In the USA, background checks are often just part of the process. There's an entire industry built around providing the service.
Restriction on action which does not involve using violence against others is restricting freedom in any proper liberal model of the word. That goes for everything from prostitution to drug use, and it absolutely includes being able to research information about other people you're going to work with.
It's hilarious that a place like Norway, which eg thinks publishing open salaries is to be touted, is then magically closed on checking other information about a person. So which is it, open information or not culturally? It's contradictory, arbitrary horseshit is what it is.
The position is philosophically identical to claiming that speech must be heavily restricted to be truly free (ie free of "hate" etc.). It's nothing more than intellectual infantilism, part of the mental immaturing and weakening of the West. It's Orwell-think, inverting everything; more restriction on personal action is freedom, more restriction on speech is free speech.
> It's Orwell-think
Hilarious in a comment stating the US position is the correct one. I'd like to know of an example of another nation that is more or even on the same level of Orwellian as the US? I can't even think of one historically, far from it today. Of course the US way of thinking would require you to yell CHINAMAN or RED RUSSIAN now as loud as you can, but in reality neither have near as Orwellian a state as the U.S. of NSA.
No, infantilism is being unable to contextualise freedom and see it in its proper communal and social context. Handing private entities the ability to engage in surveillance against their fellow citizens isn't freedom, it's eroding the very basis of freedom. It's creating a private panopticon in which everyone is constantly conditioned to behave and comply. That is actually what modern American society is by the way, literally infantilized. Students are being policed by their universities, children by theire hyper-religious parents, minorities by their neighbours ring doorbells, and workers by their companies, no state required.
The proper way to understand the liberal tradition and apply it today is to understand that the liberal tradition is concerned with threats to individual freedom, period. 200 years ago, in early capitalist times, citizens were equal and the state was powerful. Today private power and surveillance is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous, than anything the American government can come up with.
The liberal tradition applied today, by the spirit rather than the letter of the law and its proper intent, must be concerned with stopping citizens and private firms from controlling each others lives, rather than be obsessed with some 18th century homesteading logic or 'voluntary contracts'.
People with access to power or money either don't need to interview for jobs, or don't have criminal records that complicate that process.
So, they are more free by default. Not only do these checks not affect them directly, they create a nerf on a whole set of other people, which creates a contrast of freedom.
I do not think many would go out in public and say they like seeing the poor unfairly burdened. However, I believe in many cases groups in the United States have chosen "power over principals."
This is where the choice to protect power supersedes choosing to act principals or professed beliefs.
I do not think this is a new thing, though I think it has never been so public and given today's politics the contrast is particularly stark.
On the contrary, many Americans support policies that are against many ideas of freedom such as the disenfranchisement of felons.
For example, someone might use an example of being able to deny a LGBTQ person a service as "having freedoms" but ignore the fact that by denying them that service, that person is also simultaneously less free.
"Freedom" is used a lot when politics comes up not because it is a way to justify political positions but because politics is to a great degree the arguing of whose freedoms trumps another's under what circumstances.
Not at all, that's not what freedom of religion is.
I can practice a Mayan or Inca religion by myself - that's freedom of religion - but I cannot allow it to affect other people's life e.g. by organizing human sacrifices.
Also not being able to practice ritual sacrifice if it is part of your faith is a violation of your religious freedom. We as society have made the decision that the right to life is a greater right than your right to freely practice your religion but it is still a violation of your right. It is just another example of how in a functioning society decisions have to be constantly be made regarding whose rights are greater than someone else's under what circumstances.
That's a strawman.
> Also not being able to practice ritual sacrifice if it is part of your faith is a violation of your religious freedom.
No, it's not. The ritual is not illegal in its religious aspect. Harming the other person is illegal.
By the same logic I could claim that running someone over is freedom of movement. It's not.
In some places that are less free, these things are frowned upon.
Edit: you can read about the freedom to move about in nature in certain countries here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam
Take for example the freedom to move about freely in nature without having to worry about property lines. This most definitely affects the property rights of others and their freedom to do as they wish with their property. I'm not saying that your freedom of movement shouldn't out rank their property rights and the freedom to do as they will with their own property but it certainly impacts their freedoms.
In my opinion, someone having a problem with people taking a walk in their forest need help.
(And yes, I grew up on a property that has a forest, and yes, when encountering people going for a walk or gathering mushrooms, one says «hello» and smiles)
EDIT 1: A quick look shows a guidebook for employers which references this, but the link to the Texas state code talks about in-home employees. https://www.twc.texas.gov/news/efte/references_background_ch... I'm still unsure about the law related to other kinds of employees.
I remember when I lived in Australia, my friends told me that many crimes do not show up on background checks after 5 years. Also in Australia, the sex offender registry is confidential, and can only be checked for very specific things (jobs involving children, certain types of housing, etc.)
In the US, there are ways of getting records expunged for some crimes, but due to freedom of speech laws/1st amendment, typically background check companies are free to hold on to older records if they were at one time public.
I know in the EU, many countries have right to be forgotten laws, but the EFF has historically stood against them due to the fact they've often been used by wealthy individuals to hide their crimes.
Ironically, the country itself was at that time well-known for its opaque finantial practices.
Programmers can get a free pass for a lot of things here though.
Fun fact is that you need this note even if your dealing with another government agency.
When applying for Bulgarian citizenship, I was required to obtain such note. I would have guessed that they have more reliable ways of telling if someone actually is in an active police case, but no, they want that “note”. No web service to actually do this. I mean they could have just called the police department or something... I had to spend a good part of a day waiting there just to get it... </rant>
These are not even really relevant, since in most places it's considered unethical or even illegal for journalists (or anyone really) to publish names of suspects or convicted common* criminals. You will generally read "Man/Woman convicted for X" and sometimes just their first name.
This is a consequence of systems that mostly focus on rehabilitation and reintegration. Having your name show up in newspaper articles would seriously hinder that.
If your main focus was punishment instead, then publishing the names of criminals just goes well with that.
And finally you can't just ask to see the criminal history of X, and it would be illegal to discriminate based on such knowledge if it is not relevant to the job. In Germany only yourself can obtain your own criminal record (Führungszeugnis) - your employer can't obtain it directly. It's generally thought to be illegal for an employer to ask you for this (it was never tested in court though, because nobody was stupid enough to try). The only exception are if you will be working with minors or if it's specifically relevant to your job (compliance officers, financial stuff...).
*If you are a high-profile individual you are fair game. For instance the Wirecard CEO and COO.
That is true, but it is however often illegal for employers to base a hiring or firing decision on expunged records. So background check companies do generally try to comply with record expungement as it protects their customers from liability. However due to the complexity and variety of laws on expungement and lack of direct consequences for them they frequently fail at it.
Working with children may require that you provide extract from the criminal record, but only certain crimes (violence, child abuse, sex offences, drug offences, human trafficking etc.) are considered.
due to the fact they've often been used by [anyone who commits a crime] to hide their crimes.
Some examples that I know personally: sports club gun trainer (precision shooting is an Olympic game); policeman; any job as security guard, driver on armored cars that carry money from banks etc.
I think for cashiers there is a similar requirement, not 100% sure. It was ~ 20 years ago, but laws change from time to time.
Not so funny is when I had to go to the police section, take such a "clean bill of criminal record" from one office and give it to another policemen at the next office 5 meters away. It was the third time that month because I needed some certificate that had cascaded requirements to have other certificates that also depended on this bills and each required a separate bill in the list of documents.
Denmark - I have a friend who was asked to provide something like a proof of not being prosecuted for a an engineering position, while another colleague who applied and for the same position wasn't asked for one. The difference between the two was the country they were from with, I'm guessing, appearance of the former one playing a role. The guy looks like a bouncer with his 1.90 height, 100 kg of muscle and a crooked nose from being an ex amateur boxer (under the appearance he is a teddy bear).
I have never really thought about it that deeply but it seems like a decent way of doing things. I really like that your employer can't just look it up.
We also have a system known as police vetting, which is a far more intrusive background check, and includes not just actual convictions but also mere encounters with the police, warnings, etc. Police vetting can only be requested for roles that involve working with vulnerable adults or children.
In all cases the candidate must (a) consent, and (b) be supplied with a copy of the results. Overall I think this is a good system though there are some areas for improvement.
obviously I don't pursue jobs that require a clearance level. I once got in an exchange with a recruiter:
"do you have [clearance]?"
"I wouldn't want to work anywhere that requires it"
"Oh, you wouldn't be able to work here without it"
"No, I wouldn't want to work with you if you require it"
"No, you wouldn't be able to work here without it"
...
- I guess we were both rite.
At the time I worked at a small web hosting company, we had her personal homepage for free since she was my sis.
Suddenly she calls me from the states telling me I need to go into her website and edit out some links.
Apparently lawyers working for the school where she was applying to work had found her homepage (which she made under an alias and afaik had no references to her person) and didn't like some of the links on it.
I'm still blown away by this. The links were about certain sexual fetishes, but again, her website was under a pseudonym. I have no idea how they connected it to her. Could have been something dead simple like her using an e-mail address on the same domain, or using her pseudonym in her e-mail address on hotmail. She wasn't that careful about remaining anonymous, it was just a thing back then that people would have alter-egos online.
A background check is, in my experience, unusal for renters in Canada, but that might just be my bias, having mostly rented from slumlords and acquaintances.
I know some of this has historical/data underpinnings on experience, but fear most of it is based on biased expectations.
In my experience you will more likely see it if you are in a shop that is paying below market. I.e. Devs there make 10k less than other local shops.
We wound up with some interesting folks. Got to see what someone going through methadone withdrawals looks like. On the other hand, a few people got some really meaningful second chances at a career there.