Criminal history doesn't matter

Looks like the liberal dem’s got one thing they have been pushing in the big spending bill to keep the government open.

President Donald Trump is expected to sign a bill into law today that will bar the federal government and its contractors from asking about the criminal history of a job applicant prior to the extension of a conditional offer of employment.

That’s right. Until they extend a conditional offer of being hired, federal government and contractos will no longer be able to ask if you have a criminal history. Murder, embesslement, assault, fraud – you name it. They won’t know until they offer the person employment.

Something Libs have been pushing for – to let criminals back into the system essentially no questions asked.

Hopefully most will be smart and offer a job on condition of a clean and full background check.

Well, Trump* is signing it.

If they’ve served their time, do they never work again?


There’s hope for Weinstein yet.

I have my thoughts.

Would I hire someone that committed manslaughter on a construction site once he paid his debt to society…sure. But if I was daycare owner would I want someone that had been arrest and convicted of raping young kids?

■■■■ no.

So what do you do?


This law doesn’t prevent companies from doing background checks on prospective employees.

For jobs like child-care workers, I believe most states require background checks, as do countless federal government jobs.

This law will just ban “the box” - the line on a job application where it says “Check here if you’ve ever been convicted of a crime.”

It won’t force daycare centers to hire pedophiles, or any other nonsense like that.

1 Like

If someone broke the law and served their time (or completed whatever punishment was associated with their crime), if they are deemed the best candidate for an open public position I don’t think their past should hold them back.


Or Dennis Hastert.

Or Paul Manafort

Or Chris Collins

Or Duncan Hunter.

1 Like

I agree and think what the actual job is would determine if someone was qualified. Anthony Weiner shouldn’t be hired for any position that involves working with children, but are there other public positions he could be considered for? Sure.

1 Like

I guess it would matter the crime, for instance if they were a serial child molester and they were applying for an agency for overlooking children I think one would like to know.

I have no problem with ban the box.

My own company conducts comprehensive back ground checks for all positions.

But we DO hire people with checkered pasts under certain conditions. A conviction is NOT an automatic bar to employment for most positions, though it can be be for some.

Good change.

Personally…I agree with this. A person shouldn’t have to submit that until he’s offered a job but…on condition of a clean and full background check should be a mandatory part of the hiring process. Both sides are correct, if done in that manner IMO.

Do you think a full background check is necessary for every job?

What do you mean by “mandatory”?

Nor do I.

I recently hired someone who handles cash and credit card transactions in my company.

She was clearly a patsy for the previous company she’d worked for. I even spoke with her probation officer who echoed the same.

She was a great hire and damn, she deserves a chance. She is absolutely flourishing and a fantastic addition.

1 Like

Here is a list of PROMINENT LIBERALS:

  1. Harvey Weinstein
  2. Jeffrey Epstein
  3. Bill Clinton
  4. Matt Lauer
  5. Joe & Hunter Biden
  6. Woody Allen
  7. Kevin Spacey


:thinking: :confused:

Sure, why not?

Inmates serve their time, they need to find some sort of job. I don’t have a problem with this.

Matter of fact, I don’t support CORI checks, which don’t seem to keep out those who would most likely cause harm to students and patients & delay those who want to teach or even just volunteer some time from helping.

■■■■ CORI!