It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   
This law does not require you to hire anybody. This law does not stop you from doing a background check. What the law does is eliminate the the check here box if you have been to jail. For most employers if that box is checked, their is no interview and no job.

This law allows the person to get a fair interview. If the are good enough to get the job, then the normal back ground check is allowed. If the check comes back with an arrest it only requires you to have a conversation with them about it and then why you can not hire them if that is the case.

So if you were arrested when you 19 for stealing a car and joy riding with your friends, it will not stop you from getting a job when your 45 and have lead clean life since. Right now, once you check that box no chance at a job. And honestly if that is the way your going to be treated you might as go back to crime. With this law however something like that will not stop you from getting in the door and when it comes up in your background check you can explain it was 30 years ago when you were a dumb kid.

All it does is give people a chance. It is not a way to find new victims etc. It does not work that way. So really I do not see how anybody would have a problem with this.




posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad

Thank you for articulating what I could not.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion

This is exactly my point.

Rather than taking things on a case by case basis you choose to paint with broad stroke putting everyone on the same level.

This is simply not the case.

I'm 100% positive that you've done things in your youth that possibly could have warranted a felony but simply never payed the consequences for.


Nope, sorry, I never did anything in my youth that would have warranted me being charged as a violent felon.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
When you were in highschool did you ever get into a shoving match, or even a small scuffle?

That's a felony if you get the DA on a bad day or at the end of the fiscal year and your parents can't afford an attorney.


As I was a minor it would have been expunged even if my lawyer was so bad as to not get it knocked down to misdemeanor where it belongs.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I can see clearly that you have no experience in the courtroom.

Also refer to Mrspads post above.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
I can see clearly that you have no experience in the courtroom.


I have been in court several times. What is your point?



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Personally...I think it sucks.

So if one has a teller's job open and your only applicant has an embezzling record you have to hire him? That's insane.

This is supposed to be a free country and now the feds are going to tell us who we have to hire. So much for freedom.

My view is if you dont understand that committing a crime will result in a record and dificulty getting hired for better jobs, then you (the generic you) are too stupid to make it in society anyway.

Granted, people make mistakes, and I would consider hiring someone with a single conviction a few years back, but someone with multiples no freaking way. I will eliminate the job and create another and structure the responsibilities differently as many times as it takes to hire someone who is not a felon.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   
This is ridiculous.

Are the city councillors going to be happy with ex cons working at City Hall.

Oh, wait. People with criminal records can happily be President of the United States, so who cares?



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

i think that if you have reason for exclusion (such as cash handling and embezzling) that is one thing. But if you are washing dishes, why does it matter that you have a criminal record? You aren't coming in contact with anyone. Its not like a child sex convict working as a lifeguard.

When I ran a call center we had quite a few felons. Our view was it was better for them to work with us, in one 50,000 sq ft room, filled to the brim with cameras.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
Personally...I think it sucks.

So if one has a teller's job open and your only applicant has an embezzling record you have to hire him? That's insane.

This is supposed to be a free country and now the feds are going to tell us who we have to hire. So much for freedom.

My view is if you dont understand that committing a crime will result in a record and dificulty getting hired for better jobs, then you (the generic you) are too stupid to make it in society anyway.

Granted, people make mistakes, and I would consider hiring someone with a single conviction a few years back, but someone with multiples no freaking way. I will eliminate the job and create another and structure the responsibilities differently as many times as it takes to hire someone who is not a felon.



No you do not have to hire them. If you read the law or through thread you will find the law does not require you to hire anybody.



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad

Then what was the point of the law, if not to establish a liability for discrimination based on a criminal record?

Disparate impact will outlaw discrimination based on criminal record and race. You should read about what is coming regarding that. Disparate impact will affect housing (care to live next door to a sex offender?) and hiring and will, effectively, outlaw a background check for hiring and when renting apartments.

Disparate impact applies when a policy, applied across the board, such as not hiring felons (or not renting to felons) disparately impacts a "protected" class. In other words, because a significant proportion of the black community has a record of felonies if one discriminates against felons, then by definition one is discriminating against blacks. Doesn't matter if one does not rent to other races due to a felony on their record....doesnt matter how evenly and equitably one applies the rule.. it still amounts to discriminating against blacks.

The problem is, on one hand the govt will be requring one to hire and rent to felons. On the other hand, if one knowingly rents or hires a felon and said felon commits a crime against another tenant, or employee, the apt complex or the employer will be legally liable (sue-able) for doing so knowingly.

Before anyone replies that this will be "fixed" (the liability aspect) let me point out that the Disparate Impact ruling has been a policy of HUD for years and has been in the courts for years and yet there has been zero addressing of the liability aspect. This will soon be coming to SCOTUS.

I can only hope that rational minds will prevail in this stupid, ignorant concept.



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

to prevent you from running a background check, more or less.



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: bbracken677

to prevent you from running a background check, more or less.


The point of the law is this. Employers for the most part have a box on applications that pretty much say, have you ever been arrested. If you check yes, you never get an interview.

With this law, the box does not exist. So the person gets an interview. So lets say you like them and want to hire them. You are then run a background check which is allowed. The person pops up with an arrest. The law then requires you to speak to person about it and let them know that you can hire them because they stole money money and it is cash handling job, or it is a toy store and the have a pedo arrest etc.

However, the point of the law is for people who have and arrest from early in life for doing something stupid that have lead clean lives since. So if you were arrested for joining a group a of friends when you were 19 who was selling a little weed in college got caught went to jail got out and kept your nose clean for the next 20 years without this law you find getting just an interview for a job hard to do. You would still be punished at 40 years old for something you did as a stupid teenager. The law would not guarantee you get the job but, it would at least give you chance. Without that chance, stuck working under the table kind of jobs, you would be far more likely to get into something illegal. And that is why we lock up have on of the highest prisoner ratios in the world.



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


We cannot hire people with criminal histories or those who've shown an inability to manage their own finances (poor credit histories).


Define poor credit histories.
I have no credit cards and never had one in my name.
I have no leans, no repos, no past due bills,
But my credit score is someplace below 500

The system is BS if you do not believe in credit cards or living out side your limits.



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
Bout time! They must be realizing how bad it's getting for people with increasing recidivism rates.

Source


NEW YORK -- Carl Stubbs, 63, stood outside New York City Council chambers Wednesday in anticipation of the council’s vote on the Fair Chance Act -- a bill that would delay when many of the city’s private sector employers can ask job applicants about their criminal history.


Later on it goes on to say that being black and having a felony will not get you hired. That's bs having a felony will put you in a position where you can only get hired if you know someone.


So you don't think an employer has a right to know the criminal history of a prospective hire? What if they stole from their previous employer? What if it is a daycare and the person was convicted of pedophilia? What if they were convicted of selling prescription narcotics and the job is in a pharmacy?



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Did you even read anything in the articles?

Read teo or three posts above you by MrSpade



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I'm not sure how I feel about this law

- It's for NYC. . . . for the time being (and select other cities) as long as no federal ordnance is set, I guess I don't have to much of an issue with it. If this is what NYC wants, then let them have it.
- I understand the need to get felons jobs. But I also know that felons and criminals have resources available to them. They are given jobs in prison and at least somewhat prepped for the outside world and adjustments. I know and am an acquaintance/friend of a convicted murderer. He got out of prison approximately 5-6 years ago. He is now a night shift manager at a Wal-Mart. I understand it's not a prestigious position, but he is grateful for what he's got and doesn't expect to much more than what he's got going for him. He maintains his innocence, and I try not to talk about it much, but in the eyes of the law and Wal-Mart, he is a convicted murderer. It can be done. After prison he was sent to a halfway house where he spent some of his time working (I'm not sure where). He started working night shift at Wal-Mart and got a roommate, and now he is the manager.

The problem I have with this law however is this: What if it unfairly forces another employee out? Yes, I understand that the interview is what will determine employment. But what all the criminal apologists on here are championing this new law for is potentially doing the exact opposite to those who have no criminal history, and maybe slightly less qualifications. Who should have the first chance at getting a job? A Drunk Driver who killed someone in a car crash despite making the conscious decision to drink and drive who served a decade in prison because he was a repeat offender (and for arguments sake, let's say he was "truly" reformed finally and burned all bridges and ties to his past life) and has 5 years of warehouse management experience for a job that calls for 4. He is then pitted against a guy with a clean slate (and since we're all about equality and trusting a persons word, has no criminal background, not even a parking ticket), but has only 4.5 years experience as a warehouse manager.

Who deserves the first chance at that job? Ethically, I think the latter should get the first shot at this job. And while all you armchair criminal apologists would like to think this is right, I'd bet a pretty penny that if you were down on your luck in this economy and have been unemployed, you'd be pretty pissed if you discovered you were passed up for even an interview for a half way decent job in favor of a murderer because you have a negligible amount less experience than him. Mark my words. In a city this large, this scenario is going to be encountered, but because you believe society has wronged some of these guys, or think their punishment is unjust and have pipe dreams about a utopia, you bury your head in the sand. Someone is going to be passed up for an interview, and eventually a job because a murderer, home invader, or wife beater got a free pass. I'm not claiming that this job is going to flood NYC with chomo's working in daycares and car thieves as valets. Hell, even some of you who support this claim it probably won't get to many more felons jobs. What then is the point of it in the first place? All it's going to do is force those who have done no crimes out of job opportunities where they may have had even a 10 or 20% chance, now, some of them are going to get screwed before they even had a chance, all so criminals can jump in front of them in line and so progressives can claim to have taken a moral high ground.

When I first typed this response, I had a somewhat open mind. I am mostly conservative and I thought this sounded like a good idea, as I was typing, I saw how futile it was. This law in and of itself is going to hardly do anything as far as getting felons jobs. Yes, it may get one felon a job here and another felon a job there, but all it is doing is force one non criminal out here and another non criminal out there in the felon's place.

All this being said, the law in and of itself and it's intentions are not bad. Even I agree that we could do more to help keep felons on the right path, but legislators in this case are trying to put in a cheat code. They should focus FIRST on all the reasonable pre-requisities to helping felons get jobs. Priority should first be made on rehabilitation, job training, education, reducing gang membership, while also having these people pay their debt to society. What politicians are doing here is building the last mile of a street, taking a picture of it and telling the world "look at what I've done", while not finishing the other 5 miles of road.



posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad

The way I do my hiring is I post a job opening and request resume's.

Then I go through the resume's and pick the ones I want to speak to.

I invite them in for an interview.

If I like what I see, I invite them to fill out an application and the backgrounds etc are run then.

This is how many jobs work, except for those GD online applications that waste so much of your time.

And, no ... I do not hire felons. No way, no how, nyet, nunca, nada....



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join