Many companies have a policy to never hire anyone who has done time but proposed Human Relations Commission policy could impact hiring practices and lead to more litigation.
The Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission is taking the position that an employer’s policy or practice of excluding individuals from employment on the basis of a prior criminal conviction has a disparate impact on certain minorities in light of statistics that demonstrate that they are convicted at a rate disproportionately greater than their representation in the population.
Unsuccessful job applicants would be able to sue potential employers
This policy guidance creates a presumption of disparate impact discrimination whereby complainants need not provide statistical evidence to establish the disparate impact element of a prima facie case. This policy guidance could make it easier for unsuccessful job applicants to sue potential employers for which it is not an outright business necessity to exclude applicants with criminal histories.
How does one rehabilitate and become a productive citizen if they are not given the opportunity to start over and to earn a life sustaining wage? On the other hand, should employers be forced to hire someone they wouldn’t feel comfortable having in their employ?
You be the judge…
Photo credit to Still Burning
@Margo I don't know what kind of precious metal my heart is made of but I don't believe prisons should be daycare and my grandma used to say idle hands are the devil's work. The other stuff I already said =)@Brenda L Breadman Dave followed me a while ago, can't remember when exactly but like always, I clicked on his profile to check him out before following back and liked his message. Regardless of whatever his past is, his present and future are role-model like for everyone. Entrepreneurial spirit, learning from your mistakes and helping others are very admirable. For those not able to be released I still suggest a productive career if possible in jail to relieve the public of the tax burden.
Yes this is a philosophical question, however the law is the law. Is there a grey area?- I think that area is where HR intersects and interprets this information - its up to the individual or building consensus (the gatekeeper or even owner/presidnet) to make an informed decision. As I was watching my Toronto Raptors get beat by Lebron last night - I thought of professionals athletes that get second chances. For example: Michael Vick - a very talented QB who was into dog fighting - would you hire him? The Eagles did - second chance at redemption and he paid his debt to society - although PETA supporters hate him 4ever and his image is tainted. Or most recently Gilbert Arenas - a very talented NBA point guard ( who was singed to a 111MILLION dollar contract at the beginning of the season with Washington) he decided it would be fun to pull a gun out on a teammate in the locker room over a 25K bet/debt (http://bit.ly/4pTVQ2) So can we as a society forget about the candidates past and hope for a better future because of that persons innate talent? ( and maybe their ability to add to the bottom line)BTW: GIlbert plead guilty to a gun felony charge and got suspended for the season - but I dont think he will have a problem getting his job back - or any job in the NBA.
Karla, You do have a big heart, and my biggest compliments to breadman-Dave. It is refreshing to hear someone has rehab'd himself and is helping others by giving them a chance to do the same. Who are we NOT to forgive someone their tresspasses?! I am not 100% in agreement though, there are some criminals out there that no matter what society does for them...they will not/can not ever be rehab'd. I've had the un-pleasure of meeting a couple of them, watched them get chance after chance and will never-ever do anything to help themselves-blame the world for their problems, etc. In short, it's a mixed bag and I think I agree with the poster who said it should be taken on a case by case basis.
People who've been successfully rehabilitated should have the right to work. Is it fair to put a ex-con in the position to sue every time s/he wants to appreciate the opportunity to succeed. No. How can we expect a person who become productive and life a decent life if we don't give them half the chance? Great Post Karla. You have a heart of gold.
How do you measure successful rehab?
This is quite a philosophical question. Law I suppose would say when the debt has been paid to society. However, there is nothing scientific about sentencing except for a life sentence without parole to isolate one from the public for reasons of safety. A Judge is certainly not qualified to know how long it takes a person to rehabilitate and I don't think anyone else is either. I don't believe time applies to the process. It's not like baking a cake where you know how long it will take to get the finished product. Like many companies, I used to work for one that had hard fast rules without exceptions. We were obligated to conduct behavioral interviewing with standardized questions and no deviation. They drank the flavor kool aid that says the past is a favorable predictor of the future. That leaves little opportunity to discover rehabilitation. One of our model employees made a grievous error in judgment while under the influence of alcohol and is serving a lengthy sentence for unintentionally ending a life and leaving the scene. She is harder on herself than the law could ever be. I believe she would never commit the same error again and if I owned my own company I would hire her in a heartbeat knowing her dedication and skills are top notch. However, I fear that should she be paroled (she is awaiting new of her recent parole hearing) she will have difficulty finding employment outside of a family business (and I don't think there are any in her family). This is a case of an individual that does not need rehabilitation (not addicted), she needs to pay the debt she is working on fulfilling. In summary, I don't know that there is a standard. Each incarceration is the result of a unique set of circumstances that is not defined the way one defines a college degree that enables one to fulfill a certain role. I would like to see the prison system convert to institutes of higher education with mandatory technical diplomas and degrees based on aptitude assessments, interests and ability, followed by internships and inside careers as the sentence with transitional programs implemented in the pre-release phase of incarceration. I think that would set a rehabilitation standard for all but violent or sociopath convicts who need to live confined lives for reasons of public and personal safety.
Ive hired ex-cons and MBA's in the past. The biggest difference: street smarts vs book smarts. Its whats right for your business - and I agree with Dave that the burden is on the employer, So hire who you believe is the best fit. when we do a criminal checks I make sure its not in a serious category like bank robbery, violence, drunk driving etc. Personally there is a line in the sand as an employer you should be aware of, even if your hiring someone who has paid his/her debt to society.
Ive hired ex-cons and MBA's in the past. The biggest difference: street smarts vs book smarts. Its whats right for your business - and I agree with Dave that the burden is on the employer, So hire who you believe is the best fit. when we do a criminal checks I make sure its not in a serious category like bank robbery, violence, drunk driving etc. Personally there is a line in the sand as an employer you should be aware of, even if your hiring someone who has paid his/her debt to society.
@Amos I completely support hiring the best fit, without synergy there will be no success. It looks like what is partially going on is that due to the overwhelming amount of applicants per job opening, background checks are being used as a screening tool regardless of if there is a compelling reason or not to screen someone out with a conviction. You are quite obviously a risk taker and compassionate - many people are not.
Compassion also has a range and taking a risk can be measured ( with experience). I also consider several variables, it not black and white for me. For example if you did something 15 years ago when you were a teenager I think there is a better chance. Lets face it - some of the biggest criminals work in the banks and on wall street - but get rehired all the time, they might not have a "criminal record" but its because no one is policing them. I think of how many entrepreneurs and successful start ups are run by people that have "criminal records".
I am not in favor of putting such a burden on an employer. As an ex-con and an employer, I have had good to great results hiring ex-cons. Occasional failures, just like any other "group". To not hire a person because of his or her record should be an employer's perrogative. My hope is that I can set a good example by successfully putting felons to work. But our company always chooses the best candidate for the job whether they are male or female, black, white, brown...or whether they have a mistake on their record.But i don't like to be told who I have to hire. Period.
@Dave I truly appreciate your taking the time to visit and respond. There are several potential lessons in your comment.
While as an employer I wouldn't want a convicted felon working for me, I would have to say it might be situational. For instance, I might employ someone who was convicted of multiple DUI's resulting in prison time. However, I doubt I'd want to hire anyone that was convicted of a violent crime or even theft.It's a pickle of a situation, though. For the sake of my ex-husband (and the child support he's supposed to pay) I wish it were easier for convicted felons to gain work. That's a long story but the short part is - no one will hire him. NO.ONE.
@imjustagoyle - Maybe there's hope and you'll get those back payments. I have often wondered why more rehabilitated felons don't start their own businesses like Dave from http://www.daveskillerbread.com @KillerBreadMan. Maybe you could send the ex Dave's link and tell him to get busy.