Employers in Illinois can no longer access criminal background checks on potential hires until after an interview is conducted.

Gov. Quinn signed into law this week a bill that prohibits private employers from asking applicants about their criminal history prior to determining if they are qualified for the job.

�Everyone deserves a second chance when it comes to getting a job,� Governor Quinn said in a press release. �This law will help ensure that people across Illinois get a fair shot to reach their full potential through their skills and qualifications, rather than past history. It will also help reduce recidivism, fight poverty and prevent violence in our communities by putting more people back to work.�

OK, I guess this is good news for embezzlers and drug dealers. Now, every bank can hire a (former) embezzler to count the money!

Apparently employers in Illinois have a lot of overhead to piss away. If I did a background check on every applicant before I finished interviews I'd go broke.

it's easy, you profile.

So government goes about business as usual?

Double standard laws should be stricken from the books.

So private schools and day cares can't check for child molesters?

What, you care if a prospective employee is a twice-convicted thief?

You have to interview them first, then run the check.

I believe that is what they are saying.

What's to stop an employer from asking on a job application ...

"Have you been convicted of a felony?"

Or something similar.

I spend a fair amount of time trying to get released felons hired into white-collar positions that they are not only qualified for, but better qualified for than anyone without a criminal record who'd be willing to work for the same pay.

I see a lot of silly behavior, stupid misconceptions, and baseless prejudice. (My guess is that I'm about to see a burst of all three right here on this thread.)

But for me, a law like that would be a complete disaster. If the background check has to be delayed until after the interview, then the very fact that a background check was conducted is evidence that the employer considered the candidate qualified for the job, which means that if he doesn't get the job because of an unrelated felony record, he can sue the employer, which means the employer isn't going to ever get within half a mile of anybody who even looks like he might possibly smell of a felony, just to avoid lawsuits.

Not only would such a law be a disaster for me and the guys I try to place: it would also be a disaster for folks who have never been to prison but for some reason look or sound like they might have been.

You don't eliminate prejudice by making laws against it. You eliminate prejudice by bringing it out into the open and turning it into a competitive disadvantage.

He's just being proactive.

With so many former Illinois governors having been in jail, or still in jail, Gov. Quinn is trying to make it easier for himself when he gets out of prison.

I'm thinking more employers will move out of Illinois

That way inner city Chicago can expand.

I'm sure that will be productive for the state.

What? Doesn't make sense. You mean after?

The interview costs employers a lot more money than the background check. You do it before the interview so your people don't waste time on interviewing criminals.

This new law is how progressive fascist politicians pander to members of the Ghetto Gangster class.

I wonder if employer will start using agencies to conduct the "interview" before the employee does the real interview.

The problem comes down the road in the form of lawsuits. This means when the interviewee gets asked that question he knows he's qualified for the job. If he is then not hired, he'll be able to say it's purely because of a pesky little criminal issue somewhere in his past. Courts will decide that employers will not be permitted to discriminate against felons.

Steve.

Sorry. Didn't read Barak's post before I posted. Great minds.

Steve.

The EEOC tried this once already, that criminal background checks discriminate against minorities - but the court laughed them out of the room.

They are regrouping.

the left is just following one of their main rules: If at first you don't succeed, then try, try again.

They NEVER give up.

I wonder if the state of Illinois will apply that same line of reasoning to background checks on prospective firearms purchasers ?

Mike

Many companies have applicants fill out or do a series of basic test. The entire process could take up to 4 months.

This usually includes: (all based on time limits.) Usually 20 to 50 questions.
1. Simple math
Like 2 + 5 = ___ answers are from - multiple choice answer
2. Complex math
Like 3 rolls of paper cost 69 cents what does 10 roll cost. again answers are from multiple choice.
3. Reading comprehension test.
4. Safety analysis test.

If you score well on this test you are then scheduled for a interview. All persons interviewed will be asked the same questions and each question will be scored on the answer that was provided to the questions from 0 to 10

Every one was asked to provide proof of a valid driver license, As most employees would at some time be driving a company vehicle. And if they were selected for an interview they had time to obtain a driver license prior to the interview.

If you scored well on your interview you were then subject to a drug test and back ground check. The score you obtain from the interview panel will determine your spot in the potential new hiring list. Example: with 20 questions a top score would be 200 and if you scored 167 and the next person scored 159 that is the score you live with.

If you pass the drug test and back ground check. The person is then slotted with their interview score on the potential hiring list. An example: In Chicago we needed to look at 100 persons to to obtain 3 potential hires that could pass the drug test.

I did job interviews for 5 years and the persons gender, age, race, religion, did not play into the hiring process.

Drug test failures were an automatic disqualification.

Back ground checks that brought up outstanding warrants, were potential disqualifications. However, The person was allowed to provide and explanation to the background check findings. With common names, sometimes a person with a clean record was tagged with someone else's record. Therefore the reason to allow a person to explain. With persons identity's being stolen at an alarming rate in the US, Allowing a person to provide an explanation was prudent.

If the person did not provide and explanation, we took that as not being interested in the job.

The company i worked for has hired, individuals with prison records and they went on to be good employees.

Liberals are such stupid little critters, eliminate discrimination by creating discrimination.........smart move.

No silly out burst from me but I am curious as to what type of help you offer. I'll assume it's with the application process and interviewing ?

As an Illinois employer I am offended. However, I don't think it affects me.

Because we handle cash and work well into the night, we have a gun at every desk. Applicants must have or obtain an FOID. (Firearm Owner's IDentification)

That's even cheaper than doing a background check - we let the State Police do it for us.

That's a good idea. Require that every employee get a FOID and a hunting license. That way you eliminate criminals and most progressive fascists.

Prejudice against criminals and progressives is justified.

LOL!

I understand and even somewhat agree with the intent, but the way they're doing this is insane.

Our treatment of released convicts is abhorent and it's really hard for them to get a job. If they have "paid their debt to society" then they ought to be able to return to society and have at least some chance of earning a living.

B U T!!! There are some classifications of convicts that are completely WRONG for a given job. Someone mentioned someone with a history of embezzlement. A private employer ought to be able to make a distinction.

How about private schools screening sexual predators?

And I can go on and on.

On the other side, I have met a few guys who did something dumb and were trying to turn their life around and are met with crazy resistance.

We need to to find a better way to treat ex-con's who are not a threat and are honestly looking to live a normal life. But this law is just crazy...freakin crazy.

If I were an employer in Illinois (I'd have the common sense to not ever start a business in Illinois, MD, or CA), I'd seriously be looking to make a move to free America.

In Iowa we have the Iowa Courts On Line. It's not a formal check but it's everything that is handled by the County Clerks in all 99 counties. https://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/ESAWebApp//DefaultFrame?in=1

This is all public and free. It does allow an employer the chance to sort folks out easier before a "formal" search is done.

Does Illinois have anything like that? If not, the governor and the legislature have gone full retard.

kwg

In my industry the application process is not particularly important. I help with resumes and interviewing, sure, but I also serve as a reference and an advocate for guys I know personally who are trying to get jobs. My record so far is three into paying IT jobs, one not into any job yet but doing well in college, and one back into prison on a parole violation.

Thank you. I would have been disappointed if you hadn't.

Well, they already get a second chance, its called a "halfway house".

How far away is Hicksville from Northern NJ..?

Does this law make it illegal for the employers to tell the candidates that if they have been convicted of a felony then they have no chance of being hired?

Also, can they have the candidate pay a $1,000 deposit before the interview that will be returned if they are found not to be felons?

This law was put on the books so the hiring process for Chicago Police Officers would go smoother .