Hacker News Reader

Comment by njovin | Hacker News Reader

Curious: why didn't you disclose to the employer up-front? I've had a few applicants do this. We don't discriminate for many minor crimes, but if I Google somebody or something comes up in a background check that's going to do more damage than if they'd just been up-front about it.

View on HN

>Curious: why didn't you disclose to the employer up-front?

Because he didn't want his chances of getting hired drop in 1/10th what they were...

>but if I Google somebody or something comes up in a background check that's going to do more damage than if they'd just been up-front about it.

Well, then that's the same attitude as the one that doesn't give them the job in the first place. What business is of yours, their employee, if they did jail time in their past, as long as they are good at their job? Why should they volunteer that information to you, not only since giving it such kills their chances in lots of other employees, but in principle too?

> Why should they volunteer that information to you, not only since giving it such kills their chances in lots of other employees, but in principle too?

Because lying on your application about past crimes will 100% get you fired but being upfront about it leaves a different impression?

But if they don't ask, then it should be ok to leave it out.

It is completely different.

If they ask you and you don't tell, it is a lie.

Imagine in a first date if you should say: I snore, every Wednesday I play soccer with my friends and arrive home somewhat drunk, and my family is full of assholes.

Imagine on a first date, your date tells you they're a convicted felon.

That may be a closer analogy. We're talking about someone's previous criminal history, not the fact that they snore.

Many companies ask for past crimes . And if someone lies he has no crimes, they get terminated once a background check is done (if it ever is). Majority of the time checks are not done and they most probably never will be. If a check is not done, and it hurts your chances if a you are honest, why be honest. So the general rule is you say there are no crimes. And only get removed when they do a background check.

> Majority of the time checks are not done

In the US, nearly every job I've had (not even sensitive jobs, just plain old programming gigs) has done a background check. They even go as far as verifying attendance dates at my University, etc.

> They even go as far as verifying attendance dates at my University, etc.

My goodness thats terrifying.

I once applied for a medical license and they wanted my high school records.... Really? it's not enough they have my college, medical school, residency, board certifications, etc. They STILL required your HS records ( and they had some GPA requirements on that too, I don't recall the specifics)

If I'm hiring, say, a developer or sysadmin who will have access to private data (financial, health, etc.) for millions of people it would be irresponsible of me not to check to see if the applicant had been convicted of any financial or data-related crime.

Being good at something does not automatically make you a trustworthy person just as having been convicted of something in the past doesn't automatically make you untrustworthy.

However, failing to disclose that you've been convicted of a crime that may be perceived as a possible red-flag or risk for a job you're interviewing for does, in my opinion demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness.

Note that I'm not saying the parent poster is untrustworthy. For all I know the crime he'd been convicted of had absolutely no relation to his job and he was young and perhaps not as wise at that point. I'm speaking only about my own views when interviewing and hiring technical people.

Those employees are typically bonded. I'm sure you know this, but you don't typically run a background check via Google when bonding employees..

> Curious: why didn't you disclose to the employer up-front?

a) I didn't know as I was 22 and this was my first time getting a job after everything happened, so I was ignorant of the process. The subject never came up during interviews or offer signing.

b) NYC has laws/rules (?) that don't let employers ask about criminal records before giving an offer. To me these laws are useless as I'd rather be rejected up front than accept an offer and then have to leave...

Anyway, the company was a CRM start up and their excuse was that their investors wanted everyone in the company to be clean because we handle customer data or whatever, so I doubt I would've gotten the job even if I had been up front. But, I love where I work now so it's all good.

What kind of crime did you commit? I can understand how a company might be wary of hiring someone who murdered or sexually assaulted someone, it's a lot more tolerable to hire someone who, say, sold drugs or committed theft in a time of financial crisis.

This seems like a half-solution though. It's not like those who have committed violent offenses don't need to work.

I’d extend this to say they not only need to work, but they need to be re-integrated into society as a full citizen after serving their time. I find this especially true if the crime committed is in no way related to the job they’re applying to.

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly.

Would you want to work in the same building as a convicted arsonist?

Is he a serial arsonist?

Do arsonists have a special propensity to burn their own workplaces?

I would think someone who committed murder had a better chance than someone who committed any significant property theft.

I thought who would decide how he would pay his debt to society were the judge, not the employer.

Explain that to your insurance company. If you hired a felon and you have a customer data breech, you are going to be in some trouble.

A clean start should be the norm, but their are idiots who have screwed it up for everyone else.

People who care don’t care.

Given the OP says he was 22 when getting hired the first time again, I doubt it can have been a serious crime, unless he had committed it at a very young age, which would put everything into another light, too.

I think someone convicted of financial crimes would be a much bigger concern than, say, a DWI.

> We don't discriminate for many minor crimes

Well that depends on your definition of "minor crimes" and you have no idea what the person you are responding to has been convicted of a "minor crime"

Further most companies do, even if unstated, discriminate based on criminal history.

>if I Google somebody

You should really stop that... You should not base hiring or any other choices off a google search, you are not getting accurate data.

> or something comes up in a background check that's going to do more damage than if they'd just been up-front about it.

That depends. Losing the job is all you are empowered to do thus it seems to me it is the same amount of damage

Reply on news.ycombinator.com