Allows employers to receive reimbursement for the costs of employee criminal background checks when certain employees terminate employment in less than ninety days. (8/1/18)
The bill introduces a notable change to the existing framework regarding employer costs associated with hiring. Historically, it was unlawful for employers to charge employees for costs related to fingerprinting, medical examinations, and required records for employment. SB256 adds criminal background checks to this list, integrating a new layer of financial responsibility associated with hiring practices while still protecting employees from undue charges. As more workplaces may mandate background checks, the potential for increased scrutiny of hiring practices and the related costs could lead to changes in employer recruitment strategies.
Senate Bill 256 amends Louisiana's employment laws by allowing employers to seek reimbursement for the costs incurred when conducting criminal background checks on employees or applicants. This provision is applicable when the employee earns at least one dollar above the federal minimum wage and is not classified as part-time or seasonal. The law stipulates that reimbursement can occur if the employee either terminates their employment within 90 days or fails to report to work, unless the termination is due to significant changes made by the employer. The bill aims to provide clarity on costs associated with employment while ensuring compliance with existing labor laws.
The sentiment surrounding SB256 appears mixed. Proponents argue that the bill protects employers from financial losses due to employee turnover while ensuring that those employees who voluntarily leave the job should not burden the employer with unrecouped background check costs. However, critics express concern that the bill could place additional financial pressures on potential employees, particularly those seeking to enter the job market, who might find the burdens of these costs a deterrent when applying for positions. The debate revolves around balancing business interests with employee rights.
Key points of contention have arisen around the principle of fairness when imposing this reimbursement responsibility. Critics worry that these practices could exploit vulnerable employees, particularly those with limited job opportunities. The definitions and conditions related to partial and full-time employment raise questions about equity in reimbursement. Additionally, the law's implications for those who may not have the means to pay for a background check upfront could lead to inequities in hiring practices, challenging the rationale behind this legislative change.