Ban The Box Campaign, For or Against?

[Shane Deubell]

A movement that has been growing is "ban the box". Which means take off the box asking about criminal convictions from your employment applications.

http://bantheboxcampaign.org/

This is NOT a liberal movement, the koch brothers and corporate america are funding this. Weird i know...

Hate the idea for our industry, especially for residential workers. Some things i can over look but definitely not any violence, property crimes in residential homes. Cant have a DWI either, among a several other ones.

Bar fight from when he was 20 years old, sure. Small amount of pot, not paying tickets stuff like that. Sure.

 

[The Great Oz]

In Seattle there's already a law that says you aren't allowed to ask about a conviction until after a person is hired, and then only if they may come in contact with people in vulnerable situations. Since going into a home is that situation, on the job ad I mention criminal background checks are required and uninsurable people will be wasting their time applying. The socialists that run the city have not found fault with that.

 

[FredC]

I would be against the movement................but then I think of all the felonies I could have caught in my younger days.............and question why someone should have to continue to pay a debt that should have been settled with jail/fines/prisons

the exception being where continued punishment is mandated......like sex offender list

 

[Shane Deubell]

In Seattle there's already a law that says you aren't allowed to ask about a conviction until after a person is hired, and then only if they may come in contact with people in vulnerable situations. Since going into a home is that situation, on the job ad I mention criminal background checks are required and uninsurable people will be wasting their time applying. The socialists that run the city have not found fault with that.

Thats the thing, started as liberal movement but Walmart is funding it now and conservative PAC groups like the koch brothers.
Gotta be some angle for them $$$

 

[steve_64]

Because they have made minor offenses felonies there are so many people who have become unemployable that would actually be good employees. Felonies should be for serious crimes then this wouldnt be such an issue. Race and marital status should be eliminated before felonies.

 

[Lee Stockwell]

I'm too discriminating to even THINK of taking applications.

For years I only hired red heads.

 

[Papa John]

I say ban the box-- if a person has done the time and then can't get a job a job because of the Box-- then a life of crime may be his/her only option.

If We want God to be merciful to Us-then we should be merciful to others.

 

[tmiklethun]

Am I correct in assuming that if the "banned the box", then business owners would no longer be liable if they hired someone with a record who then repeated the offense while under our employment?

The two biggest issues I would worry about are any type of sexual misconduct and theft. I do not yet have employees but have always assumed that if I hired someone with a record and they either assaulted one of my clients or stole from them that I could be liable for putting the employee in their home to begin with.

 

[Art Kelley]

A movement that has been growing is "ban the box". Which means take off the box asking about criminal convictions from your employment applications.

http://bantheboxcampaign.org/

This is NOT a liberal movement, the koch brothers and corporate america are funding this. Weird i know...

Hate the idea for our industry, especially for residential workers. Some things i can over look but definitely not any violence, property crimes in residential homes. Cant have a DWI either, among a several other ones.

Bar fight from when he was 20 years old, sure. Small amount of pot, not paying tickets stuff like that. Sure.

As always, you need to use common sense when hiring an employee that you are sending into peoples homes. Is a someone on the sex offender list a good candidate? Maybe. A drug offender? Maybe. Drunk driver with vehicle manslaughter? Maybe. Assault? Maybe. You are ultimately responsible and liable for their actions. If they do screw up, their past criminal records will be brought up. Imagine your company name in bold letters on the front page of the local paper associated with their deed.

 

[Ray Burnfield]

The IRS had a tax credit program of 40% on the first $6000.00 of earnings.
It expired in January.

 

[Ray Burnfield]

When you hired ex-felons

 

[Shane Deubell]

Am I correct in assuming that if the "banned the box", then business owners would no longer be liable if they hired someone with a record who then repeated the offense while under our employment?

The two biggest issues I would worry about are any type of sexual misconduct and theft. I do not yet have employees but have always assumed that if I hired someone with a record and they either assaulted one of my clients or stole from them that I could be liable for putting the employee in their home to begin with.

I assume thats why some business groups are supporting it.

Definitely are not out of the goodness of their heart.

 

[Mike Draper]

I think its a great thing that we are turning a blind eye to those that have served their time. They should not be judged by those past mistakes. While their at it these folks should get their 2nd amendment rights back. They served their time to society correct? Why should they not have their constitutional rights guaranteed back to them?

 

[tmiklethun]

I think its a great thing that we are turning a blind eye to those that have served their time. They should not be judged by those past mistakes. While their at it these folks should get their 2nd amendment rights back. They served their time to society correct? Why should they not have their constitutional rights guaranteed back to them?

Mike, just because they served their time does not mean they are trustworthy.

As of 2014 the national recidivism rate (repeat offenders) was 76.6% within 5 years. For property offenders it increases to over 80%. If they were convicted of a felony they should not get their right to bear arms or voting rights. Maybe they could do something if they have been out of prison for 10 years with no repeat offenses then they could get back some of their rights.

Here is the link to the study http://www.nij.gov/topics/correctio...ics/corrections/recidivism/pages/welcome.aspx http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/pages/welcome.aspx

 

[Mike Draper]

my question was rhetorical. I think its absolute BS that a company should not have the right to find out if the person they are hiring has had a troubled past. your statistics show the reason why its BS. I believe in forgiveness and another chance, just not when it comes to hiring them for my business.

 

[Papa John]

It should depend on their demeanor.
If they are repentant and have learned their lesson, and accept the blame and take responsibility-- they should be forgiven- and hired- other wise a life of crime Is Thier Only option.

 

[thecleaningdude]

Box or no box, the employer can still mandate a background check, no? Assuming this is the case, wouldn't a previous felony show up on the report?

 

[Papa John]

I was cleaning my desk today and found a Notice from SFPD--- it said Its illegal to ask about an applicants criminal history during the hiring process or to retaliate because of their criminal history.

 

[Mikey P]

yep, you have to wait UNTIL after you hire them to ask...



isnt that peachy?

 

[Papa John]

I've only hired people I've known... because I'm scared of what I might hire.... I think Joe Appleby gave good advise about where to find good prospects.. I should have been more aggressive in hiring the people who impressed me when I was their customer-- But they disappeared or were hired by other companies.

 

[Joe Appleby]

Had 3 guys from Home Depot interview here, none of them making more than 12.00 per hr.

 

[Mikey P]

all 60 year plus white dudes?

 

[Lee Stockwell]

I see "Equal Opportunity Employer" on companies' signage.

I've thought "Discriminating Employer" has a value as well.

 

[Portableman]

You know its your business to ask.

 

[Connor]

I had a guy show up on the doorstep looking for a job. Literally, He came to the door, asked for an application from the secretary and he sat on the porch and filled it out. He said he walked from across town looking for work. I didn't need the help, but I felt sorry for him. While I was reading his application, I looked him up on the state dept of corrections website. He was incarcerated for five years for cocaine distribution. His application said he was doing construction work in another state. I figured I'd give him a chance to get some grocery money. I put him to work doing whatever I could find. After a little more than a week, I let him go because he didn't want to work, he just wanted to smoke cigarettes and talk about how hard life is.

 

[Shorty]

What a conundrum.

WHEN I had my janitorial business over 20 years ago, I had major contracts at our International Airport.

Whenever I was interviewing prospective workers, I had to advise them that because of working at an airport, a police check by state & federal police would be done, and that they would have to fill out this form that would enable checking of their criminal history.

This was a form that I was never privy to.

I would simply receive a letter back stating that the person was unsuitable for the work area they would be working in.

Usually, just giving this verbal warning was enough to stop the applicants concerned.

I never employed anyone without getting this approval from the feds;

When things started to go pear shaped (like not being allowed to specify age, sex or criminal convictions in the newspaper ad), is when I decided it was time to get out of employing people.

A move I have not regretted.

PS:: In this regard, I believe that it is appropriate in our day & age to have employees disclose if they have a criminal past.

It's good to forgive & forget, but many crims; also play on that aspect & abuse your trust due to temptation.