Ask HN: Any felons successfully found IT work post-release? • Hacker News Board

Re: Ask HN: Any felons successfully found IT work post-release?

#251

Post by yieldcrv » Thu, Jan 04, 2024, 2:23 AM UTC

HideousKojima wrote: post #246

yieldcrv wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Before the regulations took effect, candidates with criminal histories were far less likely to be called back, irrespective of race. > After the regulations, lacking the ability to discern criminal history, employers became much less likely to call back any apparently black applicant. They seemed to treat all black applicants now as if they might have a criminal past. “show us your linkedin”

Black people commit and are convicted of commiting significantly crime more than white people per capita. Whether this is due to racism, economics, or whatever is irrelevant, but when you can't check specifically for criminal records race becomes an excellent proxy. ~4% of white men will go to jail at some point in their life vs about 28% of black men. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/Llgsfp.pdf That said, sex is…

the article I quoted looked at high school dropouts and the number was 70% for black men. everyone understands that there are supporting statistics, and are simply trying to get the population to be more productive. there was buyin from the public sector in many cities by the voters, but then the private sector who is worried about who they are working with did not buy in. we are still looking for solution about how to get people productive, not whether it is accurate to assume someone has a conviction and be correct.

Re: Ask HN: Any felons successfully found IT work post-release?

#252

Post by jm4 » Thu, Jan 04, 2024, 2:25 AM UTC

kypro wrote: post #147

I know this is a controversial view, but I think employers should not be allowed to run background checks unless important for the role (government work, access to children, etc) and where it is important for the role it should only return the criminal convictions that might be relevant to the role. If you were arrested for robbery when you were younger perhaps because you had a drug addiction then that person should…

While I agree that people deserve an opportunity to move on from their past, I still want to know who I’m employing. It’s not just about crimes that may be relevant to the role. Who decides what’s relevant?

A crime completely unrelated to my business may be very relevant to someone I already employ. I have a small business where people are working in relatively close quarters. I don’t want to put a rapist, stalker or some other kind of predator in there with the young woman I just hired. If there was ever a problem that would be on my conscience.

There are all sorts of others I don’t want to deal with either. This is a place where the people I bring in will be around my family, my employees and my customers. I have a responsibility to look out for each of them.

All that said, I wouldn’t hesitate to hire someone with a criminal background if the crime is irrelevant or I assess the risk is low. I don’t care if someone got busted with weed or that they got a DUI 10 years ago. I don’t care if it’s a one time crime related to a very specific set of circumstances that’s unlikely to ever repeat. Or a bar fight, drag racing or dozens of other dumb lapses in judgment that can result in serious charges. But I do care that I’m able to make an informed decision.

Re: Ask HN: Any felons successfully found IT work post-release?

#253

Post by icedchai » Thu, Jan 04, 2024, 2:26 AM UTC

Try a smaller company. They typically don't run actual background checks. They may, however, run a google search and something could come up.

Re: Ask HN: Any felons successfully found IT work post-release?

#254

Post by yunesj » Thu, Jan 04, 2024, 2:26 AM UTC

kypro wrote: post #147

I know this is a controversial view, but I think employers should not be allowed to run background checks unless important for the role (government work, access to children, etc) and where it is important for the role it should only return the criminal convictions that might be relevant to the role. If you were arrested for robbery when you were younger perhaps because you had a drug addiction then that person should…

It should be up to the employer. If one company thinks that a past conviction is irrelevant while other companies think a past conviction is disqualifying, then the former may get the employee at a better rate, the company will thrive depending on whether they were right, they'll have more resources to hire ex-cons, and other companies will follow suit.

A blanket law that forces all companies to hire employees without considering information they think is important is really inefficient. Just recently, governments and people were complaining that rideshare companies weren't being exclusive enough! If you think new laws will find the optimal policy for all companies, you are incorrect!

It's also overreaching. Freedom of association is important. The owner of a Jewish deli shouldn't be compelled to hire a formerly convicted neo-Nazi.

Re: Ask HN: Any felons successfully found IT work post-release?

#255

Post by NoZebra120vClip » Thu, Jan 04, 2024, 2:28 AM UTC

nope00 wrote: post #49

Nov’22 is very recent, and won’t be your experience forever. It’s been a little over 20 years for me. Now, I get background checked every year. It doesn’t show. Initially I worked in food service and on phpfreelancer. I spun that into consistent consulting work until a client offered a full time position (less than 15 people, no background checks). As the years rolled by, I kept moving around. Eventually I tried at a…

26 years ago, I was charged with a felony in CA. I pled nolo contendre to a misdemeanor and received court probation; no other penalties.

I recently underwent an extensive background check with my longtime employer and the case still showed up. Of course I had allocuted to it in advance and it was not a problem.

Re: Ask HN: Any felons successfully found IT work post-release?

#256

Post by csharpminor » Thu, Jan 04, 2024, 2:33 AM UTC

kypro wrote: post #147

I know this is a controversial view, but I think employers should not be allowed to run background checks unless important for the role (government work, access to children, etc) and where it is important for the role it should only return the criminal convictions that might be relevant to the role. If you were arrested for robbery when you were younger perhaps because you had a drug addiction then that person should…

Out of curiosity, have you ever been responsible for hiring and managing a team?

I say this because my experience of hiring and employing people really shifted my opinion in favor of maximum diligence unfortunately.

Re: Ask HN: Any felons successfully found IT work post-release?

#257

Post by vidoc » Thu, Jan 04, 2024, 2:36 AM UTC

kypro wrote: post #147

I know this is a controversial view, but I think employers should not be allowed to run background checks unless important for the role (government work, access to children, etc) and where it is important for the role it should only return the criminal convictions that might be relevant to the role. If you were arrested for robbery when you were younger perhaps because you had a drug addiction then that person should…

> I know this is a controversial view, but I think employers should not be allowed to run background checks unless important for the role (government work, access to children, etc) and where it is important for the role it should only return the criminal convictions that might be relevant to the role.

This shouldn't be controversial at all and I think your take is 100% correct wrt exceptions (gov work, access to children etc). The very "Once a felon always a felon" thing going on in the united states is a secret life long sentence that completely defeats the idea of redemption.

Re: Ask HN: Any felons successfully found IT work post-release?

#258

Post by Arch485 » Thu, Jan 04, 2024, 2:37 AM UTC

sneak wrote: post #225

kkielhofner wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an extremely privileged position. In many environments violence is a part of life and necessary for survival. One hypothetical scenario of millions: You live and grow up in a high-crime area. Someone attacks you, a family member, etc. You defend yourself to protect your own life or that of a loved one. A cellphone video records the end of the encounter where you appear to be the aggressor. You get an assault…

It is definitionally judgemental and discriminatory. Hiring is the practice of discriminating against undesirable hires by using one’s judgement. We can discuss whether or not it’s naive, but it’s served me quite well for decades thus far. The rest of your comment seems like a simple emotional appeal. All hiring is discriminatory; there are more applicants than there are positions. Discrimination is not a bad thing,…

Your examples of "choices made as an adult" (religion and joining the military) are quite commonly not choices, nor made as an adult.

Most kids are introduced to being religious because their parents are, and in those scenarios the child doesn't get to make an informed decision about whether or not the religion is something they want to be a part of (I don't think I need to explain why this is).

Similarily, you can join the military at 16 in North America, before you're legally an adult. People are also involuntarily conscripted into the military in some countries (like South Korea and Switzerland).

If you want to argue that it "doesn't count" when you're a kid or something similar, then you'll have to also explain way a child can change to become less violent or "less religious" and why an adult, for some reason, cannot.

So yes, your opinion is naive. It's missing all of the complexities of human society.

Re: Ask HN: Any felons successfully found IT work post-release?

#259

Post by minkiebun » Thu, Jan 04, 2024, 2:40 AM UTC

akira2501 wrote: post #210

kypro wrote: post #147

I know this is a controversial view, but I think employers should not be allowed to run background checks unless important for the role (government work, access to children, etc) and where it is important for the role it should only return the criminal convictions that might be relevant to the role. If you were arrested for robbery when you were younger perhaps because you had a drug addiction then that person should…

It should be like a credit report. If it's been at least 7 years since your last public criminal record, they should then just fall off your "report," and no longer be visible except to the courts. It used to be that you could pay your debt, and unless your crime was infamous, the "memory" of it would fade from society rather quickly. The internet and private databases have definitely hampered this facility and perha…

Many companies handle background checks in exactly this manner; it’s common for seven years to be a cutoff where they stop caring.

Re: Ask HN: Any felons successfully found IT work post-release?

#260

Post by calvinmorrison » Thu, Jan 04, 2024, 2:40 AM UTC

vidoc wrote: post #257

kypro wrote: post #147

I know this is a controversial view, but I think employers should not be allowed to run background checks unless important for the role (government work, access to children, etc) and where it is important for the role it should only return the criminal convictions that might be relevant to the role. If you were arrested for robbery when you were younger perhaps because you had a drug addiction then that person should…

> I know this is a controversial view, but I think employers should not be allowed to run background checks unless important for the role (government work, access to children, etc) and where it is important for the role it should only return the criminal convictions that might be relevant to the role. This shouldn't be controversial at all and I think your take is 100% correct wrt exceptions (gov work, access to chil…

It's not controversial, because we've twisted freedom of association, in places people aren't allowed to even have a "Ladies Night" at the bar, chose who the rent to, etc etc etc. Barry Goldwater absolutely and unequivocally warned us of this.

Now because that freedom of association, freedom to chose who you do business with does not exist, we think this is reasonable.

However, it is not. I own a business. I should not be required to hire anyone I do not want to. Full stop!

And it doesn't have to be a race card thing, Say I hate the Iraq war. Say I would like to never hire any veteran who contributed to the deaths of over 1 million Iraqi Citizens. Or say I worked with Iraq war veterans in the past and I hate their military attitude. I am not allowed to do so. If I bought a company, I would want to fire all veterans. No, you are not allowed to do so.