With the pre-Google system, at least Mark gets his foot in the door and has a chance to impress the prospective employer during the interview process. While his conviction may still impact his employment prospects, at least he has a fighting chance.
With Google in place, Mark never receives a call-back. The employer doesn't bother.
How much does this impact Mark in the real world? I have no idea. But, I'd prefer the non-Google system and avoid the potential of Mark never finding meaningful employment.
"With the pre-Google system, at least Mark gets his foot in the door and has a chance to impress the prospective employer during the interview process. While his conviction may still impact his employment prospects, at least he has a fighting chance."
While this sounds like intuitive it is, AFAIK, wrong.
I'm pretty sure there are ssrn papers/etc on this, where they found that 99% of employers (or something ridiculous) had non-overridable policies, so in practice, no, there was no fighting chance.
I'd personally prefer a system where neither could be used after a cooling off period depending on crime.
> With the pre-Google system, at least Mark gets his foot in the door and has a chance to impress the prospective employer during the interview process.
Would the companies start asking in their screening process "Have you been committed of crime before" and that would wash out all the benefits of censoring Google?
With the pre-Google system, at least Mark gets his foot in the door and has a chance to impress the prospective employer during the interview process. While his conviction may still impact his employment prospects, at least he has a fighting chance.
With Google in place, Mark never receives a call-back. The employer doesn't bother.
How much does this impact Mark in the real world? I have no idea. But, I'd prefer the non-Google system and avoid the potential of Mark never finding meaningful employment.