Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Surprised this hasn't been talked about but what do you think of the local and statewide push to ban the box on employment applications on both the city and state job applications?
Basically the idea is you don't ask people if they have been convicted of a felony on the job application. You get to know them first (perhaps over tea) to give them a chance to get their feet in the door and then you ask them if needed.
Lots of people turned out for a recent city council meeting and a bill has been introduced at the state level.
On the one hand, ex cons need jobs too. Much better to get them work than have them idle. On the other hand it's the "con" part of ex-con that concerns me. Aren't a lot of these folks good at snow jobs?
Charlotte school of law seems quite involved as in I see their name popping up but I haven't looked deep to see what their role is if any: Ban the Box | Civil Rights Clinic
Surprised this hasn't been talked about but what do you think of the local and statewide push to ban the box on employment applications on both the city and state job applications?
Basically the idea is you don't ask people if they have been convicted of a felony on the job application. You get to know them first (perhaps over tea) to give them a chance to get their feet in the door and then you ask them if needed.
Lots of people turned out for a recent city council meeting and a bill has been introduced at the state level.
On the one hand, ex cons need jobs too. Much better to get them work than have them idle. On the other hand it's the "con" part of ex-con that concerns me. Aren't a lot of these folks good at snow jobs?
Charlotte school of law seems quite involved as in I see their name popping up but I haven't looked deep to see what their role is if any: Ban the Box | Civil Rights Clinic
It's not about felonies. Even states that do "ban the box" are allowed to ask about felonies. This is about all "crimes," and placing no restrictions on how far back the record search can go.
This is about people who have some petty, 20-year-old misdemeanor charge (say trespassing or underage drinking) on their record getting turned down for a job they are imminently qualified for because a computer search turns up a "record." Or people who may have done something bad years ago but have years and years of solid citizenship behind them not getting hired.
It is so much easier to track these records now with databases. It's also much easier for mistakes to happen because third party, for-profit companies are doing a lot of the record checks. It's also a lot easier for HR companies to just place blanket bans on anyone with a record of any kind (even though this is illegal) than it is to use common sense.
I think Washington state allows employers to ask about all felonies whenever they happened and all misdemeanors within the 5 years prior to application. Some other states that have restrictions allow companies to ask about 10 years prior.
So, it's not like hardened felons are just going to slip under the radar.
It's not about felonies. Even states that do "ban the box" are allowed to ask about felonies. This is about all "crimes," and placing no restrictions on how far back the record search can go.
This is about people who have some petty, 20-year-old misdemeanor charge (say trespassing or underage drinking) on their record getting turned down for a job they are imminently qualified for because a computer search turns up a "record." Or people who may have done something bad years ago but have years and years of solid citizenship behind them not getting hired.
It is so much easier to track these records now with databases. It's also much easier for mistakes to happen because third party, for-profit companies are doing a lot of the record checks. It's also a lot easier for HR companies to just place blanket bans on anyone with a record of any kind (even though this is illegal) than it is to use common sense.
I think Washington state allows employers to ask about all felonies whenever they happened and all misdemeanors within the 5 years prior to application. Some other states that have restrictions allow companies to ask about 10 years prior.
So, it's not like hardened felons are just going to slip under the radar.
OK I appreciate the the amplification but I think it's fair to say that it isn't ALL about felonies instead of saying "It's not about felonies". I haven't seen the stats on misdemeanors versus felonies but would like to if you have them.
All I know is the person showing up on the media here is a felon and at least the first person of many many at this page also is: Ban the Box Videos | NC Justice Center
At least I assume that since they served multiple years it was a felony.
The current application does state that checking the box won't automatically exclude someone but I guess they don't trust their own HR department not to discriminate.
Mostly I'm interested in opinions so I can form my own. You seem to be against the box but I'm not sure since you didn't say.
If a person has served his time and stayed out of trouble, then his debt to society is paid. I don't see where the state should hold it over his head for a job. Double jeopardy could be argued which is against the US Constitution. So this question should be eliminated from the application.
If a person has served his time and stayed out of trouble, then his debt to society is paid. I don't see where the state should hold it over his head for a job. Double jeopardy could be argued which is against the US Constitution. So this question should be eliminated from the application.
Thanks. Double jeopardy is an interesting theory. At first blush (only thinking about it for 20 seconds) I say there isn't anything that disallows a government from discriminating against a non-protected class. In other words, they aren't being punished, they just are being discriminated against. But it is something to think about. I haven't seen it raised before. I also assume that you mean for government employers only.
I think it can be argued that if a state government institutionalizes a system where people continued to be persecuted, i.e. denial of a state jobs to convicted felons who have paid their debt to society, then double jeopardy could be argued in federal court. It would not be a question of discrimination. It would be an issue of denial of a basic constitutional right.
IMO, the state gets into murky water on this when it establishes and maintains rules for people who have to register with various crime registries.
OK I appreciate the the amplification but I think it's fair to say that it isn't ALL about felonies instead of saying "It's not about felonies". I haven't seen the stats on misdemeanors versus felonies but would like to if you have them.
All I know is the person showing up on the media here is a felon and at least the first person of many many at this page also is: Ban the Box Videos | NC Justice Center
At least I assume that since they served multiple years it was a felony.
The current application does state that checking the box won't automatically exclude someone but I guess they don't trust their own HR department not to discriminate.
Mostly I'm interested in opinions so I can form my own. You seem to be against the box but I'm not sure since you didn't say.
I'm not against the box entirely, but I do think it needs to be less all-encompassing. Going back 5 or 10 years makes sense. Further than that does not for the vast majority of crimes (more people commit misdemeanors than felonies and some felonies are hardly violent). I like the state that requires background checks on misdemeanors up to 5 years old and felonies, say, 15 years old with certain exceptions for violent crimes. I think that is Massachusetts.
Some say this is an incentive for good behavior, but I think it's really a disincentive for people who have made mistakes to go on the straight and narrow. If you know you're not going to get a good job with a record (no matter how minor), why try to go legit at all?
HR firms will always seek to "reduce risk." They just refuse to give a reason as to why they didn't hire someone, even though it is clear that it is the record. Then, if someone gets past the interview process and they hire them, some minor record comes up and then they say the person lied on the application.
It's one of the deterrents for lawless behavior. Take away consequences, you take away disincentives. It's fair.
If you sentence someone to 90 days of jail, followed by a lifetime of certain unemployment, it's not a deterrent for lawless behavior, rather it guarantees lawless behavior after the condemned is released.
Does it really make a difference considering that a felony conviction would likely come up in a background check anyway?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
