Background check question.

One other thing, most people don't know Ohio recently passed new legislation making it illegal to not hire a person based solely on past criminal convictions. Most applications for government jobs have removed the criminal conviction question from their applications entirely. Which begs the question, if HR and managers claim that they would still consider hiring an applicant if they criminal history, why even ask the question? What is the purpose of the application? It is to determine the applicant's qualifications. If a criminal conviction doesn't effect a person's ability to do a job, then why even ask the question on the application or why shouldn't the person leave the question blank. The answer is because it is a prejudicial question. An employer has no need to know that information. They can do a record check if they want; but, there is no need to offer up negative information that they do not need to know.

The PointGuru said:

If you leave the question blank, it is not a lie.

Thanks to the technology of online applications, leaving a question blank will result in you not even being able to submit the application. It will not continue if you don't answer the question.

I agree with you that employers shouldn't have access to the things they do, and that in most cases, past history (especially long past history) should not be held against an applicant. Unfortunately, in this country's push to be "business friendly" at any costs, there are virtually no laws protecting the rights of applicants/employees. It sucks, but that's very much the reality we live in.

That is an interesting point and I had forgotten about online applications. I am happy that you agree employers shouldn't have access to some things that could be held against an applicant that have no affect on a personas ability to do a job. That said, answer the criminal history question becomes more complex and admittedly more of a moral dilemma.

I believe the country's push has been to improve the economy which includes getting people back to work. That is why it is now illegal in Ohio to not hire someone with a criminal background for that reason alone. Are you trying to say that the park is allowed to ask illegal and unethical questions on its application but shame on the applicant if they don't want to disclose negative information that has nothing to do with the job? I would still say it's the individuals choice to decide how to answer the question. Given the choice of only 2 bad options on an application, the applicant should choose what is in their best interest. If the person loses the job later for that reason, at least in Ohio, the person very likely will get their job back with back pay because of the new law designed to eliminate the unfair question on applications. It may mean a lengthy lawsuit and chances are for a seasonal minimum wage job, most people will not want to spend the time, money and effort to fight the park. The park and HR know that. That is why the question remains on the application.

What is worse, lying to get information you don't need to determine if a person is qualified for a job or a person lying to protect their privacy and get a job? All I am saying is do what you think is best for you. The park doesn't have a problem doing what it thinks is in its best interest.

I'd like to see the proof that Ohio passed anything like that, particularly given how anti-worker the current state administration has been. Even if they did pass anything like that, I doubt it's really enforceable. Age discrimination is illegal too, but just look at how many people over the age of 40 are still out of work after the recession. It's just one of those things that while illegal, would be nearly impossible to prove, so therefore it's not really enforced.

First , your proof:

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/inquiries_arrest_conviction.cfm

and

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/05/25/bills-boost-job-hopes-of-former-offenders.html

The article from the Columbus paper mentions some 600 barriers for people with criminal backgrounds finding employment. One of the provisions in the Ohio law mirrors what the EEOC law has always been.

Yes, it is hard to prove and enforce discrimination in the workplace, which is my point. There is no need to volunteer the information to the employer even if they ask. Do not give employers information for which they could discriminate against an applicant. If they hire a person, the person turns out to be a good worker and later the company finds the criminal history so they fire the person, that makes it a lot easier to prove discrimination. Either the company has to admit they messed up by asking a question that has nothing to do with the persons employment or they have to try and invent some other reason why the person was fired. The park does this because it knows it can. We are mostly talking about seasonal workers and relatively speaking the small amount of money they make.

If the company knowingly participates illegal and unethical hiring practices because it know it will probably be able to get away with it; why is it wrong for an applicant to protect their interest by merely providing only the information they want to provide?

Pretty amazing that Ohio passed anything like that. It's a good first step. But the big thing is cited in the first link you posted: "There is no Federal law that clearly prohibits an employer from asking about arrest and conviction records." I didn't see anything in the Ohio law that prohibits it either. Therefore, asking an applicant (and forcing them to answer via electronic applications) is still perfectly legal.

Not answering the question is not an option, and lying on the application is still grounds for not getting hired or getting terminated if it's found out you lied. That's been my point all along. I agree with your premise, but in regards to the original poster's question, I still say answering honestly is the way to go.

I posted the news article for brevity. The Ohio law does clean up the Federal EEOC laws on discrimination. You left off the part about ... using criminal records as an absolute measure... and cannot be used that way.

For what it's worth, I agree. All things being equal, honesty is always the best policy. Problem is, all things aren't equal because companies are asking for information they don't need to know. You will find many lawyers that will disagree with you that lying on that question is grounds for removal. The company may try to use that as a reason and worry about a lawsuit later, and they usually do. That is not a fair and equal field. That is why I say the applicant should decide what is best for them.

Here's the problem with your entire argument:

If you have been convicted of a felony, chances are that you have a quite undesirable trait. A murderer has killed, a drug trafficker has participated in high risk activities, and a thief has taken what is not theirs. As someone who is seeking a career in rehabilitating these kinds of people, I understand that this does not necessarily carry over into their life--perhaps the murder was even justifiable, the drug trafficking or stealing was a poor result of a bad economy. But it might NOT be. And if it's not, what led up to these crimes? Does the murderer have a temper? Will that show up on the job? What about the dealer? Will illegal substances be passed around on park property? Will that person show up to work high and put other people at risk? How about the thief? Will things start going missing out of closets?

The answer might be no to all of the above, but it's exactly the employer's responsibility to make sure that their employees are not giant liabilities. Whether you like it or not, a criminal history--especially one with felonies--can point to serious mental, emotional, or personality issues that might not be resolved with a mandatory minimum sentence. It's unfortunate that some people with criminal backgrounds due to bad circumstances are lumped in with these people, but it's exactly the kind of thing that needs to be screened for. However, HR knows just as much as anyone else that being convicted of a crime DOESN'T necessarily put you in this category. That's why they do an interview--they see that you're, say, a sex offender but know that peeing on the side of the highway and raping children are two very different crimes that are lumped into the same group. By not divulging the information in the first place, it shows that you are untrustworthy--that you feel you should hide your conviction, that you haven't learned anything from it and moved on. It's a much worse sign.

To the original poster, my advice is to put it on there with as detailed an explanation as you can, why it happened, why it will never happen again, and what you learned from it. Begin this with a shortened version, since no employer wants to read your sob story for 20 pages--unless it's compelling and convincing in its shortest version. Then go on to explain in detail, since the more information you can give them, the fewer questions they'll need to ask. It doesn't keep you from employment, but it is a factor that they will need assurance on--they have to know that you're past that point in your life.

music-therapy-and-friendship said:
...That's why they do an interview--they see that you're, say, a sex offender but know that peeing on the side of the highway.

The problem with your argument is you don't get an interview. It gets immediately thrown in the shredder especially if you try to write some long sob story as to why you have a criminal history. HR and managers don't have time for that nonsense. I hope to god if you are going into the rehabilitation field you know that peeing on the side of the highway is not a sex offence and you are just trying to think of a minor offence.

Employers do have liability, that is why they are supposed to do record checks. Under no circumstances should you ever give an employer anymore negative information then you have to. It doesn't say you are untrustworthy, if HR and managers find the information they know why you didn't give them the information in the first place. They know it would be illegal to fire you for just that reason. If you do good work for the company they will keep you anyways.

Peeing on the side of a highway is indecent exposure and can, in many states (the biggest example being California) lead to a conviction which requires registry on a sex offenders list if children are present. It's not LIKELY, but it does happen on occasion.

Read more here, and at least do a rudimentary google search before you cast your doubts on a subject you obviously know little about: http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2013/03/can-public-urination-be-a-...fense.html

Now I'm not an employer and I won't pretend to be. Both of my parents, however, are employers who go through this process all the time and with much more important positions than "guy who dresses up like a werewolf." Straight from my mother's mouth: "If a background check turns up any criminal history that they refused to share, it's a red flag. I've hired sex offenders before because they were taking steps to turn their lives around and I saw that as a strength."

Now, unless you work for Cedar Point and you know for a fact that their policy is to throw aside any applications with criminal history listed, you have to make a lot of assumptions to get to the conclusion you're making. You seem to be making the claim that the only way to get a job is to employ the principals of "innocent until proven guilty." And frankly, you're right, if nothing comes of it and no one ever finds out, you'll probably be okay. But 1. I believe that you're making way too many assumptions about their hiring process--I have a few friends who got calls early in the hiring process (ones who have worked here before, so they're in a similar position to this guy, and ones who have never worked here before--though their calls came later) even though they suddenly have convictions for drug charges. It's not an automatic no because they know that they're hiring minimum wage workers at a not-so-top-of-the-line job and that everyone makes mistakes. 2. It is, however, an automatic no if you don't have the basic integrity to own up to your mistakes. Omitting that little misdemeanor or felony you acquired paints you as a coward without integrity who can't own up to a mistake or try and make it right. That can be a permanent flag. They might decide right then and there that you can't come back to work for them ever because you don't represent their company well.

Oh, and fun fact, they get tax breaks for hiring people recently released from prison, giving them incentive to look at those applications with convictions.

Oh how I appreciate your idealism and optimism. In the real world, as many people on this thread alone have told you, employers will hold irrelevant information against applicants. Obviously, people with criminal past get hired all the time when they check yes on the application. However, they are certainly not the first choice. I say shame on your mother for: #1 asking about a criminal conviction in the first place and not doing a background check and #2 for jumping to a prejudicial conclusions about why the person filled out the application the way they did. It's not about integrity or honesty. It's about looking out for your own best interest because the employer is only going to do what is in their interest. That is why many employers will retain a good employee even if they did not disclose everything on an application.

Also, while someone in Ohio may be charged with Public Indecency for peeing on the side of the road, it would never lead to that person being classified as a sex offender (only higher levels of the offence which included other behavior). Don't believe everything you read on the internet. I guarantee if something like that ever happened, you would not be getting the whole truth of the circumstances around the charge. You will learn that if you continue with your career in rehabilitations. Good luck.

PointGuru...you need to get off your high horse and get rid of the idea that your opinion is the only one that matters. Just because someone disagree with you doesn't make them wrong.

Dude.... I'm with Campfreak06. You're so stuck on this idea that you're right that you're not even reading, nor do you care that you could be wrong. This is a really simple concept--don't lie to your employer. It should be super simple, since don't lie unless you absolutely have to is one of those rules you learn at a young age. But obviously you would prefer to build your life on dishonesty. Enjoy, it'll come back to bite you.

but he has said several time " no one is saying lie" than he goes on in the same post to say "The undeniable fact is that people lie or at least stretch the truth all the time on applications." and still thinks we should listen lol

All I have said is people should make up their own mind and do what is in their best interest. You guys are the ones up on the moral high horses saying a lie is a lie (and don't lie) when you don't know what a persons situation is. It really isn't that simple when you talk about employers asking questions that they shouldn't and using preconceived ideas to judge people for things other than their ability to do the job. I hate to be the one to tell you guys this; but, people lie about all kinds of things, even on applications. That's called the real world. I just know better than judge someone on based on what box they decided to check or not.