Panel discusses background checks for jobs

From left, Jim Davis, Betty Cooper, Laura Gilkey and Rebecca Lax were among those who participated in a Sunday panel discussion at Unitarian Universalist Fellowship about a Wall Street Journal editorial headlined "Jobless Blacks Should Cheer Background Checks."
From left, Jim Davis, Betty Cooper, Laura Gilkey and Rebecca Lax were among those who participated in a Sunday panel discussion at Unitarian Universalist Fellowship about a Wall Street Journal editorial headlined "Jobless Blacks Should Cheer Background Checks."

A Sunday panel discussion in Jefferson City questioned the use of background checks by employers.

The event was hosted by Unitarian Universalist Fellowship and moderated by Frank Rycyk. It was prompted by an Aug. 23, 2013, Wall Street Journal editorial headlined "Jobless Blacks Should Cheer Background Checks."

Rebecca Lax said background checks could be a good tool for employers. But she said that if the crime committed doesn't relate to the job someone is applying for, it shouldn't be held against the applicant.

"If you're doing construction and you ... maybe it was a blue collar time and you stole office supplies or something. I really just don't think that should impact (your application) if you're otherwise qualified for the job," Lax said.

In part, the Wall Street Journal editorial said: "The Obama administration took one on the chin earlier this month when a federal court ruled that companies may use criminal-background checks in hiring without being guilty of racial discrimination. Employers are thrilled about the decision, obviously. Less obvious is that the black unemployed, whose numbers swelled under President Obama, also have reason to cheer."

It noted that a judge's ruling lambasted a government report that said background checks disproportionately harmed black job-seekers. It cited a 2006 study in the Journal of Law and Economics, "Perceived Criminality, Criminal Background Checks and the Racial Hiring Practices of Employers," which found that "employers that check criminal backgrounds are in general more likely to hire African Americans."

But some of the panelists picked apart the editorial.

Lax said the editorial writer took a short cut in its logic by not explaining criticism of the government report.

Rycyk noted allegations that blacks are "more harshly treated in drug sentences," which could result in a higher proportion of blacks with criminal records.

Laura Gilkey added police officers with unconscious prejudices "might let a white person off with a warning, where they wouldn't do the same for a black person."

A criminal background doesn't tell the whole story, panelist Jim Davis said. He said a 15-year-old who had been in a state juvenile institution for three years was tagged as a criminal because he had gone to a loading dock behind a grocery store and picked up a case of soda bottles to cash them in for 3 cents a bottle.

"Sometimes just because a person shows up on a background check, that alone and all by itself is not nearly enough information," he said.

Lax said there are some positions that should allow employers to use background checks in order to protect children and those with mental or developmental disabilities.

Davis said that if five people apply for a job and that background checks result in finding that one has a record, most employers will throw out that application. That leaves that person with a record to have "an exceedingly difficult time getting a job."

He said it's impossible to lump people into "good" or "bad" categories that easily.