do that by fighting your way back up through crap jobs until you have enough time and experience to put your past crimes behind you. It isn't easy. But thats the price you pay.Â
@TheBronze :But how can someone "work your way back up to a decent job" when they cannot even get ANY job because a background check eliminated them before they ever even saw anyone or talked to anyone? Nobody is saying hand it all to them as if they had never left - the problem is that they cannot even get what you so politely term the "crap jobs". SAo, what alternatives are there when you have no job at all, no income, and need a place to stay, need to feed & cloth yourself, perhaps need medical care?
 @TheBronze @darkhelmet If you can't even get hired for the "crap jobs" because of a conviction for some stupid mistake done many years ago, how are you ever going to earn your way back into "acceptable" society?
 @TheBronze  @darkhelmet Time, education and experience will never amount to anything if you have a conviction.  That's the whole point of this forum, you appear to be missing the point, what you "earn" is moot if no one ever gives second chances!!!
Irony to see this article today, just got canned today for a felony on my record 16 years ago!! Â Wasn't even relevant to my job and never even asked me during my application process about convictions! Â Guess I'll be going back to the streets and doing things the only way I know how! Â To bad this came too late for many of us who try to do things right after bad decisions in our youthful past! Â This country spends too much time looking behind vs. forward at a blemish. Â Some of the best neighbors you have around you have convictions, sad to say this law won't do a shred of good either! This conditional offer of employment concept is a absolute joke and waste of time for all, it will merely have a notation that it's contingent on successfully passing a background check and if you have an issue - you're screwed still!! Â See you all on the streets!!!
@Vince Depare:Â
I would contact an employment law lawyer. Acfording to Washington State law, even if they DO ask, they can only go back 10 years. If they never asked you, how did it suddenly come to their attention? Did they suddenly change the terms of employment for everyone in the company (ie: gave blanket background checks)? You should definitely talk to someone about this.
 @LocalLady Yeah that's right! I'm sending out some apps and that is as far as they go back! I thought it was 7 but still, yeah that just ain't right!
 @Vince Depare So your response to being fired for an offense 16 years ago is to go start committing crimes?  Nice job.  Perhaps this is part of the problem pattern your employer noticed and decided to act upon.Â
Good job Troll
 @NWFreeman Wow! He's a troll? You make the claim that he's on the streets commiting crimes which he never said anywhere in his post, and you say he's a troll? You better take a good long look in the mirror before you call someone else a troll pal!
 @NWFreeman @Vince Depare Nowhere do I read that Vince is going to go start committing crimes because he lost his job. Who's really the troll here?
 @Vince Depare Can they really legally do that? That's ridiculous! They should not be allowed to do that to you, especially since it wasn't an issue upon hiring!