Archived Target Drops Criminal Background Checks: Should We Be Scared?

Status
Not open for further replies.

doxie71

Former Perishables Assistant
Joined
Jun 14, 2013
Messages
510
Lovely. Although it does say they reserve the right to do background checks later in the interview process. Just won't be on the initial application. So hopefully they will still turn down the people who probably shouldn't be around others. I'm all for giving people a second chance, but needs to be done in the right place.
 

commiecorvus

Former Signing Ninja
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
18,123
Target nevertheless reserved the right to ask about criminal backgrounds after the completion of an applicant's first interview.

Nothing to get all afraid about.
This just means that people wont be automatically dumped on the first application for checking box without a chance to talk to someone about it.
I think that is only fair and just.
People deserve a chance.
Yes, I believe in the safety of other TMs and customers, but it's been proven that if convicts can get jobs and return to a normal life soon after release there is a much lower chance of recidivism.

Masterspot I edited you post to fix the title - added the g to target.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 24, 2013
Messages
97
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #4
I believe in second chances.....

And that sharks have feelings. It's not about what you did, it's about the fact that I have to hope that when you did the time you came out brand new - not the same. I can't judge that, but I've gotten really nervous working at my store these days.
 

commiecorvus

Former Signing Ninja
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
18,123
I believe in second chances.....

And that sharks have feelings. It's not about what you did, it's about the fact that I have to hope that when you did the time you came out brand new - not the same. I can't judge that, but I've gotten really nervous working at my store these days.

I understand your trepidation, there are a lot of sharks who are able to scam there way past interviewers especially the fresh out of college types that Spot has put in charge of the stores these days.
Unfortunately those kinds of sociopaths are just as likely to not have have records as to be cons.

The big problem in this country is the huge number of young men in prison for what are basically victimless crime, by this I mean drug charges.
In some states the what people are in jail for 5 to 10 years for is now legal.
When they get out they are going to need a job and being able to explain to someone rather then check a box will make all the difference in the world.

Are they bowing to pressure from some grass roots organization, or are they simply dropping the background check because it saves a ton of money.

I'm sure the former is the reason given for public consumption and the latter is for reals.
 
Joined
May 5, 2013
Messages
210
The criminal background checks discriminate against a lot of people who have minor offenses. Eliminating them from the initial application process allows an applicant to explain themselves instead of being rejected automatically for an offense. In Virginia, lots of people go to jail for driving suspended. I suspect that is why my application took over a month to be processed. My HR guy said my background check took a while because "I had a long background", euphemism for "we wanted to look in detail at your criminal record."
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
497
Are they bowing to pressure from some grass roots organization, or are they simply dropping the background check because it saves a ton of money.

It looks like they're still doing background checks - those were always done after an offer anyway. We need your SSN and DOB in order to do a criminal background check and we can't ask for your DOB until after we formally offer you a position (otherwise we are opening ourselves to age discrimination).

Target is not backing down to a grassroots organization, which they would like you to think since that makes them look like they care. They see the writing on the wall that eventually all states will ban the box and don't want to have all of their stores asking different things at different times so they're just staying consistent with the changes and making sure they're compliant everywhere regardless of any new changes in other states, they're already ahead of the curve.

This will waste TLs/HR's time often. They will have to conduct an interview with a candidate, then ask them about their criminal history, and the applicant will say "(insert offense here) happened and the charges were dropped, it wasn't my fault, etc..." and then the offer will end up being made and LexisNexis will kick it back and label them not eligible to proceed. The applicant has the right to an appeal but chances are they will not continue. This happens now but not nearly as often. This example applies to more serious offenses, there are plenty of things where people deserve second chances but some things endanger guest and TM welfare. I would hope they weren't discriminating in not calling people in the first place, but maybe this lets some who deserve a chance get a chance to explain themselves, that's the one bright side I can see.


The criminal background checks discriminate against a lot of people who have minor offenses. Eliminating them from the initial application process allows an applicant to explain themselves instead of being rejected automatically for an offense. In Virginia, lots of people go to jail for driving suspended. I suspect that is why my application took over a month to be processed. My HR guy said my background check took a while because "I had a long background", euphemism for "we wanted to look in detail at your criminal record."

I never discriminate based on the offense, although I'm not sure how LexisNexis, the company that does the background checks for Target operates. When we put an offer in the system, we only see that it's in process or they've cleared or not cleared. No details are revealed to HR regarding why they were cleared or not cleared. So we wouldn't even know what was on their record or why LexisNexis rejected them. So, that's kind of concerning.

It really depends on whether the offense is job related. Lots of people in every state get arrested for driving with a suspended license, there's absolutely no reason to do it, and it's silly to act like it wasn't avoidable. Most people will tell me they didn't think it would show up on the background check. I ask applicants (not at Target, I don't work there anymore) to be honest with me and this is the offense I see the most of background checks - since it doesn't apply to most positions job duties, it's not an issue for me.
 
Last edited:

mrknownothing

purveyor of things
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
10,148
I never discriminate based on the offense, although I'm not sure how LexisNexis, the company that does the background checks for Target operates. When we put an offer in the system, we only see that it's in process or they've cleared or not cleared. No details are revealed to HR regarding why they were cleared or not cleared. So we wouldn't even know what was on their record or why LexisNexis rejected them. So, that's kind of concerning.

I would imagine it's for privacy reasons.
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
219
Had an ETL at a mass hire who after doing some interviews and we were discussing the interviews tells us he hired 1 person who was on parole for armed robbery and another who went to prison for assault with deadly weapon or something like that. We were all like what the Heck were you thinking, he just didn't want to be the one to not give them a chance. It's like yeah they get approved they are on your team and your shifts. LOL obviously Target turned them down quickly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top