Would you hire someone to work in clients homes who have a criminal background? With the change in BPI criteria (no background check) This raises a very good question. If you hired someone with a criminal background and there was an issue at a clients house, would you the employer have exposure to a lawsuit because you sent someone into that residence and you had prior knowledge of their record?
Personally, I have turned away many potential employees, who may have changed the tide of thier life, but still maintained past criminal histories. I wish them well in thier search, but they are not the perfect fit for my ideals. The last thing that I want to worry about is if my employee has sticky fingers at my clients home.
We as a BPI community (and that is what we are talking) are not the average contractor, we have chosen to adopt these exceptional standards that set us apart from others, those companies with sticky fingered employees. That said, morally, we are obligated to live to that exceptional standard, and to ensure that those that represent us do so also.
When a customer meets a bad employee, they evaluate the company by that employee. WE ARE ONLY AS GOOD AS THE WORST EMPLOYEE WE HIRE!!!!
I am the coach of my team, I want to choose who plays for me, and who doesn't. I want to decide how they will fit into my team, what position they will play. I don't need an outside agency telling me the charateristics of my desired employee. There is a reason why my company is BPI. WE ARE BETTER THAN THE REST, and thats the employee I am looking for.
AS for the question, after all of the above is said, "YES ONE WOULD LIKELY ASSUME SOME LIABLITY, FOR KNOWING AND STILL EMPLOYING ONE WITH A DIRTY PAST." From a Client's viewpoint, and likely his lawyers, "I went with a BPI certified contractor, because they are exceptional contractors, but this bonehead came in and......"
I would not hire people with a criminal background. But that is my choice as an employer. I think BPI was right to remove this requirement from the new standards. Same goes for drug testing. I fully support random testing and a drug free workplace. But I think that is an issue that should be left to the discretion of management.
That said, there is nothing wrong with BPI conducting member surveys and publishing the results.
In short - YES dependent on what the criminal charge was
Besides with as wacked out as our legal system has gotten, it isn't too hard for one to end up with a "criminal record" without having done anything wrong
Thanks for your comments. On behalf of BPI, I would like to provide some additional historical context here. Our announcement regarding criminal background checks represents no change in our current policy. BPI has never conducted criminal background checks for any of its certifications. Nor does BPI have any knowledge of any certifying body in the contracting trades conducting criminal background checks. This has never been a prerequisite for taking an exam and earning a credential. Rather, it has always been the responsibility of the employer.
BPI’s announcement relates only to our pilot program for our four new Home Energy Professional certifications. For this pilot, the volunteer Certification Scheme Committee recommended prerequisite criteria –including the criminal background check– that it felt were appropriate to meet ISO 17024 accreditation of these certifications. Since then BPI has received numerous comments explaining why the criminal background check should remain the responsibility of the employer, not the certifying body. Thus, in accordance with ISO 17024 protocols that require BPI to incorporate industry feedback, BPI has removed this requirement from the prerequisite criteria for the pilot program. I hope this helps clarify our announcement.