More Readers' Comments

Sandra posted a comment to last week's post about Interviewers' Pet Peeves:

I think that employers are overly-scrutinizing prospective employees in this day and time. The fact that recruiters have access to their potential employees whole life history is a violation of personal freedom. Criminal backround checks, for example, should notify the employer if the person is a murderer, a bank robber, or a rapist. In light of technological advances, an employer may look at a minor offense on the prospective employee's record as a reflection of the way that person is, no matter if they have changed or not.

I think employers should be trained to be more empathetic when making a decision on whether or not to hire. I also think that employers shouldn't have the right to inspect a person's history that isn't relevant to the future job. For example, if a rapist applies for a job taking care of people, the answer of course would be "no". If a bank robber applies for as a cashier, the answer again: "no". However, if a person who has a history of drunken driving applies for a job as a janitor then the fact that the drunken driving record has no relevance to the job applied for then the history sould be taken note on but shouldn't interfere with the chance of getting the job, unless of course the job involves driving, if the person hasn't been through some sort of rehabilitation.