NationStates Jolt Archive

My question is.. what are some of the reasons you wouldn't hire someone .. or even give their resume/application a second glance at once you saw something ..if anything.

I would not hire someone to assassinate me.

And I would not give their application a second glance if it was horribly bloodstained either... I would probably give it at least 5 glances and a police examination.

What am I hiring them for? As much as I'd like it to not matter ever, that's not realistic.

The last person I actually hired was my daughter, she hasn't disappointed. Before her I had to let someone go because she was incompetent, during the time between the idiot and my daughter I had people apply for the job.

Resumes with misspelled words are a no.
Resumes with funky fonts are a no.

People who show up to the interview late are a no.
People who show up on time but talk on their cell phone during the interview are a no.

I had one woman brag on her resume "I know 10 key by sight!"

okay, so you can look at the freaking keyboard and see them? so I asked, and she said "yeah, I have to look to do it" and I said "I don't think that will work for the job" and she called me a bitch.

poll added..I know we will get spam voters.. but for the most part please only check what you mean.

off the poll, for the things I hire people for, I probably wouldn't hire anyone with a criminal history of stealing things or someone with really bad credit....

What am I hiring them for? As much as I'd like it to not matter ever, that's not realistic.


I can't specify.. just in general .. what would be something or things you would cross them off the mark for.

I would give almost anyone a chance. The only thing that might sway me is theft I guess. DUI? No.. unless it's multiple dui's .. then that shows they are not only a drunk, but stupid.

And I've got two thefts on me.. one when I was under age. another when I was like 19 .. I'm a different person pretty much from what I was then. I also have a DUI from 8 years ago.. I was driving too slow.. less than a mile from my house (Actually I was freakin stoned -- was fine til I hit that freakin bowl -- then all the alcohol kicked in). I have bad credit. Paid them all regularly for years, til I lost my last good job.. all went to hell then.

I'm screwed!

I have hired a lot of people in my time. The one thing to remember is that when someone shows up for an interview, they are trying to impress you and that is as good as they will ever look. If they show up sloppy, that's the best you will get from them.

I would give almost anyone a chance. The only thing that might sway me is theft I guess. DUI? No.. unless it's multiple dui's .. then that shows they are not only a drunk, but stupid.

I work with people's financial stuff......it would be very easy for someone I hired to say, steal their identity and stuff.

I would not hire someone if they insulted my secretary when handing in their resume. I would also throw out any resume that is pink or scented. If the persons initials spell a word, their application will see my garbage can. I also refuse to hire those that don't make at least one grammatical error. I will not hire a person that did not spruce up their resume with something interesting, like a picture of a naked chick or a meme.

I work with people's financial stuff......it would be very easy for someone I hired to say, steal their identity and stuff.


I added some stuff.

I made mistakes! Dammit. I'm a good worker though.

Someone who spells not with a capital 'n' for no apparent reason.

Someone who spells not with a capital 'n' for no apparent reason.

You must be joking..


..Not.

None of the above. I do not make blanket decisions like that. I'd have to know more about the extenuating circumstances of the offenses in question before I could really have any opinion on whether or not to hire the person.

I would not hire someone if they insulted my secretary when handing in their resume. I would also throw out any resume that is pink or scented. If the persons initials spell a word, their application will see my garbage can. I also refuse to hire those that don't make at least one grammatical error. I will not hire a person that did not spruce up their resume with something interesting, like a picture of a naked chick or a meme.

I hope you're joking. But I bet you are not. Just had a childhood friend of mine say she dropped an app because the person on it said she was caught for underage drinking. Freakin ridiculous.

Someone who spells not with a capital 'n' for no apparent reason.


nyuck nyuck

If they are incompetent of doing the job, I will not hire them. They must keep in mind, however, that if someone is more suitable and competitive, then I will hire them instead.

None of the above. I do not make blanket decisions like that. I'd have to know more about the extenuating circumstances of the offenses in question before I could really have any opinion on whether or not to hire the person.


I went to an interview recently for a position in manufacturing, heat injection molding press operator.. which I have years at. Spoke to two supervisors .. they wanted me. There was an 'outside' company who did background checks .. and if a 'red flag' popped up, that was that. Well whatever caused a red flag.. I still have no idea what exactly did.. that's what is pissing me off. I'd really like to know exactly what that red flag was. Called.. asked.. can't be told.. against rules. I'm left here wondering. Had to be my DUI man. I wasn't ever going to driive shit! I was just going to operate a machine .. sober!

I can't specify.. just in general .. what would be something or things you would cross them off the mark for.

Unfortunately it really matters, if it's a job with a lot of driving then I'm not going to be able to insure him with multiple DUIs. If it's a job where I need the person to be bonded then various felonies and misdemeanors might mean I couldn't. If they're going to be around children even if I might have confidence in the person others might and it would cause problems.

The only way it might matter if the person has bad credit is if I was hiring a financial consultant.

I went to an interview recently for a position in manufacturing, heat injection molding press operator.. which I have years at. Spoke to two supervisors .. they wanted me. There was an 'outside' company who did background checks .. and if a 'red flag' popped up, that was that. Well whatever caused a red flag.. I still have no idea what exactly did.. that's what is pissing me off. I'd really like to know exactly what that red flag was. Called.. asked.. can't be told.. against rules. I'm left here wondering. Had to be my DUI man. I wasn't ever going to driive shit! I was just going to operate a machine .. sober!
Really? I would think that you have a right to know what would come up in a background check of you, wouldn't you?

I'm just guessing that, by the way, if someone who's all law-y could clarify that...

Unfortunately it really matters, if it's a job with a lot of driving then I'm not going to be able to insure him with multiple DUIs. If it's a job where I need the person to be bonded then various felonies and misdemeanors might mean I couldn't. If they're going to be around children even if I might have confidence in the person others might and it would cause problems.

The only way it might matter if the person has bad credit is if I was hiring a financial consultant.

Not applied for a driving job.. I've been hired between with part time cash handling jobs (obviously my youth theft and credit made shit a difference -- and of course no.. I never stole from an employer .. period). I applied at a furniture place once, and they actually told me why .. my credit. Last honest response I've gotten. That was Colfax. I'd really like these freakin people to tell me WHY I am not getting hired. Do they have any idea how stressful it is not knowing? I use to get any job I applied at. Some of my family say it's cause of Bush(Repubs) .. that jobs were much easier to come by with Clinton.. well I agree with that to a certain extent.. but no.. that's not the reason.

Really? I would think that you have a right to know what would come up in a background check of you, wouldn't you?

I'm just guessing that, by the way, if someone who's all law-y could clarify that...


They told me it was against company policy. The actual plant was here in NC.. the headquarters was in NJ. I did write the headquarters a letter.. never heard a reply or shit.

I would never hire a felon, regardless of the crime nor would I hire someone who has a history of theft, regardless of felony or misdeameanor. I wouldn't hire someone with poor work history either and I would never go with DUI. I am not opposed to companies doing drug testing to hire people.

I hope you're joking. But I bet you are not. Just had a childhood friend of mine say she dropped an app because the person on it said she was caught for underage drinking. Freakin ridiculous.I can talk about pornographic resumes and still be taken seriously? WTF?

I would never hire a felon, regardless of the crime nor would I hire someone who has a history of theft, regardless of felony or misdeameanor. I wouldn't hire someone with poor work history either and I would never go with DUI. I am not opposed to companies doing drug testing to hire people.


Why may I ask .. would you never hire anyone with a DUI?

Not applied for a driving job.. I've been hired between with part time cash handling jobs (obviously my youth theft and credit made shit a difference -- and of course no.. I never stole from an employer .. period). I applied at a furniture place once, and they actually told me why .. my credit. Last honest response I've gotten. That was Colfax. I'd really like these freakin people to tell me WHY I am not getting hired. Do they have any idea how stressful it is not knowing? I use to get any job I applied at. Some of my family say it's cause of Bush(Repubs) .. that jobs were much easier to come by with Clinton.. well I agree with that to a certain extent.. but no.. that's not the reason.

It's not Bush's fault. You should be able to get a free copy of your credit report if you were denied a job because of it.....you should make sure it's clean and start to work on getting everything current. Lots of places won't hire you with shoddy credit, it's the new trend.

As far as everything else, can you get past employers to write letters of recommendation? that might go a ways to get their eyes off your DUI

Why may I ask .. would you never hire anyone with a DUI?

I detest the crime and the very nature of it means that you do not have the proper responsibility to know when you cannot operate a vehicle and you have put many others at risk because of your stupidity.

It's not Bush's fault. You should be able to get a free copy of your credit report if you were denied a job because of it.....you should make sure it's clean and start to work on getting everything current. Lots of places won't hire you with shoddy credit, it's the new trend.

As far as everything else, can you get past employers to write letters of recommendation? that might go a ways to get their eyes off your DUI


I have my credit report.. I know its bad.. I can't make it right until I get a freakin job to fix it. As far as the DUI goes.. I can understand not hiring someone for multiple.. but a one time? 8 Years ago? Do know how easy it is to get a DUI? Also.. I went to apply a dog groomer .. she was formally a winner on some shows going by the pictures, ribbons etc.. all was great til near the end .. On the app below the veteran thing.. was one line that asked if you smoked.. I missed that. She asked if I was a smoker. Now.. I never smoke before I go to an interview. So I shower brush mah teeth dress.. don't smoke .. go on my way.. No way in hell this woman smelled smoke on me. I said Yes. Haven't heard from her.

It's not Bush's fault. You should be able to get a free copy of your credit report if you were denied a job because of it.....you should make sure it's clean and start to work on getting everything current. Lots of places won't hire you with shoddy credit, it's the new trend.

That's...what the hell? How is someone supposed to go about repairing their credit without a job? What does credit have to do with being able to do a job? Because I had a shit period in my life I have to stay in a shit period? That really fucking sucks.

I detest the crime and the very nature of it means that you do not have the proper responsibility to know when you cannot operate a vehicle and you have put many others at risk because of your stupidity.


Get the fark outta here. You're being ridiculous. So if someone had a DUI 20 years ago.. you still wouldn't hire them?

That's...what the hell? How is someone supposed to go about repairing their credit without a job? What does credit have to do with being able to do a job? Because I had a shit period in my life I have to stay in a shit period? That really fucking sucks.

I didn't make up the trend. Although you can call your creditors and explain that you are currently out of a job and that you will try to make a payment in 90 days, they will for the most part put on your account that you are 'working with them' instead of putting you as delinquent so it gives you a good 30 days of trying to find a job where your credit looks less than shitty.

Get the fark outta here. You're being ridiculous. So if someone had a DUI 20 years ago.. you still wouldn't hire them?

That is correct. I would not hire them at all and I don't care what stupid decisions they made in their past when they were young and stupid, that's no excuse. I've seen what cars look like after "young and stupid" decisions and one look at them and then you hear who was inside, that's enough.

That is correct. I would not hire them at all and I don't care what stupid decisions they made in their past when they were young and stupid, that's no excuse. I've seen what cars look like after "young and stupid" decisions and one look at them and then you hear who was inside, that's enough.

Unreasonable. But I believe it.

Unreasonable. But I believe it.

Believe this. It's New Year's Eve. Local roads with lots of stop signs, speed limit is 30 but if you get above 20 before the next stop sign you have a lead foot. Drunk driver plows into a car doing 60 mph (blew a stop sign obviously). Inside the car was a man, a woman, married, and their newborn baby. I don't think the baby was a year old. I don't know whatever happened to the baby or the man or the woman but they all went to the hospital in critical condition that night. You know what the kicker was? They had to use yellow caution tape to hold the car together. So I disagree with your unreasonable assessment. The driver that night was unreasonable and I hope to hell he got put behind bars for life, regardless of if the people lived or died (if they died, I wish he would have been put on death row). Chances are, with the fubar'd laws here, he's probably out already. That was New Year's Eve 2001 - 2002.

Believe this. It's New Year's Eve. Local roads with lots of stop signs, speed limit is 30 but if you get above 20 before the next stop sign you have a lead foot. Drunk driver plows into a car doing 60 mph (blew a stop sign obviously). Inside the car was a man, a woman, married, and their newborn baby. I don't think the baby was a year old. I don't know whatever happened to the baby or the man or the woman but they all went to the hospital in critical condition that night. You know what the kicker was? They had to use yellow caution tape to hold the car together. So I disagree with your unreasonable assessment. The driver that night was unreasonable and I hope to hell he got put behind bars for life, regardless of if the people lived or died (if they died, I wish he would have been put on death row). Chances are, with the fubar'd laws here, he's probably out already. That was New Year's Eve 2001 - 2002.


Wasn't me.

I'd probably give anyone a chance if I think they can do the job... but then that's probably why I'd never be put in a position where I can dictate who gets hired.

People make mistakes and they can change. Nobody's perfect.

My question is.. what are some of the reasons you wouldn't hire someone .. or even give their resume/application a second glance at once you saw something ..if anything.

I would never hire anyone wielding a machete. Unless I was hiring a guide to trek through the Amazon.

I am not opposed to companies doing drug testing to hire people.
I am. If someone wants to get high on their own time, that's fine. If they come into work baked this is another matter, but drug tests don't test if someone is high at the time they're at work, they test if someone has been high in the past x time. Someone's recreational drug use outside of work hours is not an employer's business.

I am. If someone wants to get high on their own time, that's fine. If they come into work baked this is another matter, but drug tests don't test if someone is high at the time they're at work, they test if someone has been high in the past x time. Someone's recreational drug use outside of work hours is not an employer's business.

except for the sense that drug use is illegal, which may speak to the character to some extent, which may way in on their decision.

except for the sense that drug use is illegal, which may speak to the character to some extent, which may way in on their decision.

Don't suppose you could answer the question of whether or not he has a right to know what came up on his background check? I mean, if you know, not that we expect you to have some sort of legal crystal ball.



Except that we totally do.

But anyway...

what job are they applying for? Most of my working life has been in health care or education so there are certain people I would not hire. In fact certain crimes have a sentence that includes being banned for working with some groups of people.


Am I being stupid - but why would anyone put down a conviction on their CV?

too many variables

depends greatly on what the job is, where the job is, when the crime occured [plenty of contributing citizens who made some stupid mistakes earlier in their lives], plus their recent employment experience, etc. And a lot would come down to how they interviewed, too.

everyone deserves a second chance, just depends if it's the right chance and they're the right person

except for the sense that drug use is illegal, which may speak to the character to some extent, which may way in on their decision.

It speaks far more about the state's values then the individual's.

I'll give most anyone a chance, but there are things like serious recent felonies that would give me some pause about putting them in positions of trust. If they committed some crime but it was a long time ago, I'll probably be more lenient - no need to tag someone for life for a youthful indiscretion.

I am. If someone wants to get high on their own time, that's fine. If they come into work baked this is another matter, but drug tests don't test if someone is high at the time they're at work, they test if someone has been high in the past x time. Someone's recreational drug use outside of work hours is not an employer's business.

My policy on them is that I am not opposed to them for the initial hiring but I do not support randoms. Randoms are unnecessary. The only reason you should give a post-hiring test is for probably cause. I don't disagree though that a company cannot police how an individual acts on their own time but illegal activities reflect against the company as well, which is why I can understand the liability reason for it although like I said, I am 50/50 with it.

(habitual) absenteeism, (habitual) tardiness, (habitually showing up in a voluntarily incapacitated state), unprovoked inconsiderateness toward fellow employees, premeditated physical sabotage to their previous worksite, making more work for their fellow employees then they complete themselves.

everything on the poll list would depend entirely on the nature of the job.
(though i would be extremely sceptical of anyone who had more then one unrelated conviction involving violence).

=^^=
.../\...

I went with any felony, theft and bad work history..
Even though I don't know exactly what a felony is, it's pretty bad right??

I wouldn't hire a violent felon, or someone with a DUI, or someone convicted of burglary or something of the same nature. The bad work history might look iffy, too.

Who would you Not hire ?

1. Anyone who is excessively gassy.

2. Anyone who thinks Family Guy is a funny show.

3. Anyone who tests negative for weed.

4. Nihilists.

I wouldn't hire anyone under 9ft tall.

Anyone who was qualified and did not steal or commit a violent crime. Period.

except for the sense that drug use is illegal, which may speak to the character to some extent, which may way in on their decision.
I wouldn't fault someone for disobeying an unjust law. As long as they're not dealing drugs or severely addicted, they're probably fine.

I am. If someone wants to get high on their own time, that's fine. If they come into work baked this is another matter, but drug tests don't test if someone is high at the time they're at work, they test if someone has been high in the past x time. Someone's recreational drug use outside of work hours is not an employer's business.

No but it causes problems for post accident drug testing, which is mandatory in any number of places and occupations.

For my part I wouldn't hire someone with a DUI, nor a violent felony, or anyone who's not got two years experience.

That's...what the hell? How is someone supposed to go about repairing their credit without a job? What does credit have to do with being able to do a job? Because I had a shit period in my life I have to stay in a shit period? That really fucking sucks.

For the same reason you need two years' experience to work in an entry level position these days - so there are fewer people they have to consider. You have no experience, they won't hire you to get experience because you don't have any experience, and you stay without experience. You have shitty credit, you try to get a job to clean up your credit, they don't hire you because you have shitty credit, and your credit stays shitty.

It sucks llama anus, but it's the downside of technology.

My question is.. what are some of the reasons you wouldn't hire someone .. or even give their resume/application a second glance at once you saw something ..if anything.

For technical positions...
-- Bad spelling or grammar on resume
-- Inconsistent job history (job hopping)
-- Large gaps in job history that are not explained
-- Inadequate experience or education for position

Any of those, alone, would disqualify a candidate from a phone screen, and subsequent interview,k unless they had outstanding recommendations from someone I trusted.

I am. If someone wants to get high on their own time, that's fine. If they come into work baked this is another matter, but drug tests don't test if someone is high at the time they're at work, they test if someone has been high in the past x time. Someone's recreational drug use outside of work hours is not an employer's business.
Drugs have lingering effects. I don't need a hung-over or strung-out technician or engineer working with many Kilowatts of microwave energy. Mistakes can cause serious injury to persons and serious damage to equipment.

1. Anyone who is excessively gassy.

2. Anyone who thinks Family Guy is a funny show.

3. Anyone who tests negative for weed.

4. Nihilists.

Damn, I'd fail three of the four.

1. Anyone who is excessively gassy.

2. Anyone who thinks Family Guy is a funny show.

3. Anyone who tests negative for weed.

4. Nihilists.

I'm out no matter how you define "excessively gassy."

if you want to be picky about who you hire you have to pay pretty well these days. all the "good" people are already working. (not true of course but you do have to look at far more than your fair share of frogs before you find the prince who's right for the job.)


i was reading an ad the other day for a new yard work service in town that promised uniformed workers who were all drug tested (why either would be important to me when having someone mow my lawn i dont know). knowing that thats a tough job to fill, i checked the help wanted ads. they had an ad asking for workers who could pass a drug test and were able to work legally. that leaves out pretty much every person who would be interested in yard work in this town. so i wondered just how much they were going to have to pay the few people who might want the job and be able to meet their qualifications.

nothing. If they had a criminal record, I'd research it, ask them about it, check court documents, ect. Then I'd factor it into my decision.

Bad credit suggests a lack of forethought, so I wouldn't hire them unless I heard clever justifications (like "I was trying to game the bankruptcy system").

Theft suggests a lack of respect for property rights, so they're out.

Violent crime frightens me, because I'm a wuss.

Otherwise, we're good to go.

Bad credit suggests a lack of forethought, so I wouldn't hire them unless I heard clever justifications (like "I was trying to game the bankruptcy system").

Theft suggests a lack of respect for property rights, so they're out.

Violent crime frightens me, because I'm a wuss.

Otherwise, we're good to go.

Yeah credit history is another factor to show responsibility.

For the same reason you need two years' experience to work in an entry level position these days - so there are fewer people they have to consider. You have no experience, they won't hire you to get experience because you don't have any experience, and you stay without experience. You have shitty credit, you try to get a job to clean up your credit, they don't hire you because you have shitty credit, and your credit stays shitty.

It sucks llama anus, but it's the downside of technology.

This stuff drives me nuts, even when I am not applying for the job. I have seen a job advertising for a entry level secretary who must have three years experience, type at over 70wmp and speak fluent Spanish. How much were they offering? Seven dollars an hour...I make $8.45 and I serve popcorn in a theater (this is Chicago btw, so living/pay is higher.)

My favorite though was an add in the paper for a dishwasher, must have two years of experience. Two years experience washing dishes? What, are the dishes made out of razorblades? Why not demand that the dishwashers have a masters degree in neuroscience or biochemistry while they are at it.

You guys must have some extremely lax (or non-existent) employment legislation if you're able to get away with even asking about things like credit scoring or criminal convictions from the dim and distant past. I know (Oh, God, how I know) that we in the U.K. have gone entirely too far the other way, but really...

Our Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (early 70s somewhere, iirc) legislates for the justicial ideal that, once the sentence for a crime has been served and an additional time period has passed, the past offender is considered to have fully paid their 'debt to society' and they therefore do not have to even disclose the fact (exceptions are made for certain categories of crime) that they have been convicted on most forms that they complete, whether they be for employment applications or other goals. Further, it is not legal for a prospective employer to enquire about such things. A spent conviction is just that, spent.

Out of interest, and at the risk of dragging this off topic, are most of the employers that have responded here of the opinion that people who have been convicted for minor crimes should continue to be plagued by them, even after they have served out the punishment mandated by the justice system?

You guys must have some extremely lax (or non-existent) employment legislation if you're able to get away with even asking about things like credit scoring or criminal convictions from the dim and distant past. I know (Oh, God, how I know) that we in the U.K. have gone entirely too far the other way, but really...

Our Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (early 70s somewhere, iirc) legislates for the justicial ideal that, once the sentence for a crime has been served and an additional time period has passed, the past offender is considered to have fully paid their 'debt to society' and they therefore do not have to even disclose the fact (exceptions are made for certain categories of crime) that they have been convicted on most forms that they complete, whether they be for employment applications or other goals. Further, it is not legal for a prospective employer to enquire about such things. A spent conviction is just that, spent.

Out of interest, and at the risk of dragging this off topic, are most of the employers that have responded here of the opinion that people who have been convicted for minor crimes should continue to be plagued by them, even after they have served out the punishment mandated by the justice system?
I've always thought that criminals have too many rights in the U.K. This does reinforce that opinion.

Convictions and Credit are fair game in the United States. Arrests without conviction, age, family, religion, disability, etc are all out of bounds.

There are a bunch more thingst that you can't ask about, but my rule is that if there is a job requirement -- i.e. lift heavy boxes, travel out of town, I can ask the question about the job requirement, not about the reason that the candidate can or can not fulfill the requirement.

The disability area is kind of a catch-22. You can ask if the candidate can perform a specific function, but not if any reasonable accommodation is required at work. Conceivably, I could hire someone with a disability and have to do all sorts of extra work to accommodate their needs.

I wouldn't mind hiring a candidate with just about any misdemeanor conviction, as long as it's not a long list. With exception of drug convictions, one has to do something fairly well on the wrong side of right and wrong to get a felony conviction, though. And anyone that wants to work for me had better not use drugs, either. That's illegal, unhealthy, and demonstrates bad headwork. Same with cigarettes -- except for the illegal part.

I've always thought that criminals have too many rights in the U.K. This does reinforce that opinion
I feel the same way, to an extent, but that's more to do with the rights that they have up until they are released from prison and the term of rehabilitation has passed. If it is to be accepted that one of the aspects of justice is that the offender can rejoin society once his/her punishment has been served then we must accept that people should be able to fully rejoin society once their debt has been paid.

nyone that wants to work for me had better not use drugs, either. That's illegal, unhealthy, and demonstrates bad headwork. Same with cigarettes -- except for the illegal part
A lot of people seem to share this stance with you. I'm intrigued... do you extend this constraint to people who enjoy a few beers? By your stated standards that should constitute "bad headwork", no?. Apologies for the mild baiting - I just get a bit annoyed when such obvious double standards are held up as the right way to go about things. I'm of the opinion that people should be free to do whatever the hell they choose on their own time, and that their employer has no right to meddle except in cases where their activities can have a demonstrable negative effect on their work. There's no need to respond to that, by the way... you have your opinion, I have mine, and they disagree. I can live with that.

my rule is that if there is a job requirement -- i.e. lift heavy boxes, travel out of town, I can ask the question about the job requirement, not about the reason that the candidate can or can not fulfill the requirement.
Yeah, this is an eminently sensible way to go about things, rather than having a blanket yes/no, tickbox style of recruitment. I spent a few years running the personnel/HR department for a pretty large organisation (c.8000 employees) over here and this was how I tried to steer the recruiters in all our units.

The disability area is kind of a catch-22. You can ask if the candidate can perform a specific function, but not if any reasonable accommodation is required at work. Conceivably, I could hire someone with a disability and have to do all sorts of extra work to accommodate their needs.
I have no idea what the state of the legislation is in the U.S., but the disability issue is a legal minefield over here. Our Disability Discrimination Act mandates that disabled persons must receive equal consideration for employment in almost all posts, as long as "reasonable adjustment" can be made to the workplace or the post to accommodate the disability in question. The 'minefield' is that the Act doesn't define what is 'reasonable' and this presumaby will have to wait until a few test cases have passed through the courts.

Of course, since I haven't worked in any posts requiring recruitment since 2004, I may well be completely out of the loop by now :)

A lot of people seem to share this stance with you. I'm intrigued... do you extend this constraint to people who enjoy a few beers? By your stated standards that should constitute "bad headwork", no?. Apologies for the mild baiting - I just get a bit annoyed when such obvious double standards are held up as the right way to go about things. I'm of the opinion that people should be free to do whatever the hell they choose on their own time, and that their employer has no right to meddle except in cases where their activities can have a demonstrable negative effect on their work. There's no need to respond to that, by the way... you have your opinion, I have mine, and they disagree. I can live with that.

The difference between a little marijuana and a few beers is the fact that possessing the marijuana is illegal -- a stupid law, but still a law. I have rules at work and I don't expect an employee to follow the ones they like and ignore the ones they don't like. We don't drug test, by the way.

If someone comes to work drunk or hung over, or starts missing days because of excessive drinking, I'd certainly fire them, as well. It's hard to know about drinking a priori, except through convictions for DUI. If it was a simple DUI, still a misdemeanor, I'd probably still hire the candidate. Complicate it with a serious accident and maybe not. Maybe that's still a double standard, but I can live with it.

The difference between a little marijuana and a few beers is the fact that possessing the marijuana is illegal -- a stupid law, but still a law. I have rules at work and I don't expect an employee to follow the ones they like and ignore the ones they don't like. We don't drug test, by the way.
A reasonable distinction and yes, it is (again, in my opinion) a stupid law, but a law nonetheless.

On the workplace drug testing thing, it's good to see that someone doesn't. I've always been a little uncomfortable with the whole idea of workplace drug testing (not least because I've been known to partake in the odd one or two things over the years). It just strikes me that "possession of an illegal bloodstream" is a bit of an extreme thing to classify as criminal, especially given that the legality of substance x/y/z varies around the world and that it is perfectly possible for someone to test positive for the presence of a substance without them actually having broken any laws by taking it where they did.

Anyway, enough of this off-topic rambling... my apologies to the OP ;)

The only ones that would concern me are bad work history, and current convictions for anything like violent or sex crimes.

Generally I find when I am short listing a large number of people exclude themselves from interview simply by not following instructions to fill in the form correctly and clearly. It is a fairly short form, and the covering letter does not need to be long, so I really don't understand why people do not look up how to spell things in a dictionary.

You guys must have some extremely lax (or non-existent) employment legislation if you're able to get away with even asking about things like credit scoring or criminal convictions from the dim and distant past. I know (Oh, God, how I know) that we in the U.K. have gone entirely too far the other way, but really...

Our Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (early 70s somewhere, iirc) legislates for the justicial ideal that, once the sentence for a crime has been served and an additional time period has passed, the past offender is considered to have fully paid their 'debt to society' and they therefore do not have to even disclose the fact (exceptions are made for certain categories of crime) that they have been convicted on most forms that they complete, whether they be for employment applications or other goals. Further, it is not legal for a prospective employer to enquire about such things. A spent conviction is just that, spent.

Out of interest, and at the risk of dragging this off topic, are most of the employers that have responded here of the opinion that people who have been convicted for minor crimes should continue to be plagued by them, even after they have served out the punishment mandated by the justice system?

Well the credit check thing might be taken care of soon. I read in the local paper that there is supposed to be a bill or something passed to stop all this credit checking. I will look for a link to this later today.

And yes it seems that some people will hold stuff against you for the rest of your life. Was talking to my friend about this other day and she once ditched a resume after reading that the girl had a misd. drinking under age charge from when she was 19. That was all the girl had on her. It shocked me.. I never would've thought she'd hold something like that against someone. And while telling me this.. she was laughing about how so many times, when she was younger and had been drinking if she had ever gotten pulled over would've so got busted with a DUI. It pissed me off.

I do not have a felony (not sure if I ever stated that).. my DUI was a traffic violation when I got it. If you get one now.. I do believe it shows up under regular criminal offense though. Also I went and got a copy of my traffic and criminal record. My charge when I was 15, doesn't even show up... and I was mistaken about the other, I was 17 not 19. So both of those I was underage. I'm 33 now btw. My DUI is most recent thing and as I stated was 8 years ago.

This stuff frustrates me, but I will get along. I've been going to school to get a certificate (in order to get a job -- then I continue to a degree in a couple years) in the health care field. I decided to do this a couple of years ago when I saw how hard it was going to be to get a job, that pays half way decent. Health care is more lenient than most places. For the most part.. as long as you know how to do your job and you show up and do it .. they could give a flip about your credit or past minor offenses. Plus, health care jobs aren't something you have to worry about closing their doors and moving over seas. There will always be health care work.

-snip-

Anyway, enough of this off-topic rambling... my apologies to the OP ;)

It's no problem at all. Ramble away. All of this has to do with employment.