Proposal would delay criminal background checks on job applicants
»Play Video
SEATTLE -- Business owners in Seattle could soon see some significant changes to the way they hire employees.
As it stands now, they can conduct a criminal background check on any job applicant prior to even granting an interview. But that rule could soon go by the wayside if one city councilman has his way.
Councilman Bruce Harrell believes people with criminal backgrounds are less likely to become repeat offenders if they have a better chance of entering the workforce. His proposal would prevent most employers in the city from viewing a job applicant's criminal record until late in the hiring process.
It might seem surprising, but many local business owners are in favor of the proposed legislation.
"I've interviewed, I've hired, I've worked with people with past criminal histories," said Greg Loyd, who manages Zeek's Pizza.
David Meinert, who owns the 5 Point Cafe, agrees.
"We need to create a level playing field," he said.
Meinert likes the idea so much he's already applying it, but he does have his concerns.
"Obviously, if I run a daycare I want to know if someone is a child molester," he said. "If someone is handling money I want to know if they've robbed a bank."
Harrell said more than 409,000 people have criminal records in King County and more than 114,000 people have arrest records in Seattle.
"There are many reasons why people recommit, and recidivism is so high because they can't get access to jobs," he said.
The law would also ban employers from denying jobs based solely on an applicant's criminal history. The rules wouldn't apply to jobs where employees work around vulnerable people or senior citizens, and there would be exceptions were public safety issues would trump the law.
"What we're saying is let's look at the person. Let's look at the human being, and then we make wise employment decisions from from there," Harrell said.
Harrell's proposal will next go to committee, and the full council is expected to vote on the issue in the next month or so.
As it stands now, they can conduct a criminal background check on any job applicant prior to even granting an interview. But that rule could soon go by the wayside if one city councilman has his way.
Councilman Bruce Harrell believes people with criminal backgrounds are less likely to become repeat offenders if they have a better chance of entering the workforce. His proposal would prevent most employers in the city from viewing a job applicant's criminal record until late in the hiring process.
It might seem surprising, but many local business owners are in favor of the proposed legislation.
"I've interviewed, I've hired, I've worked with people with past criminal histories," said Greg Loyd, who manages Zeek's Pizza.
David Meinert, who owns the 5 Point Cafe, agrees.
"We need to create a level playing field," he said.
Meinert likes the idea so much he's already applying it, but he does have his concerns.
"Obviously, if I run a daycare I want to know if someone is a child molester," he said. "If someone is handling money I want to know if they've robbed a bank."
Harrell said more than 409,000 people have criminal records in King County and more than 114,000 people have arrest records in Seattle.
"There are many reasons why people recommit, and recidivism is so high because they can't get access to jobs," he said.
The law would also ban employers from denying jobs based solely on an applicant's criminal history. The rules wouldn't apply to jobs where employees work around vulnerable people or senior citizens, and there would be exceptions were public safety issues would trump the law.
"What we're saying is let's look at the person. Let's look at the human being, and then we make wise employment decisions from from there," Harrell said.
Harrell's proposal will next go to committee, and the full council is expected to vote on the issue in the next month or so.
In our judicial system, we have a "let the punishment fit the crime" legislation...The same should apply in the job market..."let the qualifications fit the job"...i.e., if a person was arrested for driving on a suspended license 10 yrs ago, what does that have to do with applying for a job as a medical billing clerk ? Why can't we just use old-fashioned "common sense" ? I am a paralegal, and am constantly trying to get records sealed or expunged for a client who is trying to get his/her life back on track, and they don't even make it through the interview process , because of a very unfair "background check" policy of the company.
Â
Some companies simply will not hire you PERIOD, if you have a background of any kind. This happens constantly with Wal Mart and other major retailers. If their application states, "have you been arrested or charged with a crime within the past 10 years, and you answer NO, and they pull a background check and find that 15 years ago you had a charge, they should not be able hold that against you. The background check should be for the period in question on the application. Come on America's job market....? There are some great really good, hard-working people out there, that had it rough for a while...as the old saying goes..."don't throw the baby out WITH the bath water" ! !
 I hate having the government being more involved with small business decisions, but I love this proposal and hope it passes! Getting to know the person before the crime will without a doubt be helpful for ex-offenders to gain employment.
'Let him without sin be the first to cast the stone!'Â Â Â Â EVERYBODY DUCK !
STOP holding businesses accountable for the behavior of others. I WILL damn well hire who I want, and I could care less what the Mayor or Council think. See you in court, but with my family lawyer, it will be in about ten years. When we get there, my lawyer will be accompanied by a federal labor commission.
And behind the labor commission on the PLAINTIFF side where we will be sitting will be representatives of every watchdog group in this nation that tracks recidivist workplace crime. You have NO RIGHT to influence the climate of risk of my business. I had no problem bringing the REAL to Mayor park gun ban, who just plain don't want guys like Bill Gates and Paul Allen in the parks because of their armed security agents.
Hmm. Not sure what to think of this. Kind of a dicey situation.
Â
If someone is hired who was accidentally released as has happened recently and a co-worker or customer is seriously injured or killed, I'm thinking why provoke a completely avoidable tragedy?
Â
On the other side, maybe nothing will happen as a result of opting out of background checks, but I don't know that I want Bruce Harrell and business owners taking that risk on my behalf. Just sayin'.
I was in support of this as I was reading the article until I got to this:
Â
"The law would also ban employers from denying jobs based solely on an applicant's criminal history. The rules wouldn't apply to jobs where employees work around vulnerable people or senior citizens, and there would be exceptions were public safety issues would trump the law."
Â
What if you have a convicted bank robber applying for a bank teller position? What if you have an ex-pill popper who stole to support their habit applying as a pharmacy tech? How about someone convicted of animal cruelty working at a kennel?
Â
I don't like playing the "what if" game however in some instances those things need to be taken into consideration. Sure, the way the law is written now it protects those who are vunerable or elderly but what about other exceptions? This needs to be taken into consideration. Otherwise it could leave employers in a difficult position with criminals unfit for certain jobs hiding behind this law.
If you re-read the article again, you'll find that the part that made you change your mind IS NOT a quote from Councilman Harrell BUT an opinion added from KOMO 4!  There are no quotations around that part of the article that suggest Councilman Harrell said this as part of his proposal. Also - people might want to take note that KOMO 4 has CHANGED their headline AFTER misquoting Mr. Harrell because his proposal NEVER suggested that employers should or need to "BAN" doing crimial background checks!
@tlc.seattle I put it in quotations to show that it was part of the article. SMH.
@tlc.seattle Actually YOU need to reread the article. Just because it isn't in quotations doesn't mean that it isn't part of the law. Komo didn't just throw in their own opinion. That's part of the law, nitwit!
Why not just let the businesses decide for themselves how they want to handle their applications and hiring/firing of people? The governement needs to be running the government and not private businesses.
It's no wonder there is so much red tape and hurdles to jump through in doing business.
My office doesn't do background or credit checks - we have no problems and never have had with our 35 employees in this office, in fact most people are long term. 2 got DUI's last year, and it's no bodies business but theirs. Out in the field, our construction workers, a lot of them have backgrounds...come to work, do your job and go home - thats exactly what every single one of them do. I've talked to some of them - one did 13 years for possession and he's been with us for 10..in fact we promoted him to foreman.  As long as you come to work and do your work, no one else should care either.
Â
I'm telling you, just because someone has done a background check on you doesn't mean crap....no one knows what goes on behind closed doors.  And to all of you screaming that criminals need to be criminals forever, no breaks, no second chances - lol..I laugh at you because you think you're working around morally wonderful people and you really don't know. A cop once told me, people with records are only the ones who've been caught - the rest of us get to proclaim our innocence...
 @Jude That cop was wrong. SOME of us have never done anything worthy of being arrested, let alone convicted. SOME of us had pretty good ethics from childhood. Now, I will grant you, we're probably in the minority, but some of us never have to worry about 'getting caught'. EVER.
 @Commenter87643  @Jude And "some of us" are too self righteous to understand that we are all guilty of something.
 @Kerlanjoh  @Jude Are you just too young to understand that while all of us may be 'guilty' of SOMETHING, not everything is an arrestable offense, nor even a legal tort!
Â
Have I ever wronged someone? Sure. Have I ever wronged someone in such a way as to ever be taken to court over it? Yes, I have been at times unable to pay medical bills and have had a judgement against me because of it. I have paid those bills. Have I ever wronged someone in any other matter that would cause me to be arrested or even questioned? No, I have not.
Â
I'm sorry that it is apparently not within your experience to have ever dealt with somebody truly and completely honest.
@Jude  Wrong.
@Jude I agree with you to certain point Jude. However, if excriminal is a child molestar you would not want him working anywhere near a school or where children are located, would you? Even if they serve their time I would NEVER allow a child molester anywhere near my children. So I think back ground checks are necessary, however depending on the crime should determine if they get a certain job. There is no reason not to give some one with a possessions charge a job on a constuctions site or any other place unless that place is a pharmacy.
 @Jude Sounds like they should apply at your company and those like it. Where I work, we do heavy background checks because of the personal information of our customers that we have on file. It should be up to the employer whether they want to do a background check or not.
It absolutely amazes me that since the city has decided now enough with the crime that they or Mr. Harrell comes up with a ridicoules idea like this. How about cracking the whip and making it so these so called criminals are afraid to commit the crime to begin with!! How about tougher sentences? Enough with the 3rd, 4th or even 5th chances crap. I understand we can all make mistakes but some mistakes are inexcusable and therefore life should not be easy. Everyone has a choice as to how they want to live their life.
I think this might be more media sensationalism with half-ass reporting as usual to stir us all up and sit back and laugh at the comments on here.Â
Waste of time and money on this proposal , simply because it's unenforceable. Anyone can check out your background on line and the employer can say simply not call you back. Then what ?? prove the employer did a background check on you?? wright a bill that prevents an employer form firing you because of health issues to avoid paying insurance , But I guess an employer can fire for any reason they want. Find an honest employer . Good Luck.
 @realdeal But when you have taken care of crime, hunger, and everything else wrong in Seattle, what else is there to work on (to justify their salary)?
@boeman That's sarcasm, I hope!
@boeman Sooo True Don't forget police corruption, if we did a " through background " check on some of these guys in city counsel or police there could be a few new job opening. ohh wait this proposal would prevent that.
Yet another attempt to drive business OUT of Seattle. If a business doesn't want to do a criminal background check now, they don't have to. It would be done at the businesses expense. And the business OWNER has the decision to make concerning proceeding any further with applicant.
Â
Ever thought that the fear of a criminal background check prior to getting a job MIGHT deter someone from becoming a criminal in the first place? Probably not...
You want government, you don't want government. This law/rule is not a deal breaker for business. It does not say an employer can't ask if a person has aerrested. Also, this would not aplly for scholls and daycares or other sensitive jobs.
Why should everyone be assumed guilty of a past record until proven other wise.
Last time I checked, businesses are gowing in Seattle.
 @snoopy84 If it is on their record, they were guilty. Background checks don't show non-convictions.
 @TP  @snoopy84 They are not guilty of any new crimes and have already been punished for the past crimes. Why should someone and their families suffer for a mistake made in the past, especially when the person has stayed out of trouble since and is really rehabilitated. Recidivism is so high because past criminals can't get a job that pays for bills and if I have to commit more crimes just to keep my family from living in cardboard boxes, then what do you think I will do?
I have very mixed feeling on this. I think there should be a way to check a criminal history for the last 3-5 years for most things like theft and other non violent crimes, but things like assault, rape, molestation, etc should show up on a criminal background check forever. People make mistakes- every one makes mistakes.Â
Just what we need, more government control of private business.
Boo hoo. This is liberal crap. I wouldn't hire a criminal EVER.Â
@ObsidianOne You mean someone that showed up on a criminal check? Lots of people are criminals, they just haven't been caught or arrested.
 @Sovereign @Elaine2  Get real and read my post. Never, EVER would I hire a criminal.
 @ObsidianOne Why not? A coworker of mine served a prison sentence before being hired. He's a bright, hard-working guy, actually...and he turned his life around. It's people like you who make this particular proposed ban appealing.
I too know of an ex con who is a top employee of the company he/I work for. Guess where he learned his skill and trade? Yep, prison. Trained by the Fed's for the Fed's and now works in a Federal industry. He's the best employee we have. Hard working, dedicated, shows up on time every day and has not had one run in with the law since.
Hey once someone has done their time they should be hireable. Not sure why you say Ever how many people have you hired?
@iwantthis name  I've hired and fired many in my career. I don't want to work with a criminal and I would not put an employee or myself in the company of a criminal. Too many workers that want to work who have a clean record. So why would I do this?
@Jude  I've lived my life the best I can by following the laws. I've been fingerprinted as a member of the SEC, and two police departments, along with a background check for both. I've taken lie detector tests and passed. No, I am not perfect by all means, but I do have a choice about who I have around me and I'm 100% convinced it will not be a criminal.
@ObsidianOne - you have no idea who the people are that work for you...no idea. You think you do, but you dont. . I'd like to know what you classify as a 'criminal'. Just the people who have been caught? who have a record? Many people can seal a record, and you can't find out what's happened with them in their past. Personally, I have no problem with helping someone turn their life around. I'm not threatened in any way by them. Offenders are people who have committed a crime and who have worked through their punishement. They want to make a fresh start. Many people assume that people with criminal recoreds have a basic character flaw that is not found in the "normal" population. In the vast majority of cases these are "normal" people who have made a mistake and are ready to put it behind them. There are also Federal bonding programs to protect companies that hire someone with a record.
Â
No one in this world is perfect. Your life is not 100% clean - you've just not been caught.
@ObsidianOne While I do try to remain sympathetic to people from all walks of life, I have to agree with your point. There are tons of people out of work right now with no criminal record of any kind. Why open your business and your employees (and possibly yourself) to the risk of becoming the victim of a repeat offender when you can hire somebody else? The article talks about a need to level the playing field, I think that's complete BS. The playing field is tilted only against those who chose to tilt it with their poor decisions and I don't see anything unfair with suffering through the consequesces of your actions.
They should include not checking people's credit for jobs! Lots of us have bad credit, due to job loss and yet this keeps us out of work! This is something folks have less control over than if they commit a crime.
Another one is driving records when driving is not a part of the job. I remember applying for a customer service job dealing with the state employees medical plan - they wanted to run my DMV records & a credit check on me - neither of which applied to the job I would be doing (talking to members & providers on the phone about the medical plan, claims, benefits). I told them no, that I would not give them authorization to do so since it was not pertinant to the job I was applying for, and I was told that I would not be considered for the job if I did not agree to it. I repeated my "no" and walked out.
@Fir Queen I do agree they shouldn't be able to check people credit, but I don't agree with the criminal history.Â
 @MomOf2  @Fir So if I'm hiring for a bank teller, do you think I would want to know an applicant's credit history? If they owe a ton of $$ they may be prone to stealing $$$... It needs to be left up to the EMPLOYER, not government...
 @LocalLady If their credit history shows an habitual pattern of defaulting on loans, (NOT on medical bills etc.), you can safely assume one of two things. 1) The person does not have good decision making abilities...as in not knowing what he can realistically pay for within his budget (and just losing one or two jobs will not show that habit). or 2) The person lacks financial ethics, as in doesn't understand, whether willingly or not, that when a person borrows money, they really are obligated to pay it back.
Â
There are a BUNCH of people out there that seem to think that if their creditor does something that they don't like, that they're no longer obligated to pay their debt.
Â
I might hire someone with a bad credit report (again, not counting medical bills because those often can't be helped) to dig a ditch but I'll be counting shovels at the end of the shift. Any more responsibility than that, the person will need to be closely monitored and really, I don't want employees I need to monitor. I want to hire in order to save my time, not spend more of my time watching that employees don't steal from me.
So you are assuming that just because they owe money they would steal from you? That's what happens when you *assume*. Wouldn't it be better to give them the job so they can EARN money to pay back the money they owe? If they have never in their life committed a criminal act, why do you assume they will steal from you?
Every human being has a right to correct their mistakes and get on with life. We are a human family; a working, contributing citizen is far less likely to fall back into bad decision making than a person ostracized for previous unfortunate behavior. How many of us would want to be labeled as the worst thing we ever did?
@Tricia Layden Get real. Maybe In your mind they might have a right. Not in mine.Â
@Tricia Layden So what you are saying is that if someone goes to prison for 20 years for torturing a child to death they deserve a second chance and be able to live life as the rest of us?
 @tkyed  @Tricia It's not likely that someone would get just a little 20 year sentence for torturing a child to death, so your your hypothetical question is a little ridiculous.
@Sovereign @Tricia Not true!! This is WA and in case you haven't noticed we are extremely light on sentences. Remember the case of the African 11 or 12 year old who was found outside naked in her adoptive parents home with a mouth full of dirt. Yes she was tortured to death and the adoptive parents are serving less than 10 years. Either way it does not matter. You can not compare typical teenage crap to a killer, molester or rapist. And good luck finding someone who thinks that the adoptive parents of this poor little girl deserve a 2nd chance.