Teachers, bus drivers being fingerprinted for background check?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftmom

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alissa_Sal

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. :p 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! :p

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GloriaInTX

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftmom

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alissa_Sal

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftmom

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Potter75

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftmom

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftmom

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.