5 ms·

It's also worth noting that there is some movement towards preventing businesses from asking about convictions until after a conditional offer has been extended

by blahedo 13y ago

It's also worth noting that there is some movement towards preventing businesses from asking about convictions until after a conditional offer has been extended, and then putting some burden on them to demonstrate relevance before they rescind the offer. (So, under that rule, someone whose felony was embezzlement can be rescinded from a bank job, but a pot conviction shouldn't matter for a programming position.) See http://bantheboxcampaign.org/ http://bantheboxcampaign.org/ and e.g. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/ban-the-box-minnesota_n_3240209.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/ban-the-box-minneso... , among others.

001sky 13y ago
Relevant To California [edit: public sector]: October 10, 2013 Jerry Brown signs bill to ban felony question on public job apps Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a bill that bans government employers from asking job applicants about their criminal record until later in the hiring process, effectively extending the state's policy to some 6,000-plus local and regional government agencies in California. http://blogs.sacbee.com/the_state_worker/2013/10/jerry-brown-signs-bill-to-ban-felony-question-on-public-job-apps.html http://blogs.sacbee.com/the_state_worker/2013/10/jerry-brown...
- maaku 13y ago
  Not relevant to the OP: "public job apps" is government work.
  - 001sky 13y ago
    Yes, i think this is correct. That being said though it shows the point that the parent was making that this is a trend/perspective gaining a certain amount of traction or legitimacy intellectually. What is not clear, however, is within the specific firms (big, public, prestigueous) and specific jobs he may be applying to, if there is any such similar trajectory.
csfelon 13y ago
I've read about this. Unfortunately, it's just a "movement" at this point. I have volunteered at some organizations that work in this space within my state. However, the primary focus is for a larger contingent of convicts whom are returning to society after being incarcerated. I was never incarcerated, I am not a minority, and come from a middle-class socioeconomic background, and it's extremely difficult to argue discrimination in hiring for a job that very few people are technically capable of performing. Unlike service work for example, being able bodied, not-addicted to drugs, etc. are not the only qualifications, and any employer can easily point to a lack of an abstract qualification as a perfectly legal and acceptable reason for rejection. Long story short, I'm not also of a particular persuasion (politically and personally) that I should be afforded any special treatment. SO I thread a particularly thin line here.
csfelon 13y ago
Yes, salesmanship has helped me a great deal. I always lead this conversation with the volunteer work I have done, and the testimony I have offered before law makers, which usually catches people as off guard as first learning about my background given my qualifications. I also try to take the attitude, that given the current hiring environment for engineers, it's not hard for me to "go somewhere else" if I need work, and that they should be happy to have another "warm body coding" rather than worrying about some legal obligation as a business owner that they've never had to deal with before and don't understand.
yetanotherphd 13y ago
I don't see why this is a good thing. One of the consequences of committing a crime is that your conviction becomes part of the public record. I am all for trying to convince employers that certain past crimes are not relevant for employment, if that is really the case. But I don't see why the government should be forcing employers to ignore past convictions, or why employers should have to prove that the information is relevant. Of all the categories we might seek to protect, be it race, gender, religion, etc., past convictions strike me as the least worthy of protection.
- bennyg 13y ago
  I'm 50/50 on this. A pot conviction doesn't matter - a murder conviction might (depending on circumstances, I guess). Why should someone be shamed for life for something that isn't a big deal, and has no bearing on professional accomplishment/ambitions. If you think a pot conviction hinders someone from doing their job, then I think it's up to you to explain why. If Person A has an engineering degree from Stanford and passes in-interview personality tests, and person B has the exact same degree and is just as likable/desirable as an employee, but person B has a one-time pot conviction record - then both people are still equally hirable in my mind. I just don't see the disconnect where that needs to be weighed at all in the hiring process.
  - yetanotherphd 13y ago
    You might have your own opinion on what information is relevant to an employer. However as a society, right now we only protect certain categories, like race and religion. An employer does not have to prove that all information they use is relevant. My question is why are we seeking to protect a category of people who have been placed in that category by a particularly fair and rigorous process? And if a particular crime is not a big deal, then it shouldn't be a felony in the first place! As a moral principle, I don't see why, if you are allowed to judge a person based on their personality or character, you cannot judge them based on acts which by their nature reveal a lot about that person's character.
    - 13y ago

by blahedo 13y ago

001sky 13y ago

Relevant To California [edit: public sector]: October 10, 2013 Jerry Brown signs bill to ban felony question on public job apps Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a bill that bans government employers from asking job applicants about their criminal record until later in the hiring process, effectively extending the state's policy to some 6,000-plus local and regional government agencies in California. http://blogs.sacbee.com/the_state_worker/2013/10/jerry-brown-signs-bill-to-ban-felony-question-on-public-job-apps.html http://blogs.sacbee.com/the_state_worker/2013/10/jerry-brown...

maaku 13y ago
Not relevant to the OP: "public job apps" is government work.
- 001sky 13y ago
  Yes, i think this is correct. That being said though it shows the point that the parent was making that this is a trend/perspective gaining a certain amount of traction or legitimacy intellectually. What is not clear, however, is within the specific firms (big, public, prestigueous) and specific jobs he may be applying to, if there is any such similar trajectory.

csfelon 13y ago

I've read about this. Unfortunately, it's just a "movement" at this point. I have volunteered at some organizations that work in this space within my state. However, the primary focus is for a larger contingent of convicts whom are returning to society after being incarcerated. I was never incarcerated, I am not a minority, and come from a middle-class socioeconomic background, and it's extremely difficult to argue discrimination in hiring for a job that very few people are technically capable of performing. Unlike service work for example, being able bodied, not-addicted to drugs, etc. are not the only qualifications, and any employer can easily point to a lack of an abstract qualification as a perfectly legal and acceptable reason for rejection. Long story short, I'm not also of a particular persuasion (politically and personally) that I should be afforded any special treatment. SO I thread a particularly thin line here.

csfelon 13y ago

Yes, salesmanship has helped me a great deal. I always lead this conversation with the volunteer work I have done, and the testimony I have offered before law makers, which usually catches people as off guard as first learning about my background given my qualifications. I also try to take the attitude, that given the current hiring environment for engineers, it's not hard for me to "go somewhere else" if I need work, and that they should be happy to have another "warm body coding" rather than worrying about some legal obligation as a business owner that they've never had to deal with before and don't understand.

yetanotherphd 13y ago

I don't see why this is a good thing. One of the consequences of committing a crime is that your conviction becomes part of the public record. I am all for trying to convince employers that certain past crimes are not relevant for employment, if that is really the case. But I don't see why the government should be forcing employers to ignore past convictions, or why employers should have to prove that the information is relevant. Of all the categories we might seek to protect, be it race, gender, religion, etc., past convictions strike me as the least worthy of protection.

bennyg 13y ago
I'm 50/50 on this. A pot conviction doesn't matter - a murder conviction might (depending on circumstances, I guess). Why should someone be shamed for life for something that isn't a big deal, and has no bearing on professional accomplishment/ambitions. If you think a pot conviction hinders someone from doing their job, then I think it's up to you to explain why. If Person A has an engineering degree from Stanford and passes in-interview personality tests, and person B has the exact same degree and is just as likable/desirable as an employee, but person B has a one-time pot conviction record - then both people are still equally hirable in my mind. I just don't see the disconnect where that needs to be weighed at all in the hiring process.
- yetanotherphd 13y ago
  You might have your own opinion on what information is relevant to an employer. However as a society, right now we only protect certain categories, like race and religion. An employer does not have to prove that all information they use is relevant. My question is why are we seeking to protect a category of people who have been placed in that category by a particularly fair and rigorous process? And if a particular crime is not a big deal, then it shouldn't be a felony in the first place! As a moral principle, I don't see why, if you are allowed to judge a person based on their personality or character, you cannot judge them based on acts which by their nature reveal a lot about that person's character.
  - 13y ago