61–70 of 171 posts
In case any is wondering, I looked at the comments under that article and saw the stats: According to IPCH's Spring 2014 Uncensored Magazine, 35% of open hires make it through Greyston Bakery's apprenticeship program. Source| http://www.icphusa.org/filelibrary/ICPH_UNCENSORED%205.1_Spr...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This isn't 'right' or 'wrong', it's just reality. Government-supported reality. You can say that this is okay, but please do not make it look like this is just the way it is: The government could disallow access to all felony records (probably with an exemption for police) and even (if it wanted) provide people with a fake background story for the time they were in prison. Discrimination can only be based on things…
> The government could disallow access to all felony records (probably with an exemption for police) So instead of searching government records to find out if you have been convicted of a felony when you apply to work for me, I use Google to find a newspaper report of your conviction. Not as reliable, but will still probably turn up most applicants with serious felony convictions. If we are in one of the 40 state tha…
Additionally, according to this paper(1) around 8.6% of people have a felony conviction in the US. I have a hard time believing that all - or even most - of this felonies get reported by a newspaper/Google, so even for very noisy employers this seems to be a small risk (yes, if you are the "Slaughterer of " people will probably find you on Google even without a public felony record).
All else given: Start with removing access to felony convictions, then remove access to credit information and go from there. I didn't say it was easy, but at the moment the government (in the US) seems to do its best to make the life of people who have been convicted of a felony very hard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't about 'second chances'. Employers are picky because they can afford to be. They will (mostly) always favor Ivy over state school grads, clean record vs. felon, good credit risk vs. applicant that declared bankruptcy ...and so on. As low economic growth continues, this is only going to get worse. How many middle-aged people do you see working at Target/Wal-Mart now vs. 15 years ago? If you're not highly ski…
> This isn't 'right' or 'wrong', it's just reality. Government-supported reality. You can say that this is okay, but please do not make it look like this is just the way it is: The government could disallow access to all felony records (probably with an exemption for police) and even (if it wanted) provide people with a fake background story for the time they were in prison. Discrimination can only be based on things…
No.
We have this system because that is what people want. Maybe not you, but clearly the majority.
Employers can be legally responsible for crimes their employees commit.
If you employ someone who has been found guilty of a sexual assault crime and hire them to work at a carnival where they assault someone, you will be sued.
You don't have to like it, but the reality is that the US is a country where the majority of the public wants to be able to know when someone committed a serious crime.
Interesting, quote that stood out:"Someone without an arrest may simply be a person who has never gotten caught". That only 40% of business owners would consider hiring a ex-criminal also makes one wonder how many employers in general tend to lump all ex-cons in the same basket when assessing potential business risk (e.g. serial murderer vs thief/drug dealer, 1x vs multiple offender, etc).
And keep in mind that 40% SAY they will hire. As seen in polls about racism (even anonymous polls) the actual number is probably a lot lower.
As someone with several drug related felonies on my record, I can do nothing but applaud the efforts of this CEO, although on a different level I wonder if any adult working a minimum wage job isn't living a very bleak existence anyway, and in fact isn't being exploited for having a brain disorder we currently call "addiction" The problem with people who let drugs seriously affect their life is that...they let drugs…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't about 'second chances'. Employers are picky because they can afford to be. They will (mostly) always favor Ivy over state school grads, clean record vs. felon, good credit risk vs. applicant that declared bankruptcy ...and so on. As low economic growth continues, this is only going to get worse. How many middle-aged people do you see working at Target/Wal-Mart now vs. 15 years ago? If you're not highly ski…
Employers can't afford to be picky anymore. The unemployment number is now 5.5% and we've had a year of 250k+ jobs added per month. If you want to use anecdotes about Walmart, even they have been forced to increase their wages to retain talent recently. The axe against ex-cons is an ingrained bias that hurts competitiveness. It is an unfortunate 'reality' that it is a bias that is tolerated in America today.
I agree. I think it is the misperception that these people are risky hires. I believe employers are very nervous about liability and simply disregard anyone that may pose a potential risk (bad credit, arrest record).
As someone with several drug related felonies on my record, I can do nothing but applaud the efforts of this CEO, although on a different level I wonder if any adult working a minimum wage job isn't living a very bleak existence anyway, and in fact isn't being exploited for having a brain disorder we currently call "addiction" The problem with people who let drugs seriously affect their life is that...they let drugs…
Interesting article, thanks. As a Portuguese, and having been close to someone who was addicted to heroin, I know that besides clinics, we also had houses in the countryside where there were small communities where people trying to recover could stay for a few months, with very regular visits by specialist psychologists helping them. I don't know how effective they were or if they still exist, but it seems to jive wi…
The book Iconoclast explains that even moving furniture around can put us into a more creative state, because our creativity is activated by novelty.
As someone with several drug related felonies on my record, I can do nothing but applaud the efforts of this CEO, although on a different level I wonder if any adult working a minimum wage job isn't living a very bleak existence anyway, and in fact isn't being exploited for having a brain disorder we currently call "addiction" The problem with people who let drugs seriously affect their life is that...they let drugs…
I don't think this is the "success" story it's being made to be.
As someone with several drug related felonies on my record, I can do nothing but applaud the efforts of this CEO, although on a different level I wonder if any adult working a minimum wage job isn't living a very bleak existence anyway, and in fact isn't being exploited for having a brain disorder we currently call "addiction" The problem with people who let drugs seriously affect their life is that...they let drugs…
I wonder if a Silicon Valley tech company would care about drug related convictions. I don't think possession/distribution/etc. alone would really be an issue (except if it were extremely recent and potentially ongoing), but clearly "I was high and raped/killed my neighbor" would, and either could arguably be "drug related". "Was an addict and broken into cars to get money for drugs" would be a more interesting corne…
Perhaps if you could insure your company for each employee, it would be clearer whether you should hire someone and employers would take more well-justified risks on people.
Interesting, quote that stood out:"Someone without an arrest may simply be a person who has never gotten caught". That only 40% of business owners would consider hiring a ex-criminal also makes one wonder how many employers in general tend to lump all ex-cons in the same basket when assessing potential business risk (e.g. serial murderer vs thief/drug dealer, 1x vs multiple offender, etc).
If you want to play the game of capitalism well, ie win more of the profit, then you can't let humanity encroach on that. For better or worse.