This is from John Oosting's report at MLive.com:
"Detroit, home to thousands of convicted felons, could drop that question from job applications from city jobs. City Council members Ken Cockrel Jr. and Kwame Kenyatta are poised to introduce a 'Ban the Box' ordinance in coming weeks, arguing the question unfairly punishes felons a second time. 'They're doing time all over again when they apply for a job and it asks the question ...and whoever is getting ready to hire them stops,' Kenyatta told The Detroit News.
The ban would not prevent the city from conducting background checks later in the hiring process, but proponents argue removing the question from job applications could provide convicts with the start of a second chance.
Felons who have served their time 'don't even get an opportunity to get their foot in the door,' Cockrel told WWJ. The initiative is part of a nationwide 'Ban the Box' movement launched in Oakland, Calif. by Susan Borton, who served time in prison on drug charges and found it challenging to obtain a job when she was released in 2003."
___________________
Employers have legitimate liability considerations relating to negligent hiring, supervision and retention of employees with criminal records. These liabilities exist out of concern for customers and co-workers. If I am a thief, doesn't the employer have an obligation to company owners, investors and employees? If I am violent and potentially a danger to customers or co-workers doesn't an employer have a duty to protect anyone I come into contact with on their behalf? Eliminate the box, and you eliminate an important tool for prospective employers.
This from someone who is, regretfully, a tax felon. Every prospective future employer of the Bad Lawyer will know this, as painful as this fact is--I guarantee it.
Posts
You're not making sense -- the "Ban the Box" campaign keep the employer ignorant in any way. Rather, it changes the location of the felony screen to a point in the process where the person has a face, a name, and a story behind them, and where the employer is interested in knowing more ... rather than at the beginning where the employer is getting hundreds of resumes for each opening. Most hiring managers these days admit that they have to find every possible reason to reject applicants as quickly as possible simply because of the deluge of people applying for jobs (particularly jobs in places like Detroit).
ReplyDeleteThe felony screen is still in place and will still surface those priors; but the employer will see the tradeoff and be able to ask "Do I really care about this pot conviction?" instead of having a clerk in HR wipe out every applicant who checked the box.
Walker--
ReplyDeleteThanks for the insight.
BL
this should be expanded to all public positions & licenses most second chance acts provide no chance and are generally filled with meaningless b.s. and in the case of detroit chicago cleve .and most major cities government employees are after a short time in their positions un-convicted felons i.e. frank jimmy gerald and yes TIM McCORMICK(my next target) on and on. presently government is the only growing industry and attempting to be the only existing industry so if not given gov. jobs convicted felons will be fighting over the scraps left over that gov. empolyees haven't stolen for themselves
ReplyDeletethe pope
Uh, duh, I think Walker sez it pretty well. With the box, everyone is excluded. Someone trying to hire a financial services officer might be concerned about a past tax indiscretion, but how would you feel about being rejected out of hand because of the box alone when trying to obtain a position in an organization that provided legal services to indigents where you had a strict salary and no access to funds and disbursements. Wouldn't that be a total travesty and waste of your hard-earned knowledge and experience?
ReplyDeletewhat is a tax indiscretion ?? is that where an individual chooses not to volunteer to pay a direct tax, which according to the constitution no legislature can impose on an individual ( not to be confused with a person) and leave us not confuse a tax code with a tax law.
ReplyDeletethe pope so iask is not volunteering or not being duped being indiscrete
the pope
There are some great points made by the commentators and I feel enlightened. But I don't think you can lightly dismiss the problems as it pertains to the potential liability of employers.
ReplyDeleteBL
you are forgetting the matter is referring to public employees not private industry
ReplyDeletegoverment jobs paid for with public funds i believe is the object of course gov will try to impose their will on private eventually i'm sure but we'll deal with that at some other time if it happens i suggest in no way that this be imposed on private companies even the civil rights act as misrepresented by the press with regards to rand pauls statements should only represent activities involving government funds
the pope
Pretty sure even the real pope is required to follow the dictates of grammar and punctuation.
ReplyDeleteI am pro helping those with felony convictions get back to work, but I can't be pro banning the box until someone spends some time actually caring how this affects a businesses liability. Small companies *have been* sued for not asking and hiring someone who was convicted of a violent crime who then harmed other employees. The moral indignation I get in response to this concern is unfair - its a legitimate and large concern for any employer. We have a right and an obligation to care for the safety of our customers and employees. Is ban the box the best and safest way to get felons back into the work force? I am not yet at all convinced.
ReplyDelete