Was going to ask a religion of peace question today, but that’s just low hanging fruit. Instead, to the business people out there… Is it fair to ask a job applicant about their criminal history?
From Dakota Smith, Los Angeles Daily News:
Businesses that ask a job applicant about his or her criminal history during the hiring process could be fined and forced to pay the applicant up to $500 under a new law being considered by city leaders.
A Los Angeles City Council committee backed a plan Tuesday to penalize businesses that weed out applicants based on criminal convictions.
The rules are part of a law under consideration by the council aimed at giving former convicts a better shot at obtaining employment.
The Ban the Box ordinance, approved in concept last year by the council, bans private employers with 10 or more workers from asking questions related to an applicant’s criminal history before a conditional offer of employment has been made.
Employers also have to strip criminal history questions from job applications under the proposed law. The “box” refers to “check box” indicating a conviction on an application.
Exemptions for employers in the child care or law enforcement industry are allowed under the ordinance.
Los Angeles non-profits, churches, and other groups support the law, contending it will cut jail recidivism rates by helping former convicts land jobs.
Both the state and federal governments have similar rules in place for applicants seeking public sector jobs, while San Francisco has laws that also apply to private companies.
Some Los Angeles business groups, including the Valley Industry and Commerce Association, oppose the proposed Los Angeles law.
Speaking at Tuesday’s Economic Development meeting, VICA representative Alex Davis told the panel that a “citywide mandate about who to hire and how is a bad policy.”
Some council members at Tuesday’s Economic Development meeting expressed concern about the proposed fines, which could total up to $2,000 for multiple violations.
Councilwoman Nury Martinez also worried a proposed reward system for whistle blowers who complain about hiring practices at a company would encourage an environment of “bounty hunters.” John Reamer, director of the Bureau of Contract Administration, said a reward system isn’t just about encouraging employees to speak up.
“The ultimate goal of the penalty system is to work with the employer to change the behavior, so they will see that (job applicant) in a different light,” Reamer said.
Other regulations approved at Tuesday’s meeting require employers to post rules either in the workplace or an employer website about the Ban the Box law. Failure to do so would result in a $500 penalty.
Employers could also be hit with a $500 fine if they don’t cooperate with city investigators following a complaint.
The law, now being written by city attorneys, is expected to be heard before the full City Council later this year.
It’s absolutely right to ask about an applicants criminal history.
When you hire someone you both want and need to know who you are hiring, for future liability purposes if nothing else (and there are other reasons that are just as important).
It isn’t like you’re just an immigration agency that doesn’t need to know anything about the people it is letting come in ya’ know, since there are no potential problems or liabilities in that situation.
You should have the right to hire or not hire someone for any reason of your choosing for a business you own.
Question, though, does this prohibit the employer from running a background check themselves before hiring them? Can’t they do that without asking then to check the box?
And paying the 500$ fine may turn out a lot cheaper than hiring a thief to work your cah register and having them steal a bunch of money from you. This shit is absurd. More nanny state bullshit from the people’s republic of kalifornia
Or a burglar to do service work at peoples homes who later comes back to rob the ones he cased while there, a rather frequent occurrence.
My wifes company runs a backround check on everyone they hire. And it is extensive and includes their web presence. It is the largest company on the planet doing what it does. Anything turns up, from past drug useage like idiots with pictures of a bong on their facebook page to being arrested, not even convicted, and no job for you. And they manufacture what you throw away. All of you throw it away all the time, and for that they have multiple zero tolerance policies. It is good for business, it protects them, and is their right.
Councilwoman Nury Martinez also worried a proposed reward system for whistle blowers who complain about hiring practices at a company would encourage an environment of “bounty hunters.”
THIS. And doesn’t “freedom of association” imply “freedom FROM association”?
If you have ANY business, don’t hire anyone from California. If your business is in California, relocate. Do not reward this kind of insanity with your tax dollars.
Is it fair – Yes, except for incarcerations involving the non-violent act of smoking pot and/or having a pound or less (pick your mount) in your possession. I’m sure there are other similar non-violent ‘criminal’ violations (which in my book are not criminal).
Smoking pot and similar non-violent acts ought not to be crimes, but business owners should still have the right to refuse to hire people, for any reason they wish.
Further to Gator’s comment, I doubt there is any way the authorities can stop an employer from checking an individual’s criminal record. There are plenty of online entrepreneurs offering this service, but they cannot guarantee complete knowledge.
I think we can agree that the intent of the law to reduce impediments for people with criminal records to become employed is laudable (and much better for all concerned than driftingback to crime) – but how to balance that with an employer’s right to make an informed decision…
Ideally, once a person has served their time and ‘paid their debt to society’ they should not be further penalized.
Ideals are great, but I do not want a pedophile working at a school where my child goes to learn and not get fucked.
Nor do I want an embezzler to work in my office.
Ideals that are ideological become become forced on the entire population by liberal governments supporting their mental images of Unicorns and Utopia – these result in horror for the real world.
Cdubb, that’s pretty good, BUT. If i have to make a choice with consequences, i default to the side that didn’t fuck up. I don’t mind giving people second chances, but not at the expense of someone who kept it together. I saw an awesome show about some program getting prisoners AA degrees while locked up, to cut down on recidivism. I was thinking, what a great idea. Then they cut to some dude and his wife sitting at their kitchen table, and the guy says, that’s screwed up. Go to prison for armed robbery, get a free education. Do the right thing, hold a job, support your family, stay out of trouble, and if ylu want to go to college, it costs up the wazoo. I never forgot that guy. He gave me a life skill.
Businesses have a right to protect themselves from criminality, including theft/fraud/violence from their employees. They also have an obligation to hire responsibly so their associates/vendors/ customers are not put at undue risk. They are vulnerable to losses and lawsuits if they don’t exercise due diligence in this area.
This issue is coming to a head because so many of the non-violent drug users who have spent time in jail over the years are being categorically screened out of meaningful participation in the labor market, and are desperately living lives of poverty and/or crime on the fringes of society.
So, just as with airport screening, rather than risk accusations of profiling/discrimination, there is a movement to stop screening for ALL crimes, not just non-violence. It’s stupid and indefensible, but when has that stopped liberal politicians from painting with the widest possible brush?
But of course, the real barrier to all this, and the saving grace for businesses everywhere, is still the resume. A gap of several years in work history still requires explanation, and falsifying/lying is still grounds for termination. And last but not least is the real concern of skills/qualifications — as Richard Pryor so famously remarked, “Where am I gonna get a job pressin’ license plates?”
So who pays the mulit-million dollar settlement when a convicted murderer murders a co-worker that wasn’t vetted by the check off box ?
I guess the best way to be sure is only hire white folks. If you hire a black man there is a 1 in 3 chance he’s been in jail . Oops…then you’ll get fined millions for racial discrimination . Oh well…go out of business…problem solved
The same democrats are funded by the tort attorneys. Win win. If you background check they get rich by suing you. If you don’t, the victims of your criminal employees sue and the lawyers get rich again, handing on a share to the politicians.
Liberals are such fucking idiots. They have no concept of “unintended consequences”. If I can’t ask about a criminal history or run a background check until AFTER I’ve conditionally offered a job, and I notice that a greater percentage of a given class of people subsequently prove to be criminals, the smart thing to do is to stop offering such people jobs in the first place because having to retract the offer later is an immense waste of time and money. I’ll always be able to find some legally acceptable reason not to offer the job – they’re too inarticulate, they have a fucked up attitude, etc. I’d rather take my chances with a discrimination claim based upon number of minorities hired than to make job offers to minorities (more of whom have criminal backgrounds) and have to retract them later.
Of course libs think they can fix one unintended consequence with another law and a bigger regulatory state. Nah…
Minorities without criminal records should be up in arms over this. They have nothing to hide, and they’re the ones who are going to passed over because of this stupid law.
Ok, heres a story for you. A high school friend, mike m, cut the corners off a 20 and taped them on a one dollar bill when he was 15. He got arrested passing it at convenient food mart. Fast forward 30 years. He is working at a bank in the home loan department (for years). One day security comes down and escorts him out of the building. Cant even take his pictures from the office. Apparently, even without a conviction, getting arrested for counterfeiting is enuf to get you instantly fired and he can never work in banking again. For shit he did as a punk ass teen.
This reminds me of the Chris Rock YouTube video “How to not get your ass kicked by the cops”. One of his tips: Obey The Law.
An arrest should never cause someone to not get a job or to lose a job. A conviction is another matter entirely.
MORE LIBERAL DO-GOODER BULLSHIT DRIVING BUSINESSES OUT OF PHILLY
It is illegal in Philadelphia for employers to ask about criminal backgrounds during the job application process. The Fair Criminal Records Screening Standards Ordinance (“Ban the Box”) helps ensure that employers initially make hiring and other employment decisions based on work qualifications, without considering a person’s criminal record. The law restricts when an employer can inquire about a person’s criminal history and how it can be used.
My wifes work has a plant right there in philly. As I said, very complete backround checks. Wifey had to wait three weeks on the complete backround check for someone she just hired to work down there. Is that law new? Maybe they get around it by not asking and just digging.
We make potential candidates sign off on a background check . No signature, no offer. Even the janitors and associates from the cleaning company must pass our screening.
Constitutionally, I don’t understand how cities have the right to pass these ordinances that restrict the rights of the employer. They operate just like the HNIC running the government with executive orders.
It may not be legal, but what employer is going to spend time and money challenging laws like this? That’s why they can get away with it.
The Ban the Box ordinance, approved in concept last year by the council, bans private employers with 10 or more workers from asking questions related to an applicant’s criminal history before a conditional offer of employment has been made. ~ from the article
I understand the intent of the ordinance. What I’m trying to figure out is if you are really trying to help these people reintegrate into society why are private employers with less than 10 employees exempt from the ordinance? Is an ex-con more detrimental in a smaller company? Doubtful, such that you would make this exemption. Don’t get me wrong, I do not favor the ordinance. I’m just curious about the exemption. I can’t see where a smaller company is any more hindered by the ordinance than a larger company is. Any thoughts?
If a business hires a person with a criminal record, that person later robs a client, should the business have liability? Should the client sue the municipality if they don’t allow the business to run a background check on the potential employees? How can business win in this type of environment?
Lunatics are running this country and we business owners will face the consequences.
First of all, it’s a retarded fucking law because as many have said …. the employer can make it a requirement that a full background check be done before an offer is made.
However, to answer the question — NO! Why does an employer want to know a person’s criminal history? Answer: In order to not hire them. But… the perp did his time! . He’s already been punished. So, why punish him a second time?? After all, it’s called his criminal history . Ex-cons make some of the best workers because they don’t take anything for granted, and they really appreciate a 2nd chance. So, give ’em a break, stfu, and hire one.
6 cowardly conniving cunts voting me down.
People who probably agree we live in a police state. And that the State eagerly arrests people for bullshit “crimes”. And many are actually innocent. And that most of you commit 3 felonies a day. And how many are Christians who believe THEIR sins are forgiven and THEY deserve second chances … but NOOOOOOOOO, not if The State accused and convicted a person.
Fuck you all.
Of course, you’re all also first in line to complain about recidivism …. cuz you’re too fucken stupid to figure it out … that if an ex-con isn’t given any chances to reintegrate into society, then there’s only one fucking thing left for him to do.
“Businesses that ask a job applicant about his or her criminal history during the hiring process…”.
I thought the progressives don’t want to use the words “his” or “her” anymore.
kokoda says: “Is it fair – Yes, except for incarcerations involving the non-violent act of smoking pot and/or having a pound or less (pick your mount) in your possession. I’m sure there are other similar non-violent ‘criminal’ violations (which in my book are not criminal).”
What about a trucking company hiring for a driver and he doesn’t disclose his speeding tickets or a DUI/DWI? Those are non-violent but pertinent, wouldn’t you agree?
Iska says: “An arrest should never cause someone to not get a job or to lose a job. A conviction is another matter entirely.”
I’ve worked for several companies where the policy was if you did something that would reflect negatively on the company via a news report or in the papers, you could be terminated. Simply getting arrested would qualify.
For those who say they did their time, “give’em a break”, I say they should be hired for certain jobs and not hired for others. Do you want an ex-con loose with your SS number and personal information? Should he be allowed to install security/alarm equipment in YOUR home……do you really want that person in your house? If your answer is yes, you are a maroon.
“For those who say they did their time, “give’em a break”, …”
Those of you?? You mean ……. me? Of course you do, since only I made that argument. You little cunt! You can’t even call me out like a man.
Be gone, ya little pesty dweeb!
Stucky- Your answer was downright ignorant in the real world of business, maybe I should have called you out by name instead of being polite………..bite me. You were downed because your post deserved to be downed, deal with it.
Polite? Dunderhead Dogshit!
You were being a Duplicitous Deceitful Double-Dealing Dishonest Dick.
Deal with dat.
The Baltimore City Council beat L.A. to this punch better than two years ago:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/17/no-you-can-t-check-if-that-job-applicant-has-a-criminal-history.html
Bloody beautiful. /sarc off
It’s perfectly fair to require info regarding a prospective employee’s criminal history, within reason. Crimes against persons or their property, certainly.
Keep in mind, however, virtually everything’s against the law these days, and generally the only difference between people who have criminal records and those that don’t is that the former got caught.
There but for the grace of God go I…
This is really a sign of the weak job market. If jobs were plentiful employers would be mimicking a used car salesman. “Arrests? No problem! Come on down!” But since jobs are scarce, not tying your shoelace seems to be a good reason to not hire you.
A guy who has a DUI from during the Clinton administration will find himself out of luck for any top tier jobs or promotions. There are just too many other people.
The real question to ask, is what criminal history is relevant?
Capital crimes, crimes of violence, sure. Something that pertains to a specific occupation, yeah. But really, listing shit that happened 15-20 years ago, knowing it will get your app thrown in the trash? It’s getting ridiculous.
Also, I’d like to point out two things that haven’t been mentioned.
People with convictions are made up of both good and bad people. Good people will be honest about their convictions and get their apps thrown in the trash. Bad people will just lie knowing the employer is cheap, probably won’t do any legwork and will instead depend on the dupe to spill the beans on himself.
Also, anyone can commit crimes. Some people with squeaky clean records just were never caught. Some haven’t been desperate enough yet. Some had good lawyers or knew people.
But in the future I think this will be the norm. I think almost half of the younger generation has an arrest of some kind. Are we going to deny everyone jobs?
In their defense, Baltimore needs that law. Everyone there is an ex-con.
Ordinances need not be made. Companies, based on theirs and their customers needs, should be the last word on who they hire and why.
I recently purchased an item that had to be delivered to my home. The company I purchased the item from contracted with a third party for the delivery and when that company contacted me to schedule delivery I conducted my own internet search on them and found that two previous customers had filed complaints with the BBB which included police reports being filed by both and a restraining order being filed one against company employees. Both reports were filed in the previous 18 months.
I’m rather particular about who I allow into my home so I called the company I made my purchase from and told them they had to make other arrangements because I was not going to allow that company onto my property.