I've always wondered

[psijac]

If I was an employer could I make having a CHL a condition of employment? Seems like an easy way to have someone else pay for a background check.

[JP171]

I think you could, its not a federally protected thing, not too sure it would be wise, but its probably legal in Texas

[punkndisorderly]

I see two or three problems with this.

One, it would really slow down the hiring process. Rather than getting a background check in a day or two, you'd be looking at a month for someone to get their paperwork to dps, take the class, and get their permit. If they get denied, you'd have to restart the process.

You'd also be excluding qualified people who are in the process of getting a divorce and have the standard restraining order in place. You also would be discriminating against protected classes. For example physically disabled (blind, MS, etc).

Last, you'd be requiring a sizable investment from prospective employees to pay the fees, pay for the class, get the fingerprints, etc.

One more. With a background check, you see what the person did and can make the decision if that disqualifies them. With a chl, you only know they had "something" in their past which could be something as small as being behind on student loans due to a stint of unemployment or possession on pot in 1962.

[Grog]

If you're too cheap to pay for a background check, don't let them know. They'd likely for fear of never being paid on time

[jmorris]

I see two or three problems with this.

One, it would really slow down the hiring process. Rather than getting a background check in a day or two, you'd be looking at a month for someone to get their paperwork to dps, take the class, and get their permit. If they get denied, you'd have to restart the process.

......

I think he means would there be problems if he only hired people that already have a CHL so he won't have to bother doing a background check. If there was someone he really wanted to hire that didn't have a CHL he could just go ahead with the background check.

[Liberty]

The main problem with hiring only CHLs is that most that I know wouldn't be to crazy about letting a stranger or prospective employer know about their CHL status,

[Jumping Frog]

We background check everyone prior to hire. The cost is quite reasonable. I never saw much point in paying someone 10's of thousands of dollars per year and then balking at spending $50 to help protect against a bad hire.

[Tamie]

I don't know any law against asking for the CHL number, just like businesses often ask for DL number on applications. I'm talking about office jobs, not delivery driver jobs. So if it's fine to ask for DL you can ask for CHL and give preferences to people who admit having a CHL. Combine that with NABSC and NASAP and you're set.