Not hiring because of a criminal record is racism?

[schildi]

If I ran a business, and had the choice, I'd prefer somebody with a clean record. Article:
news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110323/ts_yblog_thelookout/help-wanted-sixty-five-million-need-not-apply

What gets me is that they say this could be considered to be racism. What?

[Opti]

Tidbits from the article:

Because discriminating against those with criminal records disproportionately hurts African Americans, the practice may violate the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits race-based hiring discrimination. Indeed, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has said that although considering an applicant's criminal record may be acceptable on a case-by-case basis, an "absolute bar to employment" for such people is illegal.

Sixty-five million Americans—or one in four adults—have a criminal record. But employers—including major companies like Bank of America, Omni Hotel, and Domino's Pizza—routinely post job ads on Craigslist that explicitly exclude such applicants, according to a new report conducted by the National Employment Law Center (NELP), a labor-affiliated advocacy group.

Still, the practice looks likely to grow only more common: Thanks to the tight labor market—there are currently five unemployed workers for every job opening—employers can be especially choosy about who they hire. Indeed, as we've reported, the EEOC is currently looking into another problem with similar roots: hiring discrimination against the unemployed.


I have to say I had no idea the number of people with a criminal record was so high. I feel sorry for the guy in the story because I had a similar thing
happen to me when applying for a job while my house was in the foreclosure process. By the time, you get around the policies to be considered they've already hired some of the other applicants that applied the same time you did.

[schildi]

Yeah, I was also surprised about the "one in four adults have a criminal record" statement. That's a lot of criminals walking around. But I guess this may mean also 99% have a criminal record in one part of town, and only 5% in another

[stats45]

I worked at an internship during college where we worked on some papers about employment discrimination. I learned that discrimination claims are harder to prove than people might think, the overwhelming number of people who have an actionable claim don't file, and that external factors such as knowing someone who filed a succesful claim or the unemployment rate are often more important in who files and who does not than the severity of the discrimination that occurred.

It might be 'illegal' to use a felony (or even misdemeanor conviction) as a sole basis for denying employment, but filing a claim in hiring is extremely difficult, much more difficult than filling a claim for being fired. When fired, you have a history with the employer, some potential evidence about workplace treatment, potential witnesses, etc. You rarely get any of that when you drop off an application and don't receive a response. In addition, most people with criminal records already have other warning flags (often related to their offense or offenses) such as a work history with gaps that you could use as a reason to not give consideration.

Even beyond that, to prove discrimination in hiring, you have to be able to make a case that you are a well-qualified candidate relative to other persons who applied. Let's say you are applying to an entry level job at Lowe's. The store may have tens or hundreds of applications around from people who drop them off whenever. Does the potential applicant with a criminal record have any distinguishing characteristic (like years of retail home improvement store experience) that makes them an otherwise exemplary candidate? Probably not. Is it clear that the person with the criminal record was more qualified than recent hired? Even if they did, you could make a compelling narrative that it wasn't enough to overcome concerns about their past.

[Frappuccino]

We make things too easy for the wrong people nowadays. There is no punishment for criminal activity anymore. People commit crimes and serve 1/4 of their sentence due to jail crowding or whatever. And what? now they can go out and get a job with that record? That wouldn't have happened a decade or so ago. There are a LOT of megans law dots in my area - that is very unsettling to me. There is no deterent anymore

[hoops902]

"Here is the flip side. Some criminal offenses are just not that dangerous and sometimes people learn. If some moron got involved in a drunken brawl at 21, do we really want to keep him from working the rest of his life? How about the idiot who gets caught with a few joints? Would you prefer these jokers stay on welfare or gravitate toward life-long criminality and more serious crimes? It's not like they are going anywhere, any time soon."

So instead we do what? Give the criminal the job and tell someone who's not a criminal to go on welfare? It's not as if employers are saying "You've got a criminal record, I guess no one gets the job at all". There are only so many jobs to go around. It's not an issue of just not giving these jobs out, it's an issue of who gets them. For every person with a record you're giving the job to, there's another person out there who would have gotten the job but didn't. There's nothing wrong with giving a job to someone with a record, but you speak as if doing so solves any kind of problem...it doesn't...there's still someone out there without a job now.

[qofcc]

1 in 4 adults has a criminal record? That seems awfully high. Is that counting traffic violations?

[workpublic]

every citizen is a criminal in a police state

America, the home of the free. where everything is against the law.

[zibazinski]

I used to throw out the applications of those who came to apply and didn't have a pen on them. Did you KNOW you were frilling out an application today? DUH, be prepared. I also threw out those that came dressed wrong for the job, who had poor hygiene, and just plain looked unkempt. Smokers that smelled went into the trashcan as well. That was just the beginning. So if you get rid of those and then start with the background checks, you weed out even more. With so many jobs, it's an employers market. Do I care that you got in a fight in college, not really, but it does show perhaps some anger issues or poor judgment and I want an explanantion before I hire you IF you are the top or one of the top candidiates.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

A potential employee may be required to be bonded. Someone with a criminal record may not be able to get this.

[stats45]

I agree with tough that it is not good if people recognize that they will never have a chance at a decent life (or even making enough money to live)without turning to other crimes.

The criminal record thing bothers me for two reasons. First, a large part of the huge increase in criminal records in the last couple of decades is related to drug sentencing. I couldn't be more opposed to drug use (and my family has been an example of the horrible effects of drugs and alcohol abuse), but I just don't think prisons and criminal penalties are the right ways to deal with drug crimes. It just hasn't worked.

Second, I think some of the current difficulty relates to shifting from a manufacturing to service-based economy. When a sizable majority of people in the workforce have to deal with registers, customer service, etc. it becomes more difficult to ignore certain crimes than if there is a large manufacturing or construction sector.

[ohsuzanna]

Would you hire someone with a criminal record? I would not!

[jarhead1976]

WORKPUBLIC says "every citizen is a criminal in a police state "....... Lack of jobs and the lure of easy money ensure a volatile society. The war on drugs has been a failure. The revolving door system is such a drain on states and federal resources. What I find disturbing is the Sheriff that makes $60,000 a year. Has a stay at home wife with 2 kids. A motor home , boat and a $300,000 dollar mortgage. 2 jet skis, 4 wheelers and quit a few motorcycles.... sometimes its hard to see the real criminals. Just a good investor right? Maybe the Police State?

[woodwand]

Mar 24, 2011 9:32:18 GMT -5 ohsuzanna said:

Would you hire someone with a criminal record? I would not!

Hey, my juvinile record was sealed!

[sheilaincali]

in 2000 my dad bought out another company. After he bought the company the office manager proudly told him "you bought at a good time. This is the first time in 5 years we don't have anyone on work release!". We have some interesting characters that work for us. Most have records for stupid decisions when they were underage. A heavy amount of DUIs (multiple counts per person). But since 2000 only 2 have been locked back up (in jail and for DUIs).
We do heavy concrete manufacturing and it's not easy to find people willing to do the work. We have had the nice college summer kids but they quit after a few weeks. We have over the years gotten rid of the real trouble makers (through lay offs and that sort of thing). Now there are a couple with DUI's under their belts but that's it.

[dianartemis]

I'm on the fence about this. I've worked at companies that have utilized work release and there are three types: they don't care, pretend they changed, and they really did change and are serious about getting their life together. The first are usually gone in a month. The second usually don't last more than three before they're a no show or back in the pokey. The last will stay for a while until they find another job or move up in the company.

When it's an unskilled labor job, it's easier to weed people out. But when it requires one deal with money or customers, it's an iffier proposition that can badly impact your business.

[thyme4change]

Wouldn't we be better off spending our time trying to help young people not get a criminal record in the first place? Long term it does our country more good to discourage the law breaking than to make it okay for everyone who has already broken laws, and are now raising new people who will see that law breaking didn't hurt their parents.

[Frappuccino]

The problem with the employer judging the severity of the crime is that everyone can and does downplay their offense and come up with a good story. Its easier to just call a cab if you have a few sips of alcohol, and wait until all outstanding checks are stale-dated (6 months right?) before closing your bank account.

I would feel sorry for the person in scenario number 1 - but, when you are a potential employer how do you really know the person in front of you was the attacked party versus someone with anger problems? It seems safer to pick the one without the record. Luckily I'm just a pee-on and will not be making these decisions in the near future

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

Hmmmm .... the U.S. military gets to exclude applicants with criminal records..... are they being sued for discrimination?

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

Yes, some criminal offenses are able to be waived, but others can't ... and from what I've heard, it's getting harder and harder to enlist (in this economy) with a criminal record ... and many, many military applicants are denied for that reason.

[Phoenix84]

"Don't kid yourself. They take plenty of people with criminal records and some people were traditionally given the choice, military service or jail. It just takes a big-enough meat-grinder and you are in."

Depends entirely on the recruiting quotas and how well the military is meeting them. If the military has trouble filling their ranks, they waive criminal offenses. In the past, as you put it, they would specifically put criminals in military service. Nowdays though, there isn't a big enough war. In addition, the economy is bad which makes many qualified people look at military service who would not otherwise do so.

[Phoenix84]

I'm not sure about a criminal record being racism. You made the choice to commit the crime, you should live with the consequences. I don't see how race plays into it.

Not all criminal records are the same. I think wheather or not a criminal records matters depends on the job, the person, the offense, and many other factors. A criminal record shouldn't be an automatic kiss of death, it can just drive them back to a life of crime. However, for certain jobs and offenses, I think it should be a major concern.

I think there's a big difference between a violant and non violant offender. A person with a DUI isn't as bad as a child rapist. You also have to consider the job. If the job involved money or working with the public (especially children) then a criminal record SHOULD be a factor, but again, you have to look at the crime and how it relates to the job. You also have to consider how long it has been. A criminal offense 6 months ago is different than one 20 years ago. Lots of people do foolish things when they are young, why should someone pay for a mistake their whole lives?

Obviously some jobs require a clean record, like needing a security clearance, working with children, handling money, dealing with the public, but not all jobs need disqualify everyone.

[straydog]

Mar 24, 2011 7:30:52 GMT -5 workpublic said:

every citizen is a criminal in a police state

America, the home of the free. where everything is against the law.

SD: Fully agreed. There are two books that are on my reading list. The 1st is:

"Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent."
By Harvey A. Silvergate.

In the description, Silvergate says that the average professional can commit up to 3 felonies per day because the laws are so vaguely written-making nearly everything against the law, just as you stated in your post. The 2nd is:

"Go directly to Jail: The criminalization of almost everything."
By the CATO Institute.

In the description, they give real examples of people who have been tripped up in the nearly 4000 federal laws that are now on the books.

I once read somewhere that the Germans have a saying. It goes something like this:

"If you haven't committed five felonies by lunchtime, then you haven't gotten out of bed."

I suspect that were headed in the same direction.

[straydog]

Schildi:
If I ran a business, and had the choice, I'd prefer somebody with a clean record.

SD: But what kind of business are you talking about? I'm 49 now, and spent years of my time in the workplace working in the restaurant business. I also have learning disabilities-so my options were limited at that time in my life.

At one time, in the kitchens of alot of privately owned restaurants, you would usually find a few ex-cons working back there. The hours are long, and the work is hot and dirty. People not wanting to be privately taught chefs usually would not want to do that kind of work.

Schildi:
What gets me is that they say this could be considered to be racism. What?

SD:
That just sounds like the self-righteous elite trying to make themselves feel better by passing more laws and then bragging about how they are fighting 'racism'.

Yet I bet you that these are the very same people who scream for open borders, which bring in more unskilled labor, which then make it harder for guys like the fellow in the article to find work.

On the other hand, the more people that end up on the welfare plantation, the happier the elites usually are.

[so1970]

it might be discrimination but it can not be racism. and people get discriminated for many number of reasons. i work on a tug boat i get a lot of rough guys for deckhands. most have had scrapes with the law. DUIs assault etc. they are generally good guys i would not have a problem with them doing any type of job. when they decide to move up to a wheel house position the coast guard requires them to have back ground checks and service letters. everyone knows and understands this why if the coast guard can deny someone for criminal acts is it wrong for regular employers to deny for the same.

[joebanker]

If you are a criminal than I as an employer should be able to reject you on that basis alone. That is not racisim that is just being prudent.

JoeBanker

[michelyn8]

I deleted my response yesterday and toyed with just how much of my personal experience I wanted to share on this subject. I have a criminal record - I was convicted of grand larceny 20 years ago this month for stealing from an employer. There is rarely a day I don't feel the impact of the choice I made back then. I did the crime, paid the time and paid back what I took with interest.

BUT through hard work and perserverance, I rebuilt my life, regained the trust of my family and even earned the trust of employers which has allowed me to work in a field that may or may not handle cash. It wasn't easy and yes, at times, I became discouraged because some people simply do not want to take the risk of hiring someone who has done what I did. Fortunately for me, I was able to find employers who gave me a chance and because they did, I gave them my best on the job creating a win/win situation.

In the first years, I was more understanding of employers who rejected me outright for my record, but when I was job hunting a few years ago, it did bother me that after so many years, a steady work history with good references and a no further legal issues, I was at timse rejected outright for it. It can be very discouraging to have years of hard work overlooked because of a stupid choice when I was 21. And to be honest, I found that my mistake was focused on more now than it was in the first years after my conviction. But, even then, I was selected for interviews (including more than one state job) and even though I didn't get them, don't feel like it was because of my record but because I wasn't the best candidate.

That said, I don't view rejecting someone with a record as racism or even discrimination. There are still companies out there that are willing to give someone who made a mistake a chance. They are just harder to find now than they were even 10 years ago.

People are a lot more judgmental now (including myself) and I view that as something that is more detrimental to our society as a whole than the mistakes of a certain segment of our population. I see it on these boards and more disturbingly, in those who consider themselves Christians.

I understand how so many of us can be jaded and mistrusting of others but most of those that criticize the loudest really need to take a long look at their own lives. They usually have done things just as bad but just not caught yet.

Just because someone has a clean record doesn't make them a good person/employee - it just means that they may not have been caught yet. Those who haven't been caught can't be weeded out through bad references anymore because a previous employer who may warn you about them is to scared to open their mouths because they might get sued. And as toughtimes pointed out, if you have enough money or the right connections, a crook can usually find a way to keep their record clean enabling them to move on to their next opportunity to fleece some company.

[ambellamy]

my friend just got a letter in the mail saying his was disqualified because of his record.... he would have gotten the job except for a stupid shop lifting thing that happened years ago

[formerexpat]

After all, Bush went on to become president of the United States after numerous run-ins with cocaine. There are plenty of African American and Hispanic kids who have criminal records for POT, and they can't work as taxi dispatchers.

Or you can have a young black man that regularly used pot in his younger days become President. I don't see this as a race issue. A lot of young people try drugs.

Hell, you can even have a former terrorist that bombed US buildings in this country become a distinguished professor of education at one of the more highly rated schools in the country.

Perhaps it would be better to decriminalize drug use rather than try and force companies to comply with an unenforceable law; if one were created.[/size]

[Deleted]

Mar 25, 2011 0:33:58 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

I'm not sure about a criminal record being racism. You made the choice to commit the crime, you should live with the consequences. I don't see how race plays into it.

Not all criminal records are the same. I think wheather or not a criminal records matters depends on the job, the person, the offense, and many other factors. A criminal record shouldn't be an automatic kiss of death, it can just drive them back to a life of crime. However, for certain jobs and offenses, I think it should be a major concern.

I think there's a big difference between a violant and non violant offender. A person with a DUI isn't as bad as a child rapist. You also have to consider the job. If the job involved money or working with the public (especially children) then a criminal record SHOULD be a factor, but again, you have to look at the crime and how it relates to the job. You also have to consider how long it has been. A criminal offense 6 months ago is different than one 20 years ago. Lots of people do foolish things when they are young, why should someone pay for a mistake their whole lives?

Obviously some jobs require a clean record, like needing a security clearance, working with children, handling money, dealing with the public, but not all jobs need disqualify everyone.

The person with a DUI could have killed someone. I think they both should go to jail for a long time.