View Full Version : Ban the box
According to the Associated Press, President Obama will announce executive orders Monday attempting to prevent screening for prior criminality in government hiring.
The so-called “ban the box” program would prevent government agencies from asking about criminal history until later in the interview process. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Vermont Senator Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)16% (D-Loonbag)[LOL], and former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley have all joined Obama in calling for banning “the box” – meaning the check box for criminal conviction. Obama also wants to prevent public housing from hindering the ability for convicted criminals to gain access to subsidies.
All of this merely represents the latest in a string of attempts by Democrats to reach out to those at odds with law enforcement. Last summer, Obama visited a federal prison, where he told prisoners that as a former user of both marijuana and cocaine, he could have ended up in prison, too. “These are young people who made mistakes that aren’t that different from mistakes I made,” Obama said. “The difference is they did not have the support structure, the second chances, the resources that would allow them to survive these mistakes.”
Meanwhile, just days ago, Hillary Clinton said she would sign a law that would ban racial profiling. She did not explain how the legal standard of “racial profiling” would be proved, thus placing every arrest of a person of color at risk of potential legal liability. She also said she would use executive action to destroy sentencing differentials between crack and powder cocaine, despite the fact that crack cocaine and powder cocaine use differs widely, and that black legislators originally sought the sentencing differential to rid drug-ravaged inner cities of the crack scourge. The same day, Clinton – demonstrating her own belief that crime and ethnicity are inherently tied – launched African Americans for Hillary at Clark Atlanta University after lunching with vicious Jesse Jackson. “We have to create those channels of opportunity so that we go from childhood to adulthood pursuing your dreams, instead of cradle to prison and seeing them die,” she intoned.
This weekend, Obama echoed that message. “I believe we can disrupt the pipeline from underfunded schools to overcrowded jails,” he said in his weekly address. “I believe we can address the disparities in the application of criminal justice, from arrest rates to sentencing to incarceration.”
Source (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/02/obama-sign-order-forcing-government-hire-convicts/)
Note: I snipped a lot of the opinion pieces for the sake of brevity.
If we as a society agree that crimes should be punished, and we also agree that jail is the punishment, then must we also agree that once the punishment is served, that the criminal should be reinstated as a full citizen? If so, then why do we have, as a standard, have questions on ALL job applications about ones criminal background as well as a background check requirement for some jobs?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Linked stories
Clinton to "ban" racial profiling: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/30/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKCN0SO16T20151030
Ban the box website: http://bantheboxcampaign.org/
Scimitar
11-05-2015, 14:38
As much as I hate to admit it, the restorative justice model is no longer a hypothesis. Internationally, it is pretty much unanimous that it is a less expensive more productive system then straight out, aggressive punishment.
Sure it feels weak ass pussified, but the numbers stack up, for the majority of criminals, over aggressively punishment then disenfranchisement when they get out, (being a major factor in recidivism), is costing America billions. And could arguable be America's single greatest controllable cost in these tight budget times.
The "crime market" may be costing America as much as $500b annually, yes with a B. The penal system alone runs at 82.5b, add in the criminal judicial system, the additional police force costs, government support costs by the post prison disenfranchised individual (often lifelong support), cost of repeat crime, and lost productivity from the individual criminal, and the total end cost starts to sky rocket, and rivals even our burgeoning social welfare system that runs at $153b. Even a 10% decline in the "Crime Market" costs, which many believe could be done almost instantly, if the "criminal market" was approached logically instead of politically, and you're looking at somewhere in the vicinity of $50b saved / year. To provide some perspective, the 2013 defence budget cuts where $71b, and our annual deficit normally runs at around less than $300b. (post 9/11, pre GFC)
Our political system is broken, because we approach problems politically not logically. Period.
(1VB)compforce
11-05-2015, 17:45
we as a society agree that crimes should be punished, and we also agree that jail is the punishment, then must we also agree that once the punishment is served, that the criminal should be reinstated as a full citizen? If so, then why do we have, as a standard, have questions on ALL job applications about ones criminal background as well as a background check requirement for some jobs?
Simple... Civil liabilities and a litigious population. Those boxes have nothing whatsoever to do with federal regulations (in most cases) and everything to do with corporations not wanting the liability of hiring someone that has shown in the past that they have a lack of morals. If a person was convicted of burglary and gets a job at a company installing burglar alarms, do you think the person whose house was just robbed might have a lawsuit if that person robbed them using insider knowledge from the installation?
Ban the box is a bunch of bullshit. I want to know specifically whether the people I trust to work in my company *can* be trusted. For me, the small business owner, everything I own is on the line. If an employee makes a simple mistake, it can literally cost me everything. Why in the world would I want to hire someone that I didn't know anything about? As the business owner, the criteria that I use to hire should be up to me. If I choose to hire someone with a criminal past, that is MY decision, not the government's.
The current anti-discrimination laws can be clearly seen at work in the VA system and Government in general. The government gives hiring preference to minorities to the exclusion of everyone else (technically Veterans are treated as a minority class in the Government system). Ban the box is another one of the same group of rules. We can't discriminate against people we know we can't trust, right? Let's just pile some more disfunction on businesses. Regulatory and compliance costs only account for 8% of the GDP... it won't matter if we pile on another $10B to cover the people we have to hire but can't trust with actual work http://logic.stanford.edu/POEM/externalpapers/understanding_the_costs_of_c_138098.pdf
A number of state (VA and MN, eg) and local govts, as well as corporations like Target and Koch Industries (which nobody can claim to have democrat sympathies) and such, have removed the question inre to criminal history on their "initial" application forms, recognizing the barriers it creates in potentially scuttling the rehab opportunities for many offenders and accessing a broader potential veteran workforce market. It doesn't mean they aren't asked about it later in the interview process or a background check isn't undertaken, which often happens, but it means they're initially looked at based upon work history and qualifications vice a prior criminal past - and NOBODY is forcing any organization to hire them as the blogosphere's 'sky is falling' crowd is proclaiming.
Here's a link to the Minnesota state govt's FAQs on its program (which has been around since 2009) as a good example of what it means.
http://mn.gov/mdhr/employers/cbgc_faq.html
Gutes lesen.
Richard
BlueYing
11-05-2015, 18:47
It's important to note that, as of right now, President Obama is only banning the federal box. That's not to say that steps won't be taken to ban the box altogether. I'm pretty sure that's the direction it's going in, truth be told.
I used to run my own business, too. I wouldn't hire anybody if they were a felon either. However, I know I passed on some people that simply made a mistake. Despite the fact these people were doing their level best to turn their life around, I still did not want to hire them. At that point, I was afraid that if I hired one felon then all the ones who I didn't hire had a discrimination case against me. Then, for anybody who didn't check that box but they should have, if I found out they were in prison then I could let them go for falsifying their application.
I do believe that once anybody's prison sentence is finished then they paid their debt to society. I ran my own business, though. I depended on that money. My family did, too. If I couldn't trust someone, for any reason, felon or not, then they didn't work for me. How could I hire someone when they were put in prison for theft? I'd always be worried they'd steal from me, and therefore my family.
Here's my thing about the whole ban the box thing. Like I said, there are people that are trying to get their life together. But small business owners have more than themselves to think about. Aside from their family, they have the rest of the employees to think about as well. Some small business owners depend on the box to weed people out. A pre screening of felonies on the application will help save some time. Why go through the motions of bringing someone in for an interview if you don't have to? That's time and money. Also, without that box, if the business owner doesn't do background checks on their own, then they'd have to ask the applicant if they've had any felonies in the interview. That can be a pretty awkward question to ask and I'm sure to answer.
For all I know I'm on the wrong side of this. I understand that recidivism can be curbed if these people can find legitimate employment that they can depend on. For me, if I still ran my business, I'd still make the same decisions.
mark46th
11-05-2015, 19:41
Before I bring someone in for an interview I do an interview over the phone and ask the following questions:
1. Can you pass a piss test today?
2. Do you have transportation to get into work?
3. Is your driving record clean?
After the interview process if we like them, we have them do a Lifescan and piss test. If all is good, we can make them an offer...
(1VB)compforce
11-05-2015, 19:42
A number of state (VA and MN, eg) and local govts, as well as corporations like Target and Koch Industries (which nobody can claim to have democrat sympathies) and such, have removed the question inre to criminal history on their "initial" application forms, recognizing the barriers it creates in potentially scuttling the rehab opportunities for many offenders and accessing a broader potential veteran workforce market. It doesn't mean they aren't asked about it later in the interview process or a background check isn't undertaken, which often happens, but it means they're initially looked at based upon work history and qualifications vice a prior criminal past - and NOBODY is forcing any organization to hire them as the blogosphere's 'sky is falling' crowd is proclaiming.
Here's a link to the Minnesota state govt's FAQs on its program (which has been around since 2009) as a good example of what it means.
http://mn.gov/mdhr/employers/cbgc_faq.html
Gutes lesen.
Richard
Again, if those entities want to remove the box, more power to them. What I am against is the government enforcing the removal of it. It's a slippery slope. How long between the time the box gets removed and the next group trying to get it outlawed as a question in the interview process? How long after that before background checks are outlawed because you might be discriminating against someone based on their criminal history? What's next? You have to hire someone based on their asserted history and skills? You have to hire a certain number of felons to avoid the appearance of discrimination? There have to be a certain number of criminals in the leadership of the company? Now take the words criminal and felons and replace them with "women" or "minorities"... it's a formula that has worked in the past, just with classes of employees that were a little less difficult to push through.
How about we just go back to "the best applicant for the job" and quit trying to legislate jobs for everyone? I am an equal opportunity employer. I give the opportunity to have a job, salary and upward mobility to everyone equally and judge potential employees based on who I think will do the best job without any consideration of their race, creed, religious beliefs, gender, ethnicity, etc. Frankly, if I hire the wrong people, my business suffers. If I hire the right people my business does well. Leave me alone and let me run my business... (this is directed at the government, not you Richard)
Yes, I read that this was just the removal of the box on Government applications. That is usually the first step in a process that ends up with it being legislated for all employers. "Look, we did it successfully in the Government, you can do it in the private sector too"
Scimitar
11-05-2015, 20:20
Simple... Civil liabilities and a litigious population. Those boxes have nothing whatsoever to do with federal regulations (in most cases) and everything to do with corporations not wanting the liability of hiring someone that has shown in the past that they have a lack of morals. If a person was convicted of burglary and gets a job at a company installing burglar alarms, do you think the person whose house was just robbed might have a lawsuit if that person robbed them using insider knowledge from the installation?
Ban the box is a bunch of bullshit. I want to know specifically whether the people I trust to work in my company *can* be trusted. For me, the small business owner, everything I own is on the line. If an employee makes a simple mistake, it can literally cost me everything. Why in the world would I want to hire someone that I didn't know anything about? As the business owner, the criteria that I use to hire should be up to me. If I choose to hire someone with a criminal past, that is MY decision, not the government's.
The current anti-discrimination laws can be clearly seen at work in the VA system and Government in general. The government gives hiring preference to minorities to the exclusion of everyone else (technically Veterans are treated as a minority class in the Government system). Ban the box is another one of the same group of rules. We can't discriminate against people we know we can't trust, right? Let's just pile some more disfunction on businesses. Regulatory and compliance costs only account for 8% of the GDP... it won't matter if we pile on another $10B to cover the people we have to hire but can't trust with actual work http://logic.stanford.edu/POEM/externalpapers/understanding_the_costs_of_c_138098.pdf
I hear you, and as a business owner myself (all be it outside the US), I have the same concerns. However, here's a counter argument.
Looking at the big picture, it is hugely more beneficial for our nation if these people are reintegrated; the cost of disenfranchisement is huge compared to the relative risk.
If it’s across the board, no one company gets a competitive advantage.
To mitigate its effect on disproportion impact on small business, do something similar to the common "exempt companies fewer than 20 staff" kinda thing.
Allow criminal checks for certain crimes for certain jobs. People with those crimes will avoid those jobs, problem solved.
As ‘nanny mummy pandering’ as it sounds, we have to stop disenfranchising this group; not for their shitty benefit; screw them; but for ours, it simply is costing too much to continue the status quo.
Ban the box on the Secret Service application.
Pat
blacksmoke
11-05-2015, 21:23
^^LMAO!! What does some felony theft have to do with protecting the Pres? LOL So what if oval office artifacts keep coming up missing?
The Reaper
11-05-2015, 22:43
I hear you, and as a business owner myself (all be it outside the US), I have the same concerns. However, here's a counter argument.
Looking at the big picture, it is hugely more beneficial for our nation if these people are reintegrated; the cost of disenfranchisement is huge compared to the relative risk.
If it’s across the board, no one company gets a competitive advantage.
To mitigate its effect on disproportion impact on small business, do something similar to the common "exempt companies fewer than 20 staff" kinda thing.
Allow criminal checks for certain crimes for certain jobs. People with those crimes will avoid those jobs, problem solved.
As ‘nanny mummy pandering’ as it sounds, we have to stop disenfranchising this group; not for their shitty benefit; screw them; but for ours, it simply is costing too much to continue the status quo.
Are you familiar with the recidivism rate among inmates here in the US?
Would you let a care provider who was a former felon watch your children?
TR
Scimitar
11-05-2015, 23:12
Yeah, I don't like the idea either.
And again, there would be some exceptions. Some employment types that are criminally checked. I'm just saying all the 'single exception arguments" in the world can't combat the fact that restorative justice as a while creates a far better outcome for society.
Yeah, I hate how much of a pansy ivory tower leftie that makes me sound. But that doesn't make it less true.
Just saying.
S
This removal of the BOX is for federal jobs. Private sector is different.
I foresee lawsuits coming because of this. Have many of us in the military know of someone that has a misdemeanor larceny or something along those lines? They are in the military, and have a Top Secret SCI clearance. SO a new executive order that prevents federal agencies from making job-applicants reveal they have a criminal record as part of his overall criminal justice reform is just plain stupid. Hello just look at single source background checks of his or her criminal and credit histories to ensure that all federal employees are “reliable, trustworthy, of good conduct and character, and loyal to the United States.
But this comes down to more of a misdemeanor vs felony. Now how many criminals does that cover?
So you have a person that has a Felony, you think he will get a federal job? So how does this help those PEOPLE?? Not one bit!!
So way is this Executive Order such a big deal then?? Votes and pulling more votes? Why would the DNC need more votes?? Don't they get the Felony Vote already?? Oh yeah a person with a felony can't vote. So then what is the big deal??
Every Federal Job falls into one of three categories; Non-Sensitive Positions, Public Trust Positions and National Security Positions. Each of these positions requires some level of background investigation. So what gives with this Executive Order? I foresee lawsuits coming of this Executive Order. Can you say ACLU, NCAAP and other going after Civil Rights violations.
So on a sideline note... maybe this is why POTUS issued this new EO??!!
http://www.truthandaction.org/hillary-presidents-shouldnt-disclose-criminal-history/