Mule skinners need background checks

Background Checks

I understand and agree with all the grief in regards cost of background checks & licenses involved which in essence should be considerably loewr given the monetary compensation of the job involved.

However, in regards to background checks - you must understand that background checks merely give you a safer assumption of the probability of a person's tendency of repeating past criminal behavior. Kind of like "once a crook, always a crook". They may point you in the right direction, but not your final destination.

Besides, in the event of a mishap, agencies must show that at least some minimal due diligence was performed in order to protect the public. It all boils down to liability and "lawyers". Besides one's own safety being around a mule skinner who may be dishonest or violent.

You can read more about background checks policies & procedures in this website: http://www.background-checks-systems.com

Plenty of good information.

Background Checks

I understand and agree with all the grief in regards cost of background checks & licenses involved which in essence should be considerably lower given the monetary compensation of the job involved.

However, in regards to background checks - you must understand that background checks merely give you a safer assumption of the probability of a person's tendency of repeating past criminal behavior. Kind of like "once a crook, always a crook". They may point you in the right direction, but not your final destination.

Besides, in the event of a mishap, agencies must show that at least some minimal due diligence was performed in order to protect the public. It all boils down to liability and "lawyers". Besides one's own safety being around a mule skinner who may be dishonest or violent.

You can read more about background checks policies & procedures in this website: http://www.background-checks-systems.com

Plenty of good information.

Nothing stupid about Bureaucrat's actions

Like anyone who has never had the "pleasure" of working for our government, you ridicule the stupidity of the bureaucrats. What you fail to understand is that from the bureaucrat's point of view, this refusal to waive the requirements is about the smartest thing he or she could do.

You see the laws that create these sorts of requirements do not include any provision for the bureaucrat to make exceptions just because a particular situation may seem absurd. If the bureaucrat ignores the rules and makes an exception for someone, there are several potential negatives for the bureaucrat.

Possible result #1: The bureaucrat goes to jail and loses his job. Not likely in this case, but since it does involve antiterrorist law it remains a possibility.

Possible Result #2: The bureaucrat just loses his job. This is more likely than the previous possible result, but probably not too likely if the bureaucrat doesn't have a past history of making exceptions to the rules.

Possible Result #3: Disciplinary action. This is far more likely than many non-bureaucrats may realize. Such disciplinary action can include time off without pay or a demotion and accompanying loss of pay.

Possible Result #4: The press gets wind of one exception, and starts to ask why other exceptions haven't received the same favorable treatment. For the agency this can be embarrassing. For the bureaucrat this is likely to result in him suffering one of the first three things I listed.

So from the bureaucrat's point of view, granting waivers puts career and income in jeopardy, whereas refusing to grant a waiver just makes him another anonymous bureaucrat.

Congressmen and women in particular love to blame the faceless bureaucrat whenever someone gets upset because they weren't able to get a waiver or other form of special treatment from a bureaucrat. Of course the politicians don't mention that it is the very work rules put in place by Congress that forces the bureaucrat to apply the rules with no favoritism or room for variance.