New York City Council Passes 'Ban The Box' Bill Restricting Use Of Criminal Records In Hiring

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: beezzer
Good.

...own firearms.

In New York!? You would be lucky if you could make a finger gun and point it at someone.

Right? They barely let non-offenders have guns. Now we're just getting crazy, Beezer!

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Now we're just getting crazy, Beezer!

Crazy-er.

It is Beezer we are discussing.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: beezzer
Good.

...own firearms.

In New York!? You would be lucky if you could make a finger gun and point it at someone.

Right? They barely let non-offenders have guns. Now we're just getting crazy, Beezer!

Well, what's the issue?

Their criminal history is in the past.

We don't want the small mistakes to deny people their rights.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Aw come on now. He's just a fluffy, chubby bunny.

That smokes.

And keeps his ears pinned back.

Yea, you're right.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Now we're just getting crazy, Beezer!

Crazy-er.

It is Beezer we are discussing.

Well then, why not just give them the right to vote?

Crazy like a fox. . . y insane person!

a reply to: beezzer

No issue, amigo. Using the ones I cited earlier, I don't see any reason why somebody who isn't habitual or violent can't do what you've said.

The "issue" is its New York.

a reply to: beezzer

I agree with you Beez.

If you paid your debt you should have all your rights reinstituted.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I think the issue is bigger than that.

They are pushing for the same thing here in Oregon.

And every time it comes up, I bring up voting and gun rights.

The looks on some of the "more liberal" friends of mine are classic.

"What? Give criminals GUNS???"

a reply to: beezzer

If a person hasn't shown themselves to be violent and hasn't used a firearm to commit their crime or crimes, I don't see why not.

I mean I'll readily admit I'm not gonna be on board with giving a fella who committed armed robbery his guns back. Nor a guy who's shown that he likes to get into fights or what have you.

But the "I boosted a Dyson when I was 19 because I was stupid" guy? Whatever man, glock or Springfield?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
...glock or Springfield?

Oooh, a trick question.




Answer: Both!

a reply to: Shamrock6

If you paid your dues, you've paid your dues.

I think that if New York is serious, then they won't stop there.

But I honestly doubt that they give a tinkers damn about the rights of ex-criminals.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Sig and Kimber.

I have refined taste

a reply to: Shamrock6

Don't forget that a large number of felons only have drug charges under their belt. Not sure why they can't have guns either.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Shamrock6

If you paid your dues, you've paid your dues.

Beez, I actually agree with you for once. Once the debt is paid, you should be free and clear, until you rack up a new debt to society that is.

Inmates and the homeless appear to be the last group of people that are allowed to be discriminated against...

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Sig and Kimber.

I have refined taste

Been to both factories. I would take either.

a reply to: beezzer

I doubt it. That's why the law is structured the way it is. It doesn't really "fix" a whole lot. Still a pretty good sized loophole in it.

And I'll readily admit that my background is probably coloring my opinion on it. I just can't see that it makes sense to let a guy who's knocked over 6 convenience stores have the "things" he used to knock over all six of them back again.

Of course, at that point letting him have them back is immaterial because he knows enough to know where to get them anyway I would imagine.

a reply to: onequestion

All it is going to take is for a company to get sued because they hired a known felon who decides to steal, assault, or commit some other crime while being employed by said business.

A lot of companies would love to hire ex offenders but you also have to consider the legal liability of doing so. You are asking a company to take a huge risk. If it turns out the person wasn't rehabilitated, the first folks to get sued are going to be company that hired him.

There is a business near me called "Felony Franks" and the owner hired an ex-con once and he turned out to be his best employee. So he started this hot dog business where he hires ex cons and provides training, etc in the food business. Pretty much everyone behind the counter is an ex-felon. I try to support his business.

Humans like to pick on people. To make castes. Its just the way we are.

Felons are akin to the "dalit" class in India. Untouchable. As an employer you can do just about whatever you want, and only those who love the felon will even raise an eyebrow. As mentioned, they are a group of people that it is socially acceptable to discriminate against.

We are a judgemental species, that is for sure.

Once a person finishes their sentence, the debt is paid. I run background checks because of common industry standards that create an insurance situation. But id be far happier to quit turning away good candidates, and to stop paying the costs.

Lord knows I did plenty of dumb things that I just didn't get caught doing. And that is basically the only difference between a felon and a non felon in America.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Let's assume that because felons really have a hard time getting a decent job that most of the. Crime commit in these workplaces is commit by people without felonies.

a reply to: onequestion

Embezzling....yep. The major cash crimes are committed by folks who have never been convicted of it before. and the majority of theft has nothing to do with need, it derives from compulsion. Not like OCD....just the compulsion driven by convenience and rationalization ("its there, and no one is going to really miss it anyway").

If you can't run background checks, then you are left with 2 other options: reference checks (employment history, primarily) that includes you looking at gaps in employment history VERY closely and asking "Why?". And solid behavioral interviewing skills. If those 2 things are done on even a novice level, you should be able to root out 95% of the people who are like Shamrocks ex wife.