The obvious problem with such bills is that employers like to use more information to find better qualified candidates. There are already certain forbidden pieces of information, such as using the candidates gender+age to determine the likelihood that they will take maternity leave. However, since it is very easy for the employer to determine it without asking (does the candidate look like a young women), it is sometimes still done and hard to lawfully prevent.

Similarly, employers use heuristics to determine whether the candidate may steal (or perform other antisocial behaviour) from the employer. For example, past criminal history can help determine future criminal history. If that information is hidden, an employer can use a (much less accurate) heuristic and calculate the criminal record of the candidate based on the race [1].

The obvious argument for sealing criminal records is that the ex-con served his sentence, paid off his debt to society, and has been rehabilitated. However, I assume that most people do not believe that ex-cons are rehabilitated and rather look at the statistics of first offence rates vs recidivism to see that he opposite holds.

If the issue of temporary prison sentences turning into life sentences is to be fixed, the prison rehabilitation process needs to be changed. I'm not sure what the proper solution is (maybe a longer parole-like state where the ex-con is monitored more that average, or prison sentences that can be extended significantly is the prisoner is determined to have not rehabilitates sufficiently). But until then, laws like this will hurt non-ex-cons (who now have to compete against ex-cons) without helping society.

Somewhat unrelated, this quote from the article is just plain wrong

> We can bring more people into the workforce

More jobs won't be opened, rather the same jobs will be opened, but the pool of candidates will just grow.

[1] https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/sta...