Ban the Box movement

[Shadowbunny]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? AZ

Interesting article on the movement to prohibit employers from asking about criminal records on job applications:

http://www.npr.org/2014/07/14/330731820/how-banning-one-question-could-help-ex-offenders-land-a-job?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20140714

 

[quincy]

I think it is a move in the right direction.

 

[tranquility]

I think it is a move in the right direction.

What is the correct destination this direction points toward?

 

[quincy]

What is the correct destination this direction points toward?

I'll let you pick one.

 

[tranquility]

Um...no one is allowed to think bad things about convicted felons?

 

[LeeHarveyBlotto]

I think it is a move in the right direction.

The right direction is that I'm not allowed to know someone I'm interviewing has done time for multiple violent acts?

Society is a balancing act of the rights of various parties. I'd argue this one would be WAY out of balance.

 

[TigerD]

I've hired people with criminal records and I've refused to hire people with criminal records. As an employer, that decision is mine and mine alone. If I choose to disqualify potential candidates because of a criminal record, I shouldn't have to waste my time doing an interview and other hiring processes to DQ them. Never mind that it is to the jobseekers benefit to not waste their time and money preparing for interviews that will not result in a job.

For example - I would never hire someone at a collection agency that had a criminal history. Period. It is much better to weed those people out early. However, if you banned pot smokers, every restaurant in town would shut down.

DC

 

[quincy]

We* tend to hire people who best meet the requirements for the job.

The fact that a person has a criminal history does not play much of a factor in the hiring decisions we make - because those with a criminal history who apply for the jobs available have already served the sentences imposed for the crimes committed. We do not feel the need (or have the desire) to impose a longer one. Other factors are more important.

I can understand an employer who looks with concern to his own liability should one of his employees commit a crime while under his employ. I understand that the "ban the box movement" is an unpopular one among many individuals and employers, especially those who believe people can't change (once a felon, always a felon).

That said, I think, if society hopes to stem recidivism, education and gainful employment can be key.



*In using "we," I am referring to me and my employer

 

[tranquility]

So, is a person's criminal record a valid factor to determine things or no?

It is all well and good that we are purportedly rehabilitating people, except for the fact we are not. Part is the "effort" (joke) we put into trying rehabilitation in the prisons and part of it is the longer term socioeconomic and cultural issues that are simply not addressable once someone has become an adult. (While I doubt St. Francis Xaiver first said the quote, the Jesuits believe, "Give me the child until he is seven and I'll give you the man".) So, as an employer, should I be able to ask a person if he has been convicted of a crime or not?

Or, will we legislate that whoever has served his sentence is healed and we cannot discriminate against them?

Is it fair? No. One quote I have pinned up next to my desk is by Anatole France from "The Red Lilly":

"The law in it's majestic equality
Forbids the rich as well as the poor
To sleep under bridges
To beg in the streets
And to steal bread"

But, I havw a database of thousands of social security numbers combined with names, addresses and specific account numbers as well as amounts. Clients trust us to go through their financial life and make sense of it. It is a position of great trust and can include being left alone in their place of business or at their home. I'm supposed to go by some government theory about how rehabilitated someone is in hiring decisions? Child care, government workers like police or teachers get a special dispensation of course, but what of me and my clients? What if it is just the manager of my apartment building? How about a simple fast food worker who is going to close the shop with a 17 year old high school kid? At what point is trust important?

At all points. So I will ask again in a different way. In what way can not having a box be a step in the right direction?

If we cared, we would spend more on the research supported methods to help every child become educated and morally upright. (aka the Protective Factors) Even if we could get that, all we really get is a reduction in those who are convicted of crimes as we have more productive citizens. Would that make the box more or less important? I don't care how politically correct we get, I am going to think poorly of a person who has been convicted of robbery. Even if they are clean, educated, well spoken and served their sentence.

 

[quincy]

You do realize that, as the employer, you can still do a criminal history background check, box or no box?

You are still free to "think poorly of a person who has been convicted of robbery. Even if they are clean, educated, well spoken and served their sentence."

You do not have to hire him/her. If you don't want the convicted robber to work with your clients and their financial information, then you do not have to hire that person. For you, that could be a smart decision. And, smart or not, it is your decision to make.

The problem ex-convicts have, though, is that many employers like you will only look at the fact that they committed a crime and reject them automatically, whether their qualifications may be equal to or greater than others who apply for the same position. When I have to hire someone, the criminal history is not my major concern. Other factors play a bigger role in my hiring decisions.

That said, I don't expect we will ever see this in the same way because we are coming from different places, tranquility, and our experiences, and our perspectives on life, are very different.

And you and I are not going to debate this particular issue, because I have no desire to. I will bow out of this thread now.

 

[tranquility]

You do realize that, as the employer, you can still do a criminal history background check, box or no box?

You are still free to "think poorly of a person who has been convicted of robbery. Even if they are clean, educated, well spoken and served their sentence."

You do not have to hire him/her. If you don't want the convicted robber to work with your clients and their financial information, then you do not have to hire that person. For you, that could be a smart decision. And, smart or not, it is your decision to make.

The problem ex-convicts have, though, is that many employers like you will only look at the fact that they committed a crime and reject them automatically, whether their qualifications may be equal to or greater than others who apply for the same position. When I have to hire someone, the criminal history is not my major concern. Other factors play a bigger role in my hiring decisions.

That said, I don't expect we will ever see this in the same way because we are coming from different places, tranquility, and our experiences, and our perspectives on life, are very different.

And you and I are not going to debate this particular issue, because I have no desire to. I will bow out of this thread now.

One problem society has is people who commit crimes.

If I am allowed to do a background check because it is important to me, why should I not have a check box that will deal with that issue and save us all the trouble? If one is a person who does not care, he does not need the box. Except, some would prefer to legislate their opinion and force everyone to jump through hoops if they feel differently.

 

[LdiJ]

One problem society has is people who commit crimes.

If I am allowed to do a background check because it is important to me, why should I not have a check box that will deal with that issue and save us all the trouble? If one is a person who does not care, he does not need the box. Except, some would prefer to legislate their opinion and force everyone to jump through hoops if they feel differently.

You and quincy both make excellent points.

At the same time though, I have directly observed situations where people make a one time mistake, and truly do not want to go that route again, but have almost no chance of finding a job at a living wage.