Discussion on:

Ban the Box seeks to prohibit companies from asking about criminal records on applications

This has the potential to be good or bad. The bad side I can see is a company such as a bank might like a candidate's qualifications only to find out they have a fraud conviction. Then the bank is out the money and hassle of interviewing someone and has to start from square one. On the other hand I don't believe people should be barred from employment simply because they have a criminal record. A good friend of mine who is an honest and hard working person has a manslaughter conviction and you would never know it. Basically someone broke into his home and threatened his family so he lost control of his temper and the guy ended up dieing. There are always circumstances to everything.

Unfortunately it is how much justice you can afford
That is why some states have a "Castle Doctrine"
and if some scum bag breaks into my house I will splatter them all over and not think twice about it. I guess judges do not get the news? Everyday around here someone is murdered, sometimes in their own house and that is bull$hit and it will only stop when we kill all the criminals.
Oh and for all you Liberals who are about to flame me, grow a pair, some of us are sick of scum bags

its not a liberal \ conserative thing, its a common sense thing. Conservatives are the only dbags that pull the "hey you suck liberal" crap. Yes I agree, if someone breaks into my home and threatens my family or property, thats a dead or seriously injured person and I'm a democrat .. with common sense. You are a dbag conservative with none.

I am not a conservative. I am informed, sick and tired of the pu$$ies in this country. (ie liberals like you) you probably feel sorry for the criminal.
BTW is dbag douche or dick? Knowing the Liberal it is probably douche as that is what pu$$ies use......

Can we leave the politics and profanity at home, and just discuss the issue at hand like adults?
If you don't want to admit past criminal acts on an application then don't commit crimes. It seems very cut and dried. BTW - I'm not a Liberal or a Conservative. I'm an AMERICAN who can think for himself

I like a good argument

then you should be fully aware that the "liberals" are not the only ones to blame for our current circumstances...

Then you would understand I never blamed liberals for anything?

Oh and for all you Liberals who are about to flame me, grow a pair, some of us are sick of scum bags

Given that this is a variation on the standard conservative response to anything that smacks of being "soft on crime", it sure sounds like blaming to to me.

We all know what Richard is long for.

He should have been commended instead of convicted.

Why are barriers to people with criminal records unfair? If you don't want to be barred by your criminal record, DON'T COMMIT CRIMES. Questions about circumstances should be expected, and can be covered in a cover letter.

I'd like to see replies from those who cast '-1' votes.

The majority of society is made up of good, caring people. I've met successful doctors who visit the lake house and enjoy smoking some pot. Now they do this confided in their own property where getting caught by police is impossible. Or if a drunk patron at a restaurant bumps into you, throws a fist, and you defend yourself and the manager is friends with that guy and say you started it. This happened to me at my one and only bar fight. Convicted of disorderly conduct. I feel most people have commited multiple crimes and haven't been caught. Some get caught and that one mistake, whether it was intentional or wrongly accused, shouldn't prevent a career from blooming. Also, 18-22 year olds can have a much different mentality at those ages then later in life. So should you be denied a job at 25 or 30 for a minor crime or two commited at 18-22? I had an interview a couple years ago and these people went as far as to explain a noise complaint. The law was broken. Loud music on a weekend after 10pm. Should one be denied due to this?

The majority of the applications I've ever seen only require candidates to disclose felony arrest records, or perhaps misdemeanors that resulted in your incarceration (i.e. as opposed to simply paying a fine).

Note that, by those definitions, "small" offenses (i.e. speeding/parking tickets) wouldn't even come up on a candidate's application.

As for the criminal record affecting your employment...if employers are already starting to cull candidates based on their social media profiles (i.e. posting of photos of their drunken antics on Facebook), then yes, they should be taking into consideration actions where you were arrested & found guilty. However, by the same token, a candidate that lists a single arrest for public intoxication is not going to be viewed in the same light as someone with multiple instances of vandalism, drug possession, & trespassing, let alone someone with multiple counts of robbery, manufacture and/or sale of drugs, embezzlement, or more severe crimes.

As to whether it's "fair" or not... ask the victims of their crimes whether what the ex-criminal did to them was "fair".

What about crimes where there is no "victim" ?

Every action has a consequence. That consequence is felt somewhere, sometime, by someone or something.

I could argue that if you post drunken photos of yourself on Facebook, then you're effectively volunteering that information (whether you realise it or not) by publishing it to a public forum.

I don't think too many people would publicly publish (or wish to be published) their criminal history, so they're not volunteering that information.

I think it makes sense to have some limits on what potential employers can discover about candidates, even if they use their superior negotiating position to coerce candidates into to signing release forms and the like.

There needs to be a balance between the interests of employers and the wider community. Besides, have you considered that even past criminals needs jobs, otherwise they're just going to commit more crime for an income and you're effectively creating a professional criminal class.

"The majority of society is made up of good, caring people."

Toni's statistics are correct: 1 in 4 Americans have criminal records.

Does anyone honestly think that 25% of the US population are evil people? Or is it that we just have too many laws, or too many stupid laws?

???The more laws are enacted and taxes assessed, the greater the number of lawbreakers and tax evaders??? -- Lao Tzu

No one is saying that an employer should be obliged to hire murderers, rapists, pedophiles, thieves, vandals, or the like. People generally understand that there is a difference between those who commit crimes like these and those who commit victimless crimes or crimes of self-defense.

After all, laws are written by human beings, not carved in stone by gods. And laws are written by powerful people who have motivations which might not be entirely noble or in the best interest of the citizens who are expected to abide by them. The Fugitive Slave Act was a law too. A bad law. A law that many compassionate people were willing to break. This is just one example from our early American history, but it is not the only bad law ever enacted by our legislature. There are a plethora of laws out there, and when Charles Bundy says that good people break these laws everyday, he is absolutely correct. When I worked at AAA, they used to say that a person breaks 7,000 traffic laws to every one in which he gets caught. Is that person a criminal, then?

Weeding out the good applicants from the bad is not a simple task, and it certainly can't be determined by whether or not the applicant indicated on an application that he/she had a criminal record. Your applicant might have no criminal record and pass a drug test and yet still have the sticky fingers that makes him a very bad bet on the job.

"No one is saying that an employer should be obliged to hire murderers, rapists, pedophiles, thieves, vandals, or the like."
But they can't ask if the people they're hiring have been convicted of those things? How else would they determine it? I think a conviction in court should get more weight that weather the person looks like a thief to the employer.

A) I think you meant "DON'T GET CAUGHT" as I'm pretty sure we all commit crimes every day.
B) Crime and its subsequent punishment should fulfill the transaction principle of "atomicity" in the discipline department. Or are you advocating punishing people for eternity?

I mean, "Don't commit crimes", exactly as I stated it. People who commit criminal actions on the 'Don't get caught' theory are EXACTLY the ones I don't want to hire.

I'm not punishing anyone; that's a choice to be made by the hiring authority. If the interviewer or HR department doesn't have a problem with a 20-year-old littering citation or night in the drunk tank, I don't either. My point is only that the best way to insure your criminal record doesn't reflect poorly on you is to don't do the things that may result to a criminal record.

Have you checked your state code lately? I can find statutes that I've broken every day. Some are just shy of felony e.g. It's a class 1 misdemeanor for failing to yield to an emergency vehicle with its lights on in most states.

So thus I have to call BS on your not so veiled assumption that you, me and everyone reading TR right now hasn't committed a crime today. The only difference between those that have criminal records and those that haven't is how pervasive and intrusive law enforcement and the judicial system are in their ability to catch and prosecute crazy laws dreamed up by the legislature. e.g. Check out Title 16, Chapter 15 of the South Carolina code for some doozies involving 'Offenses Against Morality and Decency.'

I'm normally not a conspiracy theorist but an underlying issue to this 'never mind their criminal past' might be a political state that wants wage earning tax payers who are unable to vote or run for office... Which means upping the felony ante... Talk about having your cake and eating it too...

regarding your unveiled assumption that other members here committed crimes today.

Why would you not yield to an emergency vehicle? I can only assume you toss that one out as an example of something you've done, something you think I've done. I get the heck out of their way as safely as my braking speed and traffic conditions allow. Who knows, it may be my house the fire truck is headed for, or one day me in the back of the ambulance.

I include myself along with high ranking members of congress and upstanding leaders of the community!

You assume an awful lot if you haven't read the code, including the particulars of what it might mean to 'yield'. Not surprising tho In the section of VA code I've dealt with even the deputies get confused over enforcement!

I think the main point we disagree on is you seem to think all laws are rational and just, thus being a criminal makes one irrational and unjust.

I don't think they're all good. I do believe in accepting responsibility for our decisions and acknowledging that they may have consequences. Banning the question of a criminal record from employment application is another attempt to deny those notions.

about what "failure to yield" means and how it's applied. I was in a situation where, due to a blind turn, road/shoulder conditions, speed limit, and plain old timing of the event, an ambulance hit a stopped car that WAS yielding to it. It's difficult to describe in a comment how it all went down, but long story short, the driver was convicted of failing to yield to an emergency vehicle...a class 1 misdemeanor. This is just one example (there are plenty more), of a law that is generally approved of by everybody, being improperly applied. If you think that only happens with relatively minor traffic violations and won't affect otherwise good people, you are sorely mistaken, and I hope you never wind up on the losing end of an unjust legal battle.

I never said you punished people directly, but you are advocating that a person's past should be held against them in perpetuity.

I double checked and I've never said that. Did I not say that was a choice of the person doing the hiring?

I'm not punishing anyone; that's a choice to be made by the hiring authority

I'm not advocating it be held against them in perpetuity. I'm advocating that the employer be allowed to ask. What he or she does with that knowledge is his choice, and should take into account the job applied for and the crime convicted.

Fail a class, & you carry the failure on your college transcript in perpetuity.

Fall off a cliff that was labeled as hazardous & off-limits to hikers, and -- assuming you survive -- you'll carry the scars on your body & bones (or even impaired and/or lack of mobility) until the day you die.

Post a picture on Facebook/Myspace of you & your friends getting drunk during freshman year at college (i.e. while under the legal age limit), & the picture will follow you around the Internet & real life until the last server in the world bites the dust.

Life isn't a golf game played with the "Mulligan" rule. You can attempt to atone for past mistakes, but you can't expect to avoid the consequences of your actions. Anyone who thinks so is living in "De-Nile", Egypt.

I draw the line at beating children (and adults) for the rest of their lives over past actions.

So you don't think it's right that a murderer, rapist, serial killer or child molester have to carry that as a burden the rest of their lives?? Personally I believe actually physically beating them for the REST of their lives is not such a bad idea. I also think you might change your mind if you were raped or molested or a member of your family was murdered or one of your kids was molested.

I make it a principle to commit crimes once a month at the most.
The rest are all misdemeanors

That at the present rate things are going by the year 2050 the USA will have a 100% incarceration rate. That means every man, woman, and child in the entire country will be behind bars then. It also means you, and everyone you know will be on the block. Maybe you weren't aware that things were that bad?

Now that you are a future ex-con how do you feel? That's right, today we have laws to lock up anyone, you just haven't been caught for your crimes yet. We'll catch up to you though. You can count on it!

Extrapolations can be hilarious...

I like Mark Twain's take (from Life on the Mississippi):

"In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."

nt

Newsflash: The state of Texas has just executed it's last citizen. In related news, Texas Department of Housing has just announced cash payments to people and familys willing to move to Texas. Anybody interested please call the state Dept. of Housing for more information at 1-800-MOVE HERE.

now that anyhting anyone seems to do is a mjor crime we are flooded with so called criminals when most do not commit any serious crime but affect of many no tolorence laws. As many as half of the laws on the books are technically unconsitutional, as does not direclty provide means to protect peoples rights granted by the delclartion of independnce in the US and protect by the contstitution but insteads takes away many of the so called protected freedoms and rights of the people and makes simple honest mistakes a major crime. We have gotten most offeses now upgrade from what would have been simple misdomeanors to now feolonies.
Something has to be seriolsy done in this country soon or we are no longer as free as many other countries are.
So, that person that may have technically comminted some little minor offense when 18 still has to pay even though a very model citezen ever since at 50 year old !!!!!!!

It is a good things for the applicant because there is a chance that their application will get to the hand of the HR or whoever reviewed the application. The bad things is the company needs to have extra time and money to do extra background check and interview. But from my experience, usually the interviewer will have more than one cadidate as the result of the interview and I don't think all of the cadidate will failed the background check.

To bpate - your friend isn't a criminal. He is a HERO! Anyone who breaks in to my house and threatens my family is going to die from lead poisoning! And to all the bleeding heart liberal pukes out there, no I won't feel bad about it! I would hire your friend based on ability to think under pressure and good judgement! The next time your friend checks the box for criminal record on an application tell him to write "for protecting my family" next to the box. I would pull that application just to hear the story.

There should also be a ban on requesting/using credit report information, unemployment history, health history, social security, and driver license numbers. The intrusiveness of information gathering against applicants is rapidly approaching Orwellian proportions.

except for those jobs where it would have a direct impact; no one with hepatitis should expect to be hired by a blood bank.

I so agree! Credit report, unemployment history, etc. etc. is noone's business and is not necessary a reflection on performance. Shame on us as a society for even taking these things into consideration.

Financial companies prefer to avoid people with low credit scores because a) those people have access to larger amounts of money than the average worker, thus having a higher exposure to potential fraud & embezzlement, and b) especially for companies hiring financial planners, it doesn't look good if you're trying to advise people on how to improve their financial planning habits when your financial planners don't have the best track records themselves.

Driver's licenses are used to verify your driving history...which is important if there's the potential for you to have access to drive a company-owned car (bad driving history = less chance you'll be allowed to drive the company car).

Unemployment history isn't really that hard to deal with. Remember, there's a good chance they'll be contacting your former employers anyway. So not mentioning that the "employment" gap was because Employer X fired you is going to look worse when they hear that from the employer; better to come clean about it in the first place. And if you were unemployed through no fault of your own (i.e. company downsized your division), then it's not detrimental to your hiring potential to note that on the application. Again, it's better to fill everything out than to try to hide details... they have a way of coming up on their own.

I don't think down economy has anything to do with it. Any job worth having will have several to dozens of applications. The hiring manager doesn't want to read them all so the easiest way is to filter things out quickly.
1) no criminal record
2) Once I see a spelling mistake unless I'm impressed already throw the thing in the "maybe later" pile
etc.

I don't think criminal record should be a factor unless the crime is related to the job (fraud in a bank, child abuse in a daycare etc). So rather than use boiler plate application forms the companies should have ones that catch the things they are concerned about. In Canada you don't have to mention a criminal record if you have a pardon (usually 7 years after the crime) not sure if it is the same in the US but something like that would be good too. At some point you have to forgive the criminal or they end up serving life sentences for every crime.

This is were automated application systems both suck and are awesome depending who you are. They suck if you are an applicant you have to create an account, often manually reenter the data for your experience and the jobs you want etc for each job. I can see customizing your cover letter and being selective of what you include when you are applying in several different industries but for each job? What a nuisance. But for the employer it is great they can filter. So start with the most restrictive: no criminal record, every qualification we want, lives near by, available immediately and loosen your criteria up until you get the amount of candidates you are willing to consider.

It only makes sense to meet a prospective employee face to face depending strictly on their qualifications. Then when the backround is done, a second interview can allow for explanation. Theft and violence would be a big deal. When I was 19 20 and 21 I had some disorderly conducts and just over the limit dwis. Then at 22 changed all that and obtained a degree. Graduated in June 2008 and gave it my all. These previous, non-violent charges and a terrible economy didn't go well with eachother. Now I'm 28 and been working steady for the last few years. Criminal backrounds are typically 7 years unless it's a felony.

Contrary to liberal belief, no one has a RIGHT to a job. If a company doesn't want to hire you because of your criminal record, work history or just because they didn't like what you wore to the interview, that is their right, and SOLELY their right. If you don't like it, start your own business and hire whomever you want. Ban the Box is simply a usurpation of the right of the business owner to determine who they want to hire based on their qualifying factors.

But it is LAW to be treated fairly based on your knowledge, skills and abilities. I can't buy in to your open-ended "qualyifing factors" argument. Taken to its logical conclusion it sounds like you are advocating that a business owner has the right to not hire someone based on gender or race.

Criminal records can be; in some cases, credit history too.

But since you want to play, I'l go double down. Gender and age most certainly can effect performance, yet we aren't allowed to paint folks with a broad brush based on it. Why would you assert having a "criminal record" or "credit history" is any different?

I'd appreciate example of gender. The law says that all other qualifications being equal, a decision cannot be legally made on a basis of race, gender, age, or several other factors. Should performance vary between two applicants, it's legal to get your brush out and paint away. A gas station owner isn't required to hire a person who can't lift a tire, regardless of gender, but disqualifying a woman who can handle the physical demands solely because of her gender is illegal,

Credit history MAY indicate an inability to properly manage money. This may not matter depending on the job, but i wouldn't hire you to approve loans. Unlike some of the other criteria mentions, credit history is purged automatically over time; even bankruptcy is eventually removed. It's also something a person can directly affected and improved.

The impact of a criminal record also depends on the job and the crime. A ten-year old public drunkenness conviction may not (or may) matter regarding a supervisory position; last year's possession with intent to distribute isn't going to cut it at a pharmacy.

I maintain that the impact of these factors is the choice of the company doing the hiring. The easiest way to avoid having a criminal record be a factor in their hiring decision is to not break the law.

sigh

Let's get back to the original question. What's wrong with an employer asking a potential employee if he or she has a criminal record?

Because it smacks of prejudgment and prejudice. More than likely a potentially qualified candidate will never get in front of an interview panel to dispel that kind of stigma. Same as you stated with regards to health. And that is punishment in perpetuity.

That doesn't mean an employer shouldn't be able to address whether the candidate is fit for the job. I've been on both sides of the interview process and you can find out what you need to know as an interviewer.

Someone made the statement earlier that you wouldn't want a person convicted of fraud handling money. In that case you ask the potential accountant if they have ever been convicted of fraud during the interview.

Likewise if you have a labor intensive job, you can ask if they can lift X pounds in Y weather conditions.

The important thing here is to not be prejudicial on the front end and screen out what could be a great hire because of a past unrelated offense (or health condition.)

Right now the health condition is protected under law and the past conviction is not. That needs to be equalized.

Your assumption is that an HR department will automatically circular-file a resume or application where the applicant included information about various criminal charges they'd had. What you're missing is that, in some circumstances, the candidate's criminal charges -- or more specifically, their conviction due to said charges -- does have an effect on a candidate's qualifications for a particular job. And when specific examples were provided (i.e. a person just released from prison for selling stolen prescription drugs applying to be a drugstore pharmacist) of these situations, you say we're still "missing the point".

For the most part, HR departments aren't going to care if you have high points on your driver's license, or even if you have an OVI conviction or 2... provided that the job you're applying for doesn't involve driving a company vehicle (i.e. truck driver, cab driver, delivery etc.). By the same token, embezzlement or other similar "white collar" crimes might not be a big deal to the recruiter...unless they're looking to hire a new comptroller, payroll supervisor, CFO, or other financial & accounting position that grants the person access to accounts with large sums of money.

Other than to more easily round file applications? Reference http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-378566-3606215

Thus if HR not roundfiling is the cornerstone of your argument, try again... Also read all my posts if you think I'm against fitness for a specific job.

Felons lose their rights, old people dont. Put your money where your mouth is. Next time you need a baby sitter, hire a child molester! You have this "turn the other cheek" attitude.... Please try and do that as someone (I volunteer) kicks you repeatedly in the nuts!

[mwharper1970] - Felons lose their rights, old people dont. Put your money where your mouth is. Next time you need a baby sitter, hire a child molester! You have this "turn the other cheek" attitude.... Please try and do that as someone (I volunteer) kicks you repeatedly in the nuts!

You are irrational. Normally I don't worry about that, but volunteering to kick me in the nuts earns you a flag.

This may be lost on you as you don't seem to comprehend what you read. I would NEVER hire a child molester to watch anyone's children. I'm all for specific fitness wrt to hiring.

Right off the top of my head -

Men have more muscle mass in the upper body (better lifting, carrying capacity)
Women have enhanced proprioceptors (better hearing, sense of touch and balance)

Thus you wouldn't get a good ROI putting a woman out in a field lifting all day. But women make better pilots than men on average.

P.S. I do know some women that could tie me into a pretzel, but they are in the minority of all the women I know...

The exceptions do matter. You are seeking to fill a SPECIFIC position, so the general tendencies are of no importance.
You only have the right to assess the abilities of the specific candidates against the requirements.

So, you're free to put "Can you lift a 60lb Pressurized gas canister and carry it without risk of immediate back injury?" in the application. You are not free to ask "Are you one of those puny women-things that need not apply for this manly job". As you said, there are many many women who put many many men to shame in terms of carrying and lifting ability. Women also tend to remember to lift correctly, and also tend to not try to manlily muscle something around that could be easily moved using the proper aid...

Not all men have more muscle mass than all women. Not all women have better sense than all men.

"you wouldn't get a good ROI putting a woman out in a field lifting all day."

Doesn't that depend on the woman? Your examples aren't questions of gender, they're ones of an individual's specific capabilities.

Unlike criminal records, gender, race, and age aren't the result of choice the applicant made.

one is merely stating physiological norms as documented by research . Now if I had said men are better at math than women I would not only be operating in a vacuum I would be profiling whilst choking ...

And yes I do obviously believe in treating each prospective job candidate on an individual basis . To wit, my extreme emphasis on not screening them out by checking a box labeled "convicted of a crime."

Why should a "criminal record" or "credit history" be any different than gender and age? You've as much chance of affecting the outcomes of any of those today, which is to say none at all. Just because you may have free will doesn't mean fate gives you carte blanche. Bad things happen to good people just as much as to anyone else. Either you've been too lucky up to this point, or you're just too stupid to comprehend the obvious. Take your pick. Right now I'm leaning towards the latter in your case.

I don't think someone who has had their license suspended for DUI should be denied an office job. But if the role is someone who drives to visit customers, like a salesperson, then I can see why you would not want to hire someone in that position. Likewise if you have been convicted of financial fraud, I wouldn't want to hire you in a position where you had access to money.

On the other hand I would not want to discriminate based on gender or age. I'm sure there are exceptions that I haven't thought about but in general, as other have suggested, gender and age are not reasonable grounds for discrimination.

Criminal record and credit history are the result of the decisions one makes; age and gender are something you're stuck with.

that folks note I don't think there should be a difference between "criminal history" or "health history". Taking a page from Palmetto both are often the result of individual choice, yet one information disclosure is protected under the law. That needs to be normalized.

If a business owner doesn't want to hire a black person, white person, man or woman based purely on those factors, I don't believe they should be required to. Further I don't believe any self-respecting person should want to work for a company with such values, whether you're the person they won't hire or not. Let the business owners make the business decisions, let them succeed or fail based on their own merits and let the chips fall where they may.

Didnt work out so well when the housing bubble burst. Using that as an example, your bigoted free-for-all vision would hurt a lot of people before, during and after self-immolation of the business. But that's OK?

Are you really trying to advocate that letting business have its way has ever worked to the social good? Would we have clean water, air or land w/o social intervention wielded by the people? (Government working the right way.)

Why would a business owner self-immolate their own business? And thanks for playing the bigot card, it shows you have no actual argument.

You advocate discrimination and say I'm playing the 'bigot' card? Most amusing! WRT self-immolation what else would you call Enron, AIG, Bear-Stearns, et-al? What is really funny is how they rush to suck at the govt. teat when the 'I did it my way' chorus has run them into an inferno...

We can find common ground, at least this small patch of it.

Charles is definitely a fellow H. Sapien.
That's the beauty of thinking, it's not a zero sum game.

In the sea of H. Dumbassens, it is good to meet a fellow, even if the specifics of our thinking diverges.

Charles only pointed it out to you.
There's no defending what you said. It was stupid and ignorant of the facts of history. I could continue pointing out stuff that was wrong with what you said, but you probably wouldn't like it.
But neither I nor Charles are talking about how you are - we are giving you the benefit of the doubt, in case you're just misguided or had a massive brainfart or some other such. So nobody is calling you a bigot.

Only a bigot could agree with what you said, though.

I mean, I've never seen a request for information about criminal records in a job application over here (with the notable exception of all jobs involving children, all applicants for those will need to supply a verified printout of their criminal records), so I guess we have greater protections in the EU, and yet, nowhere is there a law that requires a fair treatment based on merits. The employer is free to accept or reject a candidate based on personal chemistry, for instance.
Only unlawful discrimination is banned.

twice, and passed both times.

One was for an organization that had bonded warehouses that I was required to access. The other was a government organization with "secret" information.

The sad thing was that when I went to go at the last minute on a field trip with my son's school, they wanted me to be cleared. I told them that the RCMP had cleared me to "secret:, and they could verify this with one call. They refused, and insisted that I go in to the local police offfice for clearance, which I didn't have time to do.

I know I'm starting to sound like a former U.S. President . The intent in the US is to make sure there isn't discrimination (all men are created equal, civil war, civil rights, et-al.) Sorry, I should have made it clear that I was speaking of intent versus a specific law.

Like JamesRL says most places require a criminal background check on the sucessful applicant, which I'm perfectly OK with as it isn't discriminatory to determine fitness on the back end or during the interview process.

Unlike JamesRL I'm not sad that background checks and clearances aren't centralized. Agencies having that level of togetherness wrt to maintaining information on the populace scare me...

I have to check that box, an the fact is I am a felon no jail time over road rage charges from 2001.
it a big conversation that not needed,now i have to have a conversation about what happen 11 year ago,,what about shop lifting charges from 1977, should i tell them about that or will it cost me another job.
I personal think after 10 year and NO new charges should i have to keep checking that BOX?

State and Federal statues already tell me that I am not allowed to have any employees with felony convictions till at least 5 years after discharge of sentence, some convictions are a permanent bar to employment and now I can't even ask till I've waisted my time and theirs by interviewing them. More BS regulation that contradicts common sense. We need to get rid of regulations that aren't enforced/enforceable and try for common sense.

If you read bpate's comment, you would see where he said that a friend of his got a manslaughter conviction for protecting his family from an intruder! the law says that if someone steps onto your property without your consent with the intent to do harm to you, your family, or property, you have a right to defend yourself, and if it comes to it, you have a right to drop the intruder where he stands

That is not the law in every State. For example, MO, where I live, has a Castle Doctrine, that says you are not required to vacate your property if someone is intruding, but IL has no such law and actually punishes home owners for protecting their property. I agree that every human being enjoys an inherent right to self defense, it's just that not all States have that protection for all people. I know, I'm picking nits.

I have first-hand experience with the Check the Box. After 11 years of US Naval service and 10 more as a contractor for the Department of Defense with a secret clearance. I have not been able to secure work in the IT Industry since 2008. I believe I have a pretty impressive resume with several lead positions ranging from Lead Exchange Admin, Senior Engineer, College Instructor, Project Manager for the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) and then in my pinnacle position was where I was sought out to be the Program Manager for the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information (NNPI) Systems.

I only have myself to blame, I made compromises and struggled with a substance abuse problem. I now have 4 felonies; I committed 3 counts of Uttering and Publishing and 1 count of Larceny to feed my addiction. I have been sober over 14 months and have served my sentence as handed out by the court system.

I am willing to do Tier 1 support to get my foot in the door again; I will have my PMP and MCITP by February. I completely understand the risks involved in hiring a felon and we know that in the IT world you are giving the Keys to the Castle when you give admin privileges to someone. While a job is Not a right either is a life sentence of drawing on the Human Support service after we have served our sentence handed out by the judge.

Barking Mad liberalism.

At first glance it would seem like a bad idea to not ask about past misdeeds but given the high rate of legal failure in this country (in the form of framing, trumped charges, ambiguous convictions, false arrests, legal abuse, and laws structured around racism & classism) it makes sense to stop requiring this on job applications.

If the validity of peoples' records are so frequently unreliable or misleading, why trust these documents anymore? And anyway, serving a sentence should result in a recognized redemption.

Sure. Let's have all the paedophiles working in our schools, the thieves in our banks, the murderers in our security jobs and hackers in IT admin.

While we're at it, what's to stop a layabout from being a career advisor, or your average waster in stocks and shares.

Hell, now we're on the subject of appropriate, let's have anyone with AIDS working in surgery, paraplegics as our fire-fighters, and the armless in our call centres.

Got a nut allergy? The Snickers factory has a job with your name on it!
Have Asthma? The sawmills need someone like you!
Bad back? Any warehouse is the perfect choice for an uplifting career!

Get real.
These restrictions are in place to protect the employee, the employer, and the public. It sounds like these human rights liberalist-types are pushing it again. Bring back the death sentence and make prison a place of discomfort again. You're there to be punished, not pampered.

Every one of us breaks at least one law almost every day. About the only ones who don't are infants in cribs and people in intensive care. In fact, I will guarrantee that every HR person at work today has committed at least one infraction on the way there.

When everyone is a criminal, legal barriers are ignored. Leaving you morality and ethics to decide how to live your life. Considering how often ethics are ignored, and our megashifts in morality nowadays; it's a wonder our society is even functioning.

However I'm not sure we are all criminals. I would even go so far as to say a majority of folks convicted of a crime, having served their punishment are not "criminals".

A deputy once told me that he could pull me over anytime, anywhere. I said, "not w/o probable cause!" His response? "Your tire ever hit the yellow line? That's probable cause..." Don't even get me started on how inviolate you think you are in your home or on your front porch...

Hence we can be convicted of crimes w/o being criminals...

Depending on your jurisdiction, not everything you do that is against the law is "criminal" nor would it show up on most criminal background checks. Speeding, littering etc., are against the law, but not "crimes" in that they do not contravene the criminal code (again according to the definitions in most places). I've committed a few offenses, I have had some speeding tickets in the past.

are infractions (pay a fine) but you can easily move into criminal (serve some time) based on details. Its the little things that get you...

In Canada, the line is clear.

Criminal code violations are crimes.

Provincial issues like Highway Traffic Act violations, or civil matters like lawsuits or non payment of child custody are "Not crimes", no matter how serious the penalty. They are still breaking the law, but they won't show up on your criminal record.

I think what your deputy is referring to is the fact that if an officer pulls you over for a minor infraction, it often opens the door for investigation of other issues. If he pulls you over for your wheel over the solid line, he can check your breath for alcohol, check for your seatbelt, glance in the backseat etc.

So going back to the beginning of the this sub thread, I think everyone breaks a law on occasion, but not everyone is a criminal.

Where the law is created, enforced and adjudicated by human beings. We Americans for all our potential are sometimes petty and irrational. Thus I am afraid that the line may be clear in theory but in practical terms it is only as perfect as those who create/enforce it...

Good to know there is a perfect system somewhere...

P.S. the deputy in question is my brother. We also have a judge and a lawyer in the family ...

Guessing it would be trumped by Megan's Law - more barking mad legislation, but from the other side of the fence.

Or you'll get Paedo's galore applying for jobs down your local school.

More than half the problem, as noted a bit elsewhere in the threads, is that the legal/judicial system needs to be fixed as to just what are crimes/felonies/etc...

I personally cry foul to being able to be sued for fighting back in my own home. I think it's f'ing idiotic that someone caught smoking pot in their home, goes to jail for longer than someone committing rape. Lets not even talk about the ridiculous ease of being labeled a pedophile if you do ANYTHING ANY parent doesn't like within sight/earshot of a parent. (I'm surprised just a guy adjusting himself within a mile of a school hasn't come up yet)

Do I fully agree with the whole background/driving/etc checks? No. Do they serve a purpose on the whole? Arguably yes.

Is the bulk of it simply idiotic and asinine crap that gets in the way of people being productive? Oh hell yes.

Every situation is different
But employers need to know
You wouldn't hire a convicted pedophile for a day care center would you?
But that shouldn't hold them back from other employment
Laws should make common sense, unfortunately too many regulations kill small business

What society are we living in when an employer is refused the right to ask a pointed question that lends evidence of a persons past moral or ethical values? If I made a bad decision in the past it will be my anchor I will have to carry. Every action we perform has its ownership and it's consequences
If you were placing your child in daycare would you not want to know if an employee is a pedophile? Would you want to unknowingly hire a repeated sex offender? As an employer I have the right to ask questions that will protect my company and most of all my employees and you, my customer.

This is a waste of time and money! If an employer has any question about your background, they just Google you! I'm surprised an internet search doesn't show the number of bowel movements you have in the month of January.

It???s obvious that fullerwp and bpate have never run a business or been responsible for hiring or managing personnel.

I agree with you Mark JB!

Also, their points of view may be the result of 50 plus years of socialist brainwashing of our educational system. ???Let???s all be touchy feely???. ???Let???s not be judgmental???. ???The government and special interest groups will look out for us???.
The result?----Feminized, spineless sheep! Devoid of any sense of business principles, basic economics or the government???s role and individual rights as defined by the United States Constitution!

I am a LIBERAL Republican, I'm 53 (going on 54 next week) and have NO criminal record of ANY KIND (if you exclude a couple of speeding tickets more than 10 years ago).

I personally think that any one who has a CRIMINAL record SHOULD be required to put it ALL down, an employer has the right to know who he/she is hiring BEFORE they wind-up getting ripped-off from an inside job, BUT, and this is a BIG BUT, employers who routinely exclude ALL applicants who have a criminal record for no good reason (such as bank teller/employee, gold or jewelry handler, armored car guard etc.) should be getting criminal records themselves (and I'm talking about the person(s) doing the screening and/or hiring not the corporation).

I agree with fullerwp above, what really needs to be "BANNED" is the use of your credit score for all those things that it was NOT originally intended for (Job Applications, auto/home/life insurance, renting a home or apartment, ETC.) that's where the criminality really lies! Not only Congress but ALL 50 of the State Legislative bodies need to get their stuff straight and stop this RAPING of the American people by using this totally arbitrary numerical value judgement of your life by some unknown unheard-of pencil pusher who doesn't know you or the circumstances of your life from a hole in the wall (and who doesn't give a flying rats arse either) or even worse some computer algorithm that was solely written to increase the profit margins of the company/persons involved!

I have not found it hard to keep my nose clean all these years, and I have no time for those people who say that it can't be done and can't do likewise. If in the future I should acquire such situation, I would put down the required disclosure info along with the particulars and take my chances, BUT if the person doing the screening/hiring discriminates against me for NO GOOD REASON, THEN, I hope they have a real good group of lawyers, because I will own that company when I'm through with them and that/those person/people will need to get their resumes updated with their records and reason/s for termination very quickly, and you can take that to the bank!

Good luck and best wishes in the new year and be well.

The whole purpose of creating a society where almost everything is illegal, is to get almost everyone incarcerated or to have a criminal record. This insures that only those wealthy enough to hire the best legal defense, who can "pay off" the police and prosecutors, can have free reign to the best of everything, and to have the potential for gaining unlimited wealth themselves (References: Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin era, etc.). Proposals like this from Ban The Box, would only create a free society where the richest cannot get even richer, while the poor and common can only go to jail (or the Ghulag). America has the highest incarceration rate, highest criminal conviction rate, etc. of any 1st World nation on the planet. Can't the folks at Ban The Box just accept that laws and their enforcement that so shape our nation are there by design, and leave this subject to the "expert" authorities on society shaping and manipulation?

The employer gets to pick out people based on appearance, how well they got along with their last employer, the firmness of their handshake, their previous jobs or lack thereof, or where they chose to go to school 30 years ago. But not weather I robbed my company, killed someone or burned down the business 10 years ago? Should the arsonist with a nice haircut get preference over those that choose to obey the law their entire lives?
If you got a criminal record for smoking pot or defending your family, then put it in the box and the employer gets to decide weather that excludes you from the job.

And completing a jail sentence does vindicate a person in my eyes nor is it supposed to. If they did 5 years for smoking pot then they've overpaid their due by 5 years. If they murdered a child and the law determined they are no longer a threat to society, I can and will reserve the right to condemn them.

This conversation has spiraled downward in to a confused miasma of civil vs criminal, felony vs. misdemeanor, arrest vs. conviction, even name calling. That's not a conversation.

I once hired for a national company that had locations in many states. We had to meet the requirements of the states in which we operated. Our application asked, "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?" It was up to the interviewer to determine the nature of the conviction, and whether it was relevant to the job. Relevant to the job. It has already been posted that one wouldn't necessarily get hired to work in finance once convicted of fraud or theft of client's money. That's sensible. Now, go ahead and parse that statement if all you're looking for is an arguement. We would inform the applicant that a criminal background check would be performed; any other convictions not disclosed by the applicant would disqualify for hiring because they falsified the application. Anyone convicted of violence, especially domestic violence, would not be eligible for hire. But I did hire people with drug convictions if there were no repeat convictions.

That was my experience.

As an employer I want to know the person has a criminal record before interviewing. I don't want to find out later in the process. It's wasted my time and the applicants. Let them have a line to explain on the application form. If it's a crime that would prevent employment in that particular industry, why take the time and spend the money for background checks?

Personally I feel that we should stop all such background checks after a max of 7 years. If someone got arrested, regardless of the reason and have not re-offended in that time frame they should be left to contribute to society and not be a burden. We all know that the number one way to reduce criminal activity is by providing jobs not more stripes or continued rejections from people who only know, at most, half the truth of any ones issues.

Side one: To ignore/hide a criminal record is unfair to the law abiding employee who is applying for the job.
Side two: Should the employer hire a criminal who was so inept that he got caught?

So you only think successful criminals that dont get caught should have jobs?

.

At 23, I made an extremely poor judgement choice and ended up with a felony record that I admit I deserved. I spent time in jail but not a prison comittment.

I managed to learn from my mistake, rebound slowly back into the workforce and develop a career where I have pretty much lived the exemplary life since then.
Now 30 years later, our company decided to outsource offshore and my 20+ year career was flushed along with that of 370 other people in our location.

Now, as I troll through the jobs available in this economy, I find that I am not even considered to be qualified to sort garbage at the local recycling center because EVERY job ad states 'must pass criminal background check'. (I'm serious - even the garbage truck driver).
So, along with using a large part of my 401k to pay a law firm to hopefully get the conviction expunged, I am attempting to startup my own business frankly becuse it appears that in todays society the only person who values me as having the potential to contribute positively, is me... Which brings me to the scope of my question:

Only a small percentage of former offenders will have the means and/or resources to get convictions removed.
If, as a society we deem that 25% of individuals who have any record as being absolutely unacceptable for employment and cut them at the application level; what are they left with to turn to as a means for survival?
Homelessness?
The support of family?
Social programs that they probably also arent qualified for (and we pay for anyway)?

It seems the emerging 'background check' policies of this decade, spurred on by the ease with which records can be accessed, are beginning to create a class of ex-offenders, whose only option to survive might eventually only be to return to a life of crime (and then ultimately become wards of the prison system again at our expense).

There needs to be some point of forgiveness or at least redemption, or society will only suffer the consequences.
Thats all im saying.

Michelle Alexander posits in her new book, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, that many of the gains of the civil rights movement have been undermined by the mass incarceration of blacks in the war on drugs. Here's a good Fresh Air interview with the author:
http://www.npr.org/2012/01/16/145175694/legal-scholar-jim-crow-still-exists-in-america

This isn't just a race issue and the discarding of human lives has real costs to our society. When we (society) state that doing time for your crime isn't sufficient, we undermine the very purpose of our courts and penal system.
______________________
For all the talk of "America is a Christian nation" by the conservative right, I see a lot of selectivity in which part of Jesus's messages they choose to follow/ignore. This issue and the strong opinions expressed in reader comments might also be viewed in light of this recent research relating low IQ with conservative positions:
http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

So, before you progressives/liberals get into shouting matches and flaming wars, consider the IQ of the person with whom you disagree. They might not have the same cognitive capacity as you. They might be operating from a position of fear and mis-/dis-information, especially if they they watch/listen to conservative media sources like Faux Noise.

So a young man does something stupid like robbing a bank because he lost his job in a bad economy and didn't have any means to feed his family. He gets 20 years in prison and "PAYS" his dept to society, except it don't end there. He's branded with that big X on his back, and because he's been branded he can't find employment. The only recourse for him is going back to criminal activity just to feed himself, or else starve. Is this fair? I don't think so. He did his time, but yet society continues to keep him down, he might as well got life in prison.
He did his time, now give him a chance to be a working citizen.

[Retired Correctional Officer]

Will everyone who agrees with this also agree to tort reform (in conjunction with the ban) that would prevent crime victims (and/or their families) of any crime committed against them by a business's employee (who has a criminal background) from suing the business?

I'm all for giving people a second (a third, forth or even a fifth) chance, but this sort of business legislation is just insane. Yes, criminal background info is about protecting a business, but that also means protecting existing employees, vendors, and customers (meaning the public).

This is about eliminating a criminal record as a primary discriminator during the hiring process and allowing former convicts to be considered based on their job qualifications.

Nobody with is advocating allowing pedophiles to work in child care centers or allowing people convicted of fraud or embezzlement to work in financial institutions. But why shouldn't those people who have served their time be allowed to be considered for employment in unrelated fields without the spectre of their past conduct hanging over their heads?

I understand the need to eliminate discrimination where a criminal past isn't relevant.

But why go through the process with a candidate that you can't hire?

If I am hiring, I look to find a reasonable number of candidates to interview. Minimum of two, maximum five, depending on circumstances. If I don't screen out people who I can't hire because the job requires a clean criminal record, then I will have to interview candidates I can't hire, then go through the process again to get "enough" candidates to interview. You can see how this would make the hiring process challenging for both the manager and the qualified candidates.

To do otherwise is prejudicial in this case. It is worth the extra effort because some things like a presumption of innocence or the ideal that a person should be judged on specific merit have value.

I personally will go the extra mile to insure that at least in my corner of the world folks get a fair shake. Unfortunately that is not a universal sentiment thus I feel it should be part of the social contract we call 'law'.

For certain positions, ANY criminal record means I cannot hire the person.

So why then do I have to wait until the interview process to reject the person. Why interview them in the first place? This isn't always about "fair".

So far everyone has missed the actual point of The Box, it's really to tell if people are lying or not. For the gentleman above who had a felony 30 years ago, check the box and describe it. I have hired people who checked the box and have good stories, backed by facts. However the biggest reason for the box is to find people who did commit a crime and didn't check the box. I definitely won't hire those guys or gals.

I once had a guy who claimed he missed an interview because his daughter was sick, I did his background check and found out it was because he had a court appearance that morning, along with 3 pages of convictions. I won't pass you over for a conviction, except in cases described in other posts (fraud/bank, etc) however lying makes you ineligible for every job. I would rather hire an honest guy that's made mistakes (who hasn't) than a dishonest guy every day.

I personally had this experience. I went fishing when I was walking up to my motorcycle, it was gone. Called my wife to come get me, when I did she informed me that the police were looking for me, for a high speed pursuit. After my wife picked me up, we went straight home and reported my bike stolen. When the police arrived to take my statement, I was arrested. The police stated that they didn't believe me. Now I am looking at a possible felony conviction which I have trial for in April. Good luck finding a job if somehow I am found guilty.

All of these Ban The Box laws need to include a provision that would release the employer from any and all liability for any employee that commits a crime. Otherwise, this is just another stupid law that will be a drag on American Businesses

Full disclosure is paramount for all organizations so that they can hire those who will be the best fit for their company. As a business owner, I would want to know felony convictions of those whom I am considering for employment, in order to make the most well informed decision that I can, for the well-being of all of my stakeholders. While it may not seem fair, especially to those who truly are trying to make a positive change to their lives and start fresh, it would be even less fair to leave an organization without all of the facts. A business has more than just one person or perspective to take into consideration, in the event that hiring someone with prior convictions turns out to be a poor decision.

Thus I'm curious how many locks your key opens. Do you want to know about health issues as well? What about age, gender and physical disability?

According to what you've laid out it wouldn't be fair to your stakeholders to hire someone who might be pregnant. That would impact the bottom line when she took maternity leave, right?

Full disclosure, as it pertains to felony convictions is the topic that I was referencing, and the topic of this particular post. The details that you bring up, while important issues in their own rite, are not part of ban the box for criminal convictions. At least, to my knowledge, pregnancy is not currently considered to be a crime..

In 1994 I was arrested for drugs and served 3 years in prison (it was the "War on Drugs" -- if I was arrested 30 days earlier or now I would receive a sentence of probation). I have not had a permanent job since my release although I have been almost continuosly employed as a IT contractor with all of my contract agencies aware of my backround. And yes, I've had many job offers -- that is until I raise my special circumstances. That's when the job disappears although several times I've remained on-site as a contractor for additional months/years. It seems it OK for me to handle millions of peices of confidential information just not with raises, training opportunities, benefits or promotions. I never get a chance to discuss my circumstances with a permanent employer because not a single one of these companies will admit that the real reason that the position has suddenly disappeared is due to my criminal record. This repetitive experience over the past 15 years has left me feeling nothing but contempt.