Discussion on:

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

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.