Help wanted — sixty-five million need not apply

[Infohawk]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelo...help-wanted-sixty-five-million-need-not-apply

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.
The practice appears in some cases to be against the law, and at a time of record long-term joblessness, advocates for the poor say it places yet another obstacle in front of people like Magee, who are working to get their life back on track. In addition, there's widespread agreement that helping those with criminal records to find stable employment is crucial for preventing recidivism and preventing future crime. Indeed, that's the reason that the government runs programs designed to make it easier for ex-offenders to find work.

65 million have criminal records?! That seems like a lot.

 

[schneiderguy]

Probably because there's a bunch of stupid laws against doing harmless things (drugs, etc).

 

[bamacre]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelo...help-wanted-sixty-five-million-need-not-apply



65 million have criminal records?! That seems like a lot.

I wonder how many of those are for possession of marijuana, or some other non-violent, victimless "crime."

 

[boomhower]

I wonder how many of those are for possession of marijuana, or some other non-violent, victimless "crime."

Here an expired tag is a misdemenor and would therefor technically result in a criminal record. Stupid blanket statements like that are retarded.

 

[wuliheron]

65 million have criminal records?! That seems like a lot.

I think that number may actually be a bit low.

In 2006, nearly 81 million criminal records were on file in the states, 74 million of which were in automated databases.[2]
Another 14 million arrests are recorded every year.[3]

http://www.nij.gov/journals/263/redemption.htm

 

[Zebo]

Well this is a lot different than my unemployed need not apply thread. Least criminality is indicative of failure to follow instruction/law/rules...can't say I blame them.

 

[Zebo]

BTW does anyone know what "developmentally disabled" means? Is that a reprobate?

 

[Nebor]

Probably because there's a bunch of stupid laws against doing harmless things (drugs, etc).

I wouldn't hire someone who couldn't conform to societal norms expecting them to conform to my business norms.

 

[wuliheron]

BTW does anyone know what "developmentally disabled" means? Is that a reprobate?

It's politically correct for "republican".

 

[bfdd]

I wouldn't hire someone who couldn't conform to societal norms expecting them to conform to my business norms.

I would say 65 million criminals would make a criminal record kind of the "norm".

 

[Zebo]

Another thing they gonna check is credit to disqualify you in this market


This should really be a sticky thread for the kids. Keep your nose clean and credit does you no favors unless you're 100% positive you can always make the payment.

 

[Zebo]

I wouldn't hire someone who couldn't conform to societal norms expecting them to conform to my business norms.

I don't even think military lets you in with criminal record or bad credit right? Didnt they do a background check when you applied?

 

[Infohawk]

I wouldn't hire someone who couldn't conform to societal norms expecting them to conform to my business norms.

What if you needed someone to dig ditches and nobody else was available?

 

[Nebor]

I don't even think military lets you in with criminal record or bad credit right? Didnt they do a background check when you applied?

The military does a criminal check for entry, credit check and other stuff for classification related clearances.

 

[iGas]

Amerika Fuck Yeah!

21% of the people in the greatest country of the world are criminals.

 

[shira]

Well this is a lot different than my unemployed need not apply thread. Least criminality is indicative of failure to follow instruction/law/rules...can't say I blame them.

I see. So without knowing the specifics of the "criminal act," it's okay to just disqualify an applicant.

The only difference between most "criminals" and you is that you never got caught.

 

[CanOWorms]

I think that number may actually be a bit low.

In 2006, nearly 81 million criminal records were on file in the states, 74 million of which were in automated databases.[2]
Another 14 million arrests are recorded every year.[3]

http://www.nij.gov/journals/263/redemption.htm

Those numbers don't represent convictions.

 

[wuliheron]

Those numbers don't represent convictions.

Nor do they represent the number of people whose criminal records have been expunged or the number of employers unwilling to hire someone merely accused of a crime. All it does is show the distinct possibility the numbers may be higher then the 65 million suggested in the original post.

 

[Doppel]

Probably because there's a bunch of stupid laws against doing harmless things (drugs, etc).

That, and there are a bunch of stupid people doing stupid things.

This should really be a sticky thread for the kids. Keep your nose clean and credit does you no favors unless you're 100% positive you can always make the payment.

And stop posting your life on facebook.

 

[boomerang]

Yeah it sounds like a lot. The definition for 'Americans' needs to be defined. I'll venture a guess that the author is counting people who are not citizens as Americans. Makes the numbers look more jaw dropping. While citing sources for some of the information he presents (and from a labor group no less) he fails to cite a source for the number with a record.

I've read similar musing elsewhere as of late. The usual suspects will most likely be lobbying the nation for the creation of a new class of downtrodden - the convicted. Anyone think we'll end up with new quotas to fill? Employers will be mandated to have x amount of Felons employed?

Probably not, but the push for it will commence.

Update: Glanced through the 36 page article that the author of the blog plagiarized his title from and the source for what he's written. Endnote 2 describes how the numbers were reached. Yes, they counted everyone with a record along with using arbitrary calculations to achieve the 65 million number.

 

[dfuze]

I don't even think military lets you in with criminal record or bad credit right? Didnt they do a background check when you applied?

Watched a show recently (maybe on the military channel, can't remember now) that talked about how the military does do checks, but due to trying to hit recruitment numbers is starting to allow some in, including known gang members.

 

[Craig234]

It is more moral for people to get the opportunity repeatedly to leave crime and be a law-abiding employed citizen.

However, the fact is, while you might be someone who wants to do that, many others who have committed crimes do not - criminals are more likely to be a problem employee.

But letting former criminals be 'black-listed' leaves them without much but crime to support themselves - it greatly increases recidivism IMO.

What we have is a selfish employer interest to just not take the higher risk - against the societal interest both in terms of justice and crime reduction to let them leave crime.

Fact is, we create a permanent criminal underclass this way IMO, by allowing short-term behavior of black-listing released criminals.

They have to eat.

The for-profit prison industry is happy to just lock them up more and more - which we are doing.

Even in this time of reduced state money, we are setting records for prisons - politicians don't mind the support of the prison industry, nor the reduced crime.

IMO, we should *invest* in a new level of government aid for people to help point these people to get employed, and not let employers ask about that history.

Yes, it would make employers unhappy as these people had a higher average for problems - but it's the best plan IMO, over employers 'let someone else worry about it'.

No wonder street gangs are the only option many of them see, and they don't feel much remorse for crimes against society. They have to eat.

It's very childish and immoral to take a scolding approach - 'if they don't like being black listed they should have thought about that before committing a crime'.

There's a time for scolding, when they are sentenced. Black-listing is bad for everyone except the short-term employer benefit.

When you have some car oil to get rid of, it's convenient for you to pour it down the sewer. Works for you short term. But when everyone does that, what happens?

You need to deal with the hassle of disposing of oil safely, and employers need to deal with the hassle of worse problems on average with people with criminal histories.

It's an investment with payoffs for justice to let people leave crime, and for society in reduced prison costs and crime.

Will voters recognize the need to do this, or will they irrationally say things like 'that's pro-criminal, it rewards crime to give the criminal rights!'?

 

[Zebo]

I see. So without knowing the specifics of the "criminal act," it's okay to just disqualify an applicant.

The only difference between most "criminals" and you is that you never got caught.

I didn't say it's okay I said I can't blame them in this market. Crime and Credit are two indicators of poor character not universally but statistically. IMO it's a shame way we cast people away and not just criminals either, but old, color and whatnot.

Heh - when I was young and had get out of jail free card I raised all sorts of hell.... as I hit about 16 and realized actions have serious consequences I wised up and play by the rules.

 

[highland145]

It is more moral for people to get the opportunity repeatedly to leave crime and be a law-abiding employed citizen.

However, the fact is, while you might be someone who wants to do that, many others who have committed crimes do not - criminals are more likely to be a problem employee.

But letting former criminals be 'black-listed' leaves them without much but crime to support themselves - it greatly increases recidivism IMO.

What we have is a selfish employer interest to just not take the higher risk - against the societal interest both in terms of justice and crime reduction to let them leave crime.

Fact is, we create a permanent criminal underclass this way IMO, by allowing short-term behavior of black-listing released criminals.

They have to eat.

The for-profit prison industry is happy to just lock them up more and more - which we are doing.

Even in this time of reduced state money, we are setting records for prisons - politicians don't mind the support of the prison industry, nor the reduced crime.

IMO, we should *invest* in a new level of government aid for people to help point these people to get employed, and not let employers ask about that history.

Yes, it would make employers unhappy as these people had a higher average for problems - but it's the best plan IMO, over employers 'let someone else worry about it'.

No wonder street gangs are the only option many of them see, and they don't feel much remorse for crimes against society. They have to eat.

It's very childish and immoral to take a scolding approach - 'if they don't like being black listed they should have thought about that before committing a crime'.

There's a time for scolding, when they are sentenced. Black-listing is bad for everyone except the short-term employer benefit.

When you have some car oil to get rid of, it's convenient for you to pour it down the sewer. Works for you short term. But when everyone does that, what happens?

You need to deal with the hassle of disposing of oil safely, and employers need to deal with the hassle of worse problems on average with people with criminal histories.

It's an investment with payoffs for justice to let people leave crime, and for society in reduced prison costs and crime.

Will voters recognize the need to do this, or will they irrationally say things like 'that's pro-criminal, it rewards crime to give the criminal rights!'?

So what are you doing about the problem? Have you hired ex-cons?

 

[Thump553]

Well this is a lot different than my unemployed need not apply thread. Least criminality is indicative of failure to follow instruction/law/rules...can't say I blame them.

I bet if you sat down with me and did a through, honest interview (including examination of your records) that there a well over 90% chance I could point out a crime you have committed. I'm not picking on you as an individual, just pointing out there is a huge range of behavior classified as crimes in modern USA. For example, not declaring use tax on internet purchases is a crime in most places.

That said, I agree with your sentiments to a large extent. I wouldn't want to hire a thief, but a conviction for expired tags wouldn't (alone) be significant to me.