Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Feb 18, 2016 20:14:16 GMT -5
Too much liability. It's a business not a charity ward.
|
|
seriousthistime
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 20:27:07 GMT -5
Posts: 4,732
|
Post by seriousthistime on Feb 18, 2016 20:29:31 GMT -5
Too much liability. It's a business not a charity ward. Okay then. So much for the attribute of forgiveness. And so much for independent judgment, because not all convictions are created equal.
|
|
Peace77
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 1:42:40 GMT -5
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Peace77 on Feb 18, 2016 20:32:38 GMT -5
Someone being arrested does not mean they are guilty. Sometimes innocent people get arrested.
Sometimes the offense is not anything that would be a problem in a work environment. So, if someone applies for a job that had been arrested for protesting or failing to pay parking tickets, you figure that person is worthless?
|
|
|
Post by mojothehelpermonkey on Feb 19, 2016 13:21:10 GMT -5
But yeah as an employer why hire anyone who has been arrested for anything? I can understand this perspective, but then what are felons supposed to do for income when they get out? It's no wonder that so many go back to stealing, selling drugs, etc...
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,402
|
Post by NastyWoman on Feb 19, 2016 15:35:12 GMT -5
As long as I remember, any job application I have filled out since the mid 1970s has asked if I had any felony convictions. I don't see how this is something that is relatively 'new' due to the internet. Now, the internet has made it easier to determine whether or not someone lied on their application. But from what I understand, lying on job application is usually grounds for immediate dismissal. My work place has gotten progressively stricter over the years. We used to ask about convictions but make a case by case decision on whether we would hire them. Then later we changed to not hiring them at all, and then at some point we did background checks on all our employees and let go the people that had previous convictions, even if we knew about them when they were hired.
DH's employer will still hire people with convictions, if they are willing to work hard. I would think if it is possible at all Chiver's friend should definitely consider applying to the courts for an expungement. I can't believe that resolution's company is the only one taking this path. And not only that, it may very well become harder in the future to get your record expunged. All we need is a couple of high profile crimes by some people who got their records cleaned up and that is it...
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Feb 19, 2016 19:33:34 GMT -5
It's a tough issue for employers. Some of it just comes down to playing the odds and trying to avoid liability. Chiver's friend was in the minority of people who do not have a 2nd arrest, but again that's the minority. Here are some stats on the latest long term study on recidivism from the US Dept of Justice: www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510.pdf
Among state prisoners released in 30 states in 2005—
About two-thirds (67.8%) of released prisoners were arrested for a new crime within 3 years, and three-quarters (76.6%) were arrested within 5 years.
Within 5 years of release, 82.1% of property offenders were arrested for a new crime, compared to 76.9% of drug offenders, 73.6% of public order offenders, and 71.3% of violent offenders. Within 5 years of release, 84.1% of inmates who were age 24 or younger at release were arrested, compared to 78.6% of inmates ages 25 to 39 and 69.2% of those age 40 or older.
As an employer, you want to avoid being the target of a repeat offender and you want to avoid getting tangled in the potential liability, drama and hassle that happens when an employee is arrested even if that arrest and crime take place outside the workplace.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Feb 19, 2016 19:35:57 GMT -5
But yeah as an employer why hire anyone who has been arrested for anything? I can understand this perspective, but then what are felons supposed to do for income when they get out? It's no wonder that so many go back to stealing, selling drugs, etc... If we as a society feel that this is an issue that should be addressed for the greater good, then one step would be to indemnify employers against liability for hiring felons. Right now, employers take on huge liability if they hire a felon. If that felon hurts another employee or customer, the business is skewered both legally and financially. Removing this liability might make some employers more likely to take a chance on felons.
|
|
Sharon
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:48:11 GMT -5
Posts: 11,175
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 19, 2016 19:41:57 GMT -5
This past January OR law was changed so that employers may no longer ask as part of the application process about an applicants criminal background. They call it a "ban the box" law. That doesn't mean that they can't do a criminal background check but you can ask the question until an offer of employment has been made. Here
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Feb 19, 2016 19:52:39 GMT -5
But yeah as an employer why hire anyone who has been arrested for anything? I can understand this perspective, but then what are felons supposed to do for income when they get out? It's no wonder that so many go back to stealing, selling drugs, etc... Yeah i made that point early on.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Feb 19, 2016 19:54:31 GMT -5
In a sue happy society it simply isnt worth taking a chance. Why should a business expose themselves to that risk? For what?
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Feb 19, 2016 19:55:27 GMT -5
And now that there are illegals pouring over the border with no traceable records and tons of applicants for every job. Easy peasy.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,622
|
Post by chiver78 on Feb 19, 2016 20:58:09 GMT -5
This past January OR law was changed so that employers may no longer ask as part of the application process about an applicants criminal background. They call it a "ban the box" law. That doesn't mean that they can't do a criminal background check but you can ask the question until an offer of employment has been made. Herein my mind that begs the question of what happens after the employer finds out about the new hire's history. I talked with my friend today, and honestly I think his best bet is going to be working on the cheapest path to expunging the record. I'd explain more, it is be broadcasting the record and I think there's enough identifiable about me for anyone that knows me to be able to figure out said friend and the record. he's done an amazing job at keeping that secret in a place where secrets don't often survive long. I won't out him.
|
|
|
Post by mojothehelpermonkey on Feb 19, 2016 21:39:15 GMT -5
I can understand this perspective, but then what are felons supposed to do for income when they get out? It's no wonder that so many go back to stealing, selling drugs, etc... If we as a society feel that this is an issue that should be addressed for the greater good, then one step would be to indemnify employers against liability for hiring felons. Right now, employers take on huge liability if they hire a felon. If that felon hurts another employee or customer, the business is skewered both legally and financially. Removing this liability might make some employers more likely to take a chance on felons. I agree. If I was a small business owner, I probably would not want to take a chance on a felon. Still, it's not like these people are going to go away, and some of them are decent people just trying to get by. It is the same way I feel about homeless people. I can understand why business owner's wouldn't want a bunch of them camped out in front of their store or business, but it is not like people down on their luck can just stop existing. I think it's a bigger problem than any of us can solve on our own.
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 7,001
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Feb 20, 2016 8:41:54 GMT -5
It's a tough issue for employers. Some of it just comes down to playing the odds and trying to avoid liability. Chiver's friend was in the minority of people who do not have a 2nd arrest, but again that's the minority. Here are some stats on the latest long term study on recidivism from the US Dept of Justice: www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510.pdf
Among state prisoners released in 30 states in 2005—
About two-thirds (67.8%) of released prisoners were arrested for a new crime within 3 years, and three-quarters (76.6%) were arrested within 5 years.
Within 5 years of release, 82.1% of property offenders were arrested for a new crime, compared to 76.9% of drug offenders, 73.6% of public order offenders, and 71.3% of violent offenders. Within 5 years of release, 84.1% of inmates who were age 24 or younger at release were arrested, compared to 78.6% of inmates ages 25 to 39 and 69.2% of those age 40 or older.
As an employer, you want to avoid being the target of a repeat offender and you want to avoid getting tangled in the potential liability, drama and hassle that happens when an employee is arrested even if that arrest and crime take place outside the workplace.
This is tough. Who would want to hire someone with that rate of recidivism? How can the ex-offender avoid recidivism if they have no other income source than crime?
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 7,001
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Feb 20, 2016 9:04:08 GMT -5
My work place has gotten progressively stricter over the years. We used to ask about convictions but make a case by case decision on whether we would hire them. Then later we changed to not hiring them at all, and then at some point we did background checks on all our employees and let go the people that had previous convictions, even if we knew about them when they were hired.
DH's employer will still hire people with convictions, if they are willing to work hard. I would think if it is possible at all Chiver's friend should definitely consider applying to the courts for an expungement. I can't believe that resolution 's company is the only one taking this path. And not only that, it may very well become harder in the future to get your record expunged. All we need is a couple of high profile crimes by some people who got their records cleaned up and that is it... I think part of the problem too, was that once the different employment agencies and social services agencies know you will take ex-offenders, they start flooding you with ex-offenders to be interns and applicants for positions. So it's not like give one person a chance, and see how it works out. It's like give one person a chance, and suddenly every internship referral and applicant has a record, some of them very violent.
|
|