Teachers, bus drivers being fingerprinted for background check?

58 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sapphire Sunsets's picture
Joined: 05/19/02
Posts: 671
Teachers, bus drivers being fingerprinted for background check?

Bill would require fingerprinting teachers, bus drivers | Metro News - WCVB Home

BOSTON ?Teachers, workers at child care centers, school bus drivers and others could soon be required to submit fingerprints for criminal background checks.

Asked on Tuesday if he would sign the legislation, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick said "I think so."

The fingerprint background checks would also apply to everyone seeking to adopt children or become foster parents as well as employees of school departments who may have direct, unmonitored contact with children.

Under the bill, the fingerprints will be submitted to the state police for a state criminal history check and forwarded to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for a national criminal history check.

Lawmaker approval of the measure came just weeks after authorities announced an indictment against a convicted sex offender they say videotaped himself sexually assaulting children from his wife's unlicensed day care business.

Yay? or Nay?

********

Absolutely. CORI's only cover a conviction in the state where it's checked.

mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1533

We already have to do this, I thought it was common practice? Totally fine

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1683

We already do this too. I thought it was nationwide. Even parent volunteers on field trips have to be fingerprinted and have a current TB reading.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

I'm so okay with this. After that daycare guy (that news article still sickens me whenever I think about it) it's clearly needed. We only do Cori checks here right now in Mass. but it includes parent volunteers.

Joined: 11/28/06
Posts: 848

Educators and bus drivers (secretaries, custodians, cafeteria workers, etc.) in my district are all fingerprinted and have background checks. Even parent volunteers have to be fingerprinted, and pay for it as well. I have no problem with it.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

I also was under the impression that this was already required. It is here. I also do not have a problem with this.

mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1533

Recently it was learned that one of the team coaches at my DD's gym was taking pictures of the girls naked, he was busted for child porn. I kind of wish all coaches had to be fingerprinted

Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

How in the world does fingerprinting stop people from doing any of this? I am confused.

I am not against fingerprinting, it helps identify the missing and dead, I wouldn't be against everyone being fingerprinted (because that would catch the most vulnerable, who are more likely to go missing), but I do not understand how fingerprinting has any relation to preventing a coach taking pictures of children naked.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

I think that it should be an obvious for teachers or daycare workers or anyone in a position of authority who has the potential to have alone time with a student ~ I'm actually surprised that that isn't a mandate there already, it is here.

I have to be honest and say that I would be annoyed if I had to be fingerprinted and background checked and pay for it to volunteer in my childrens school ~ and say that it having parents have to do so would not give me an increased sense of safety. In fact, it would make me upset because I would think that it would decrease parent/grandparent participation in the school. For instance, for my sons birthday I have my Dad set up to be a "mystery reader" in my sons classroom as a surprise for my son. He would have to be fingerprinted and background checked to go to the school and volunteer? No way! So annoying and invasive! there are 475 kids his elementary school and we have a 70% parental participation rate in the PTO, and that doesn't even count the number of occasional volunteers like my Dad or other grandparents/aunts/uncles who pop in for occasional visits/participation. I would think that that number would go WAY down if people had to be vetted and fingerprinted, and that would be a huge loss for the kids. I don't think that that sort of thing provides any additional safety for the kids, when these volunteers are never alone with the kids and are not really a threat to be in a "predatory" role.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"blather" wrote:

How in the world does fingerprinting stop people from doing any of this? I am confused.

I am not against fingerprinting, it helps identify the missing and dead, I wouldn't be against everyone being fingerprinted (because that would catch the most vulnerable, who are more likely to go missing), but I do not understand how fingerprinting has any relation to preventing a coach taking pictures of children naked.

I dont get this either. I dont have a problem with a background check and it is required here, and I wouldnt have a problem with fingerprinting if someone could explain to me how it protects the kids.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"Potter75" wrote:

I think that it should be an obvious for teachers or daycare workers or anyone in a position of authority who has the potential to have alone time with a student ~ I'm actually surprised that that isn't a mandate there already, it is here.

I have to be honest and say that I would be annoyed if I had to be fingerprinted and background checked and pay for it to volunteer in my childrens school ~ and say that it having parents have to do so would not give me an increased sense of safety. In fact, it would make me upset because I would think that it would decrease parent/grandparent participation in the school. For instance, for my sons birthday I have my Dad set up to be a "mystery reader" in my sons classroom as a surprise for my son. He would have to be fingerprinted and background checked to go to the school and volunteer? No way! So annoying and invasive! there are 475 kids his elementary school and we have a 70% parental participation rate in the PTO, and that doesn't even count the number of occasional volunteers like my Dad or other grandparents/aunts/uncles who pop in for occasional visits/participation. I would think that that number would go WAY down if people had to be vetted and fingerprinted, and that would be a huge loss for the kids. I don't think that that sort of thing provides any additional safety for the kids, when these volunteers are never alone with the kids and are not really a threat to be in a "predatory" role.

Here all parent volunteers have to have background checks so that they can be alone with the kids. If it was just a guest reader situation though, where they would never be alone with the kids, you could probably get around it for one day. I know I have taught in classes where the parent hasnt got their check back yet, and they just cant leave my sight with any kids.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Because the fingerprint proves that you are background checking the person that they say they are. Not a different person. Without the two, anyone could be anyone, via identity theft.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"Potter75" wrote:

Because the fingerprint proves that you are background checking the person that they say they are. Not a different person. Without the two, anyone could be anyone, via identity theft.

But does it prove that? How many people actually have their fingerprints in any database?

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

"blather" wrote:

How in the world does fingerprinting stop people from doing any of this? I am confused.

When someone commits a major crime such as child molestation there is record of that. Finger printing is a way to make that show up. An example of that would be a situation that happened last year at our church. A very heart breaking thing happened. It was found out that one of Alyssa's little friends' father had been raping her. He went to prison for the next 30 years. Throughout the investigation we learned that the mother had a record of abuse. No one at the church knew, and she had been a church nursery worker. It hurts my heart to know that she was alone with my children. New policies have been put in place and now all church workers must submit to a background check and fingerprint before working in the nursery. It is a way to keep criminals from another State from moving to a new State and doing the same thing again to new person.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"ftmom" wrote:

But does it prove that? How many people actually have their fingerprints in any database?

Anyone who was convicted of a crime?!?!?!

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

It doesn't necessarily stop a future event but if the person has a background in any state it will come up in the database.

Right now, Cori checks are put in place but that only checks Mass. We live very close to Rhode Island and many people move from there to here so that alone misses a lot of potential past crimes. Never mind people moving from any other state.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

I don't see a problem with it. If you don't want a background check don't apply for that job. I have had background checks before and just had to go through another one because the company I work for sold software to Miami-Dade Corrections and they require background checks even though I don't work directly for them just because I might have contact with their employee data.

Sapphire Sunsets's picture
Joined: 05/19/02
Posts: 671

"ftmom" wrote:

But does it prove that? How many people actually have their fingerprints in any database?

Way, way,way back in the day i was fingerprinted for a job.... a bunch of us went to the police station to have it done. It was more for if anything happened to us then the people we were working with.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"Potter75" wrote:

Anyone who was convicted of a crime?!?!?!

Yes, so they are not actually confirming that it is you, just that it is not a criminal who has their fingerprints in that particular data base.

Sapphire Sunsets's picture
Joined: 05/19/02
Posts: 671

"ftmom" wrote:

I dont get this either. I dont have a problem with a background check and it is required here, and I wouldnt have a problem with fingerprinting if someone could explain to me how it protects the kids.

It keeps known abusers/molesters from going from state to state (or even district to district) and being able to do it again and again. I was doing research on it lastnight and it's amazing that some states don't even require a background check for teachers.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I don't see a problem with it. If you don't want a background check don't apply for that job. I have had background checks before and just had to go through another one because the company I work for sold software to Miami-Dade Corrections and they require background checks even though I don't work directly for them just because I might have contact with their employee data.

I have a problem with this kind of attitude. Not just about fingerprint checks, but all sorts of 'new' requirements for jobs (ie, nurses and flu shots). In terms of up and coming students, yes I agree. Dont go into this job if you dont want your fingerprints on file. However, there are people out there who just dont want their fingerprints on file for whatever reason. If these are teachers who have been teaching for 20 years with no incident, is it fair of us to tell them, fingerprints or no job? I dont think so. It was not a requirement when they were hired, and I dont feel that fingerprinting them is doing much to protect our children.

For the record, I do feel that routine background checks are non invasive enough, and do help protect our children, so I dont have a problem with them being required by everyone, just the fingerprinting part.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"Sapphire Sunsets" wrote:

It keeps known abusers/molesters from going from state to state (or even district to district) and being able to do it again and again. I was doing research on it last night and it's amazing that some states don't even require a background check for teachers.

Maybe it is just that the system here is different. When I got a background check I had to give them the addresses of every place I have ever lived, with duration (no gaps) then they check across Canada.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

"ftmom" wrote:

For the record, I do feel that routine background checks are non invasive enough, and do help protect our children, so I dont have a problem with them being required by everyone, just the fingerprinting part.

Can I ask what the difference is? I really have never thought twice about being finger printed. DH works a part time job. He need to use his thumb print just to get into the building. I am not sure I see what the problem is?

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Can I ask what the difference is? I really have never thought twice about being finger printed. DH works a part time job. He need to use his thumb print just to get into the building. I am not sure I see what the problem is?

I actually dont have a problem with it myself, but I do know people who want to keep themselves 'out of the system' as much as possible. As much as I think it is slightly irrational myself, there are those out there who worry who will have access to this kind of information, and what can be done with it. Probably applies more to DNA, but a fingerprint in the wrong place can hang you.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

[QUOTE=ftmom]Yes, so they are not actually confirming that it is you, just that it is not a criminal who has their fingerprints in that particular data base.[/QUOTE

I definitely don't understand what you are talking about. When I was background checked and fingerprinted before I could work for a bank it was done at our local police station. I had to produce valid photo id. Are you inferring I could have somehow faked my fingerprint had I bee a convicted embezellor (or child molester as it relates to the debate?)

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"Potter75" wrote:

[QUOTE=ftmom]Yes, so they are not actually confirming that it is you, just that it is not a criminal who has their fingerprints in that particular data base.[/QUOTE

I definitely don't understand what you are talking about. When I was background checked and fingerprinted before I could work for a bank it was done at our local police station. I had to produce valid photo id. Are you inferring I could have somehow faked my fingerprint had I bee a convicted embezellor (or child molester as it relates to the debate?)

No, but someone with fake ID could have their fingerprints put on file as yours, if you are not already in the system. I just dont think that fingerprinting someone who is not in the system already does much more than put them in the system.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3309

"ftmom" wrote:

Yes, so they are not actually confirming that it is you, just that it is not a criminal who has their fingerprints in that particular data base.

The bold is kind of the point. That is what its supposed to help...help schools not hire people that put the kids at risk.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

"ftmom" wrote:

I actually dont have a problem with it myself, but I do know people who want to keep themselves 'out of the system' as much as possible. As much as I think it is slightly irrational myself, there are those out there who worry who will have access to this kind of information, and what can be done with it. Probably applies more to DNA, but a fingerprint in the wrong place can hang you.

I have heard of people wanting to live completely off the grid, but you would need to not have a job and only use cash. Having a job (Any kind of job) is going to make there be a record of you. Even my girls foot prints were taken by the hospital at birth. I do not think it is realistic for someone to think it would be possible to live their entire life without record of himself.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

"ftmom" wrote:

No, but someone with fake ID could have their fingerprints put on file as yours, if you are not already in the system. I just dont think that fingerprinting someone who is not in the system already does much more than put them in the system.

This is why I would think you would want your finger prints in the system.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"ftmom" wrote:

[QUOTE=Potter75]

No, but someone with fake ID could have their fingerprints put on file as yours, if you are not already in the system. I just dont think that fingerprinting someone who is not in the system already does much more than put them in the system.

Longshot. Assuming inside job in the system or something?!?! I doubt it.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3309

I think purposely keeping yourself 'out of the system' has to naturally come with sacrifices.

I have a coworker that won't use the grocery store advantage program because you have to provide your license in order to use it.

Fine don't use it, and the sacrifice in return is that you don't get the savings that other people do.

If you don't want to be fingerprinted, then i think its fair for people to have to accept that they cannot have jobs where working with children in a fairly intimate manner is going to happen.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I have heard of people wanting to live completely off the grid, but you would need to not have a job and only use cash. Having a job (Any kind of job) is going to make there be a record of you. Even my girls foot prints were taken by the hospital at birth. I do not think it is realistic for someone to think it would be possible to live their entire life without record of himself.

No, but fingerprints, like DNA are unique to the person. I am not talking about living off the grid, but keeping your body completely yours......Im not explaining this very well........a fingerprint is taken as confirmation that a person was at a certain place. If your fingerprints are in a database and can be accessed by others, then it is conceivable that it could be faked, and then in no longer your own.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3309

"ftmom" wrote:

No, but fingerprints, like DNA are unique to the person. I am not talking about living off the grid, but keeping your body completely yours......Im not explaining this very well........a fingerprint is taken as confirmation that a person was at a certain place. If your fingerprints are in a database and can be accessed by others, then it is conceivable that it could be faked, and then in no longer your own.

That is a bit of paranoia don't you think? This database isn't accessible by everyone...the likelihood of your identity being stolen this way is pretty unlikely.

ETA: I never stated my opinion on the OT....I'm cool with it.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"Potter75" wrote:

[QUOTE=ftmom]
Longshot. Assuming inside job in the system or something?!?! I doubt it.

Are you kidding? All they asked for was a drivers licence to take your prints. How is that different then asking for a drivers license to confirm identity for a background check? How is it good enough in one instance, but no another?

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"KimPossible" wrote:

I think purposely keeping yourself 'out of the system' has to naturally come with sacrifices.

I have a coworker that won't use the grocery store advantage program because you have to provide your license in order to use it.

Fine don't use it, and the sacrifice in return is that you don't get the savings that other people do.

If you don't want to be fingerprinted, then i think its fair for people to have to accept that they cannot have jobs where working with children in a fairly intimate manner is going to happen.

If you could show me how requiring a vetran teacher to give there fingerprints does this I would agree.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"KimPossible" wrote:

That is a bit of paranoia don't you think? This database isn't accessible by everyone...the likelihood of your identity being stolen this way is pretty unlikely.

ETA: I never stated my opinion on the OT....I'm cool with it.

I agree that it is slightly paranoid. Look at it the other way though. What if your identity has already been stolen, and this person now has there fingerprints on file as you? I just dont get why we NEED to have everyones fingerprints on file.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"ftmom" wrote:

[QUOTE=Potter75]

Are you kidding? All they asked for was a drivers licence to take your prints. How is that different then asking for a drivers license to confirm identity for a background check? How is it good enough in one instance, but no another?

I honestly don't understand what you mean?

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"Potter75" wrote:

[QUOTE=ftmom]

I honestly don't understand what you mean?

Sorry, I was nursing a baby and trying to type as few words as possible. If I can go in and show my drivers license as proof of who I am to get my fingerprints done, then how are my fingerprints any more proof of who I am then my drivers license is? So therefore showing my drivers license should prove just as much as getting my fingerprints does.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"ftmom" wrote:

[QUOTE=Potter75]

Sorry, I was nursing a baby and trying to type as few words as possible. If I can go in and show my drivers license as proof of who I am to get my fingerprints done, then how are my fingerprints any more proof of who I am then my drivers license is? So therefore showing my drivers license should prove just as much as getting my fingerprints does.

i still really don't get it. You can produce a fake ID and fool a police officer, I guess. But your fingerprint is attached to you.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"Potter75" wrote:

I think that it should be an obvious for teachers or daycare workers or anyone in a position of authority who has the potential to have alone time with a student ~ I'm actually surprised that that isn't a mandate there already, it is here.

I have to be honest and say that I would be annoyed if I had to be fingerprinted and background checked and pay for it to volunteer in my childrens school ~ and say that it having parents have to do so would not give me an increased sense of safety. In fact, it would make me upset because I would think that it would decrease parent/grandparent participation in the school. For instance, for my sons birthday I have my Dad set up to be a "mystery reader" in my sons classroom as a surprise for my son. He would have to be fingerprinted and background checked to go to the school and volunteer? No way! So annoying and invasive! there are 475 kids his elementary school and we have a 70% parental participation rate in the PTO, and that doesn't even count the number of occasional volunteers like my Dad or other grandparents/aunts/uncles who pop in for occasional visits/participation. I would think that that number would go WAY down if people had to be vetted and fingerprinted, and that would be a huge loss for the kids. I don't think that that sort of thing provides any additional safety for the kids, when these volunteers are never alone with the kids and are not really a threat to be in a "predatory" role.

I 100% agree with this. I don't have any problem with teachers and bus drivers getting finger printed and submitting for background checks. I don't know about bus drivers, but I know that teachers in CO already have to do this, and I think it's perfectly reasonable. I had to be finger printed and submit to a background check myself in my own industry because I have access to a ton of financial information for different companies and they don't want to hire a known thief or fraudster - again, perfectly reasonable given my position.

However, I think it's going a little overboard to do this to all parent volunteers as well. I mean, if a parent was a known sex offender, would they even have access to their OWN children? And how likely is it that someone who volunteers for an afternoon as a "room mom" or "guest reader" would even be alone with the kids for any length of time to be able to abuse them? I don't know, it just seems excessive to me, and seems like it would discourage parent participation which seems like a real shame.

Also, I agree with Kim that if you choose to "live off the grid" for lack of a better term, you have to accept that will come with sacrifices. If you don't want your finger prints on file, that means that you probably can't be a teacher or work in the financial industry - and I think most of us agree that is a good thing. People don't want a known thief to have access to their credit card numbers and bank accounts, or a known sex offender to have access to their children. It's a reasonable expectation. If you have a problem with that, then you have to accept that you'll need to find other employment opportunities. Same way I feel about nurses who won't get the flu shot. Blum 3 I put up with being finger printed and back ground checked so I can work in my industry, you put up with getting a flu shot so you can work in yours! Blum 3

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

"ftmom" wrote:

Sorry, I was nursing a baby and trying to type as few words as possible. If I can go in and show my drivers license as proof of who I am to get my fingerprints done, then how are my fingerprints any more proof of who I am then my drivers license is? So therefore showing my drivers license should prove just as much as getting my fingerprints does.

You could possibly give a fake ID the first time you have your fingerprints taken, but thereafter you would be known as that person. You couldn't use another ID to give your fingerprints again because they would come up on the first ID given. Here in Texas they take your thumbprint now when you get your drivers license.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I 100% agree with this. I don't have any problem with teachers and bus drivers getting finger printed and submitting for background checks. I don't know about bus drivers, but I know that teachers in CO already have to do this, and I think it's perfectly reasonable. I had to be finger printed and submit to a background check myself in my own industry because I have access to a ton of financial information for different companies and they don't want to hire a known thief or fraudster - again, perfectly reasonable given my position.

However, I think it's going a little overboard to do this to all parent volunteers as well. I mean, if a parent was a known sex offender, would they even have access to their OWN children? And how likely is it that someone who volunteers for an afternoon as a "room mom" or "guest reader" would even be alone with the kids for any length of time to be able to abuse them? I don't know, it just seems excessive to me, and seems like it would discourage parent participation which seems like a real shame.

Also, I agree with Kim that if you choose to "live off the grid" for lack of a better term, you have to accept that will come with sacrifices. If you don't want your finger prints on file, that means that you probably can't be a teacher or work in the financial industry - and I think most of us agree that is a good thing. People don't want a known thief to have access to their credit card numbers and bank accounts, or a known sex offender to have access to their children. It's a reasonable expectation. If you have a problem with that, then you have to accept that you'll need to find other employment opportunities. Same way I feel about nurses who won't get the flu shot. Blum 3 I put up with being finger printed and back ground checked so I can work in my industry, you put up with getting a flu shot so you can work in yours! Blum 3

My problem isnt with requiring it for new teachers (or nurses), but I think to say, dont go into this industry if you arent willing to do this is really unfair to people who went into this industry (payed for schooling, did a good job) years ago, before it was a requirement. I think there should be some sort of grandfathering or exemption for those who dont wish to have it done, and have shown by their record of employment to be trustworthy.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

You could possibly give a fake ID the first time you have your fingerprints taken, but thereafter you would be known as that person. You couldn't use another ID to give your fingerprints again because they would come up on the first ID given. Here in Texas they take your thumbprint now when you get your drivers license.

I get that. Maybe the disconnect here is that I am in Canada, and I have never heard of anyone getting fingerprints done for ANY background check (maybe DH, but he has special security clearance). So I see getting fingerprints done as being unnecessary, and perhaps leading to additional identity theft problems. But I suppose if everyone is getting them done all the time anyways, there would be fewer problems as inconsistencies would be caught early on?

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"ftmom" wrote:

My problem isnt with requiring it for new teachers (or nurses), but I think to say, dont go into this industry if you arent willing to do this is really unfair to people who went into this industry (payed for schooling, did a good job) years ago, before it was a requirement. I think there should be some sort of grandfathering or exemption for those who dont wish to have it done, and have shown by their record of employment to be trustworthy.

To a certain extent, it matters to me whether or not the new requirements are reasonable. I realize that "reasonable" is a subjective term, but for example, how harmful is it really to be fingerprinted or to get a flu shot? If it's something where you can't really demonstrate any actual harm(or even a huge inconvenience) outside of conspiracy theories and paranoia, I just can't get myself that worked up about the injustice of it.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

To a certain extent, it matters to me whether or not the new requirements are reasonable. I realize that "reasonable" is a subjective term, but for example, how harmful is it really to be fingerprinted or to get a flu shot? If it's something where you can't really demonstrate any actual harm(or even a huge inconvenience) outside of conspiracy theories and paranoia, I just can't get myself that worked up about the injustice of it.

I look at it the other way. Is the benefit enough to require everyone to do it? For example, teachers licenced in BC before 2005 were only required to get a criminal record check upon licencing and hiring. New hires since then are required to get them every 5 years. This demonstrated enough of a difference that they have now changed it so that EVERY teacher is required to get them every 5 years. I can get behind that because I can see the benefit (with that one I could have predicted the benefit, but you know what I mean). I want a measurable benefit before I think EVERYONE should be required to take part. Like I said, I dont mind having new requirements for new employees. But, for example, the flu shot thing. If they allowed those who protested strongly to grandfather out for a few years, shuffling them into positions away from patients during flu season, and there was a measurable benefit to patients, then I could get behind it becoming mandatory for all. I honestly dont see what the benefit of the fingerprinting thing is, but as I already said, maybe that is just because we dont do it here.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"ftmom" wrote:

I look at it the other way. Is the benefit enough to require everyone to do it? For example, teachers licenced in BC before 2005 were only required to get a criminal record check upon licencing and hiring. New hires since then are required to get them every 5 years. This demonstrated enough of a difference that they have now changed it so that EVERY teacher is required to get them every 5 years. I can get behind that because I can see the benefit (with that one I could have predicted the benefit, but you know what I mean). I want a measurable benefit before I think EVERYONE should be required to take part. Like I said, I dont mind having new requirements for new employees. But, for example, the flu shot thing. If they allowed those who protested strongly to grandfather out for a few years, shuffling them into positions away from patients during flu season, and there was a measurable benefit to patients, then I could get behind it becoming mandatory for all. I honestly dont see what the benefit of the fingerprinting thing is, but as I already said, maybe that is just because we dont do it here.

I do agree that there needs to be benefit as well, I just think that the benefits for both (fingerprinting and flu shots) have already been demonstrated. We use the fingerprinting as part of the background check, so that you can't just make up a new identity if you do something bad. I think that is beneficial. I don't think that every person in the country needs to do it, but there are positions (such as teachers and people who work with financial data) where I definitely see the benefit.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

To me a background check without fingerprinting is totally meaningless, honestly. Any convicted perv who wants access to kids is going to make up a fake identity.

Unless I verify that I am backgroundchecking the correct person ~ and as you yourself have admitted showing a fake ID is super easy ~ what is the point? Showing a fake fingerprint is exceedingly difficult.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"Potter75" wrote:

To me a background check without fingerprinting is totally meaningless, honestly. Any convicted perv who wants access to kids is going to make up a fake identity.

Unless I verify that I am backgroundchecking the correct person ~ and as you yourself have admitted showing a fake ID is super easy ~ what is the point? Showing a fake fingerprint is exceedingly difficult.

I guess I just dont see it as that easy to make a fake identity. Like I said, here you have to write down every address you have had and for some checks list all your employers too. Maybe I dont have enough of a criminal mind, but I dont get how you could fake all that and still leave a trail that they could follow? The only thing I can think is that it is slightly different here because we have one basic police force for most of the country, so it is easier to communicate across provinces etc.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3309

"ftmom" wrote:

I guess I just dont see it as that easy to make a fake identity. Like I said, here you have to write down every address you have had and for some checks list all your employers too. Maybe I dont have enough of a criminal mind, but I dont get how you could fake all that and still leave a trail that they could follow? The only thing I can think is that it is slightly different here because we have one basic police force for most of the country, so it is easier to communicate across provinces etc.

If you commit a serious crime, they fingerprint you after you are convicted. Then your record is tied to your fingerprint, no matter who you might pretend to be.

So no matter who you present yourself as in the future, if someone does a fingerprint check, they will know you have committed a crime.

This is a precaution to help prevent committing a crime in one place, then going to another state and doing it again. It won't stop every crime but it helps with repeat offenders...or people who attempt to repeat.

ETA: The lynch pin to this all is that they fingerprint you when you are convicted

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"ftmom" wrote:

I guess I just dont see it as that easy to make a fake identity. Like I said, here you have to write down every address you have had and for some checks list all your employers too. Maybe I dont have enough of a criminal mind, but I dont get how you could fake all that and still leave a trail that they could follow? The only thing I can think is that it is slightly different here because we have one basic police force for most of the country, so it is easier to communicate across provinces etc.

I guess I don't understand how you think that someone could not gain access to someone's past employment or residential history and remember it and present it along with a fake ID card (easy to make, I had one in college, who didn't?)......but could somehow access and replicate their fingerprint, or else have YOU'R fingerprint planted as theirs in "the system"?

One seems plausible to me (the former). One seems paranoid to me (the latter). Yet you are worried about the latter.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

I think that any teacher worth his or her salt isn't worried about having their fingerprint taken. I had my fingerprint taken in elementary school (I think for missing children purposes or something awful like that) and I have never once thought that my identity would be stolen or that I was losing a part of my bodily integrity for having done that. I've never committed a crime and if asked to provide a fingerprint now for a background check at my current job I would be 100% okay with that.

Pages