3 ms·
> people currently or formerly in prison First of all, this lumps two groups together. Second, isn't it kind of "good" if employers become more willing to hire
by FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
> people currently or formerly in prison
First of all, this lumps two groups together. Second, isn't it kind of "good" if employers become more willing to hire people with criminal records? They have a hell of a time finding jobs, which gets in the way of social reintegration.
> a Waste Management Services executive discussed hiring immigrants to fill commercial driver’s license positions
Oh no! Hiring immigrants! ... What are we supposed to do, shut them out of the job market to form parallel societies in the Banlieues?
How is this in The Guardian? It's Bannonesque "Reserve Army of Capital" stuff.
- Ericson2314 5y ago> First of all, this lumps two groups together. Absolutely. > Bannonesque Yes, but our immigration structure should be fixed so higher skill higher wage immigrants get in first. The way we do immigration now is pretty fucked and makes Bannonesque stuff way less obviously false than it ought to be. Still, absolutely agree this is a weird headline, and too much mixing of things.
- brightstep 5y agoThey're not willing to hire ex-cons for full pay and benefits. These prisoners are essentially slaves, no freedom, no benefits, no time off, barely any pay.
- FooBarBizBazz 5y agoI see that now: > In New York City, construction industry employers recruit recently released prisoners who must seek and maintain employment as a condition of their release from prison. Why can't an ex-con go bum off their family? Or become a mendicant holy man? Or become a novelist, who in 9/10 cases is just unemployed, but in 1/10 earns money off "My Life in Lockup: The Joe Blow Story" (popular in the prison library)? We should be making formal employment less necessary, not more.