Ban the Box: a move to remove criminal history from job applications
June 4, 2014 12:35 PM Subscribe
65 to 70 million U.S. adults, 3 or 4 of every 10, have an arrest or conviction record, greatly reducing their chances of getting a job, if they even get an interview, as many job applications ask applicants to check a box if they have a criminal record. "Ban the Box" is the slogan used by groups who are trying to counter this practice. The ban is spreading with cities and states around the country "banning the box" from government job applications, and some jurisdictions are forcing private employers to ban the question, too. A few major companies have removed such questions from their applications ahead of the local and state requirements, with Target following Wal-Mart's decision (previously).
Over 30% of americans have been arrested (by age 23 according to this NYT article)??? How can this be possible? I am stunned. The effect of such widespread contact with law enforcement must have a very strong effect on society, and I'd be guessing it isn't all positive.
posted by Bovine Love at 12:53 PM on June 4, 2014 [10 favorites]
posted by Bovine Love at 12:53 PM on June 4, 2014 [10 favorites]
Bovine Love, the NYT article says that the study did not look at racial or regional differences. By age 18, 30 percent of black males, 26 percent of Hispanic males and 22 percent of white males have been arrested. By age 23, 49 percent of black males, 44 percent of Hispanic males and 38 percent of white males have been arrested.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:56 PM on June 4, 2014 [9 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:56 PM on June 4, 2014 [9 favorites]
I want employers to be able to be as selective as they want to be, but this sounds reasonable to me:
"Ban-the-box laws don’t prevent employers from rejecting applicants because of their criminal pasts. However, they typically prohibit asking the question or running a criminal background check until the first or second interview or until an offer is made. The goal is to prevent employers from blackballing people based solely on their criminal background."
This is something I could get behind, although if we can persuade companies to ban the box on humanitarian grounds, I wish we could persuade even more to be gracious to those who need a second chance without having to legislate it in the first place. Freely chosen virtue is more valuable than compelled behavior, although I understand why many people think this is a lost cause no a large scale.
posted by SpacemanStix at 12:56 PM on June 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
"Ban-the-box laws don’t prevent employers from rejecting applicants because of their criminal pasts. However, they typically prohibit asking the question or running a criminal background check until the first or second interview or until an offer is made. The goal is to prevent employers from blackballing people based solely on their criminal background."
This is something I could get behind, although if we can persuade companies to ban the box on humanitarian grounds, I wish we could persuade even more to be gracious to those who need a second chance without having to legislate it in the first place. Freely chosen virtue is more valuable than compelled behavior, although I understand why many people think this is a lost cause no a large scale.
posted by SpacemanStix at 12:56 PM on June 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
Knowing whether someone is a felon is a completely valid question, relevant to whether or not they are eligible for a position of trust at your company. It seems like they're not trying to say that you can't run background checks, or even refuse employment based on past felonies, but they want to let people get to the first interview, even if they will be disqualified anyway. That sounds like it's just wasting everyone involved's time.
posted by corb at 12:56 PM on June 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by corb at 12:56 PM on June 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
As mentioned in the previous thread, part of this is to "ban the box" that punts everyone with a criminal record, even when 1) that record may be years to decades old, and 2) the crime is completely unrelated to the job or company they are applying for. For companies that have HR with automatic filtering of any sort, I imagine that checking this box is an automatic exclusion from an interview, even for highly qualified individuals who would be no real threat to the company or clients.
Also as stated in the prior thread, what does it mean to be "rehabilitated" if you serve your time yet are forever in the "ex-con" class of society that has greatly limited options for future employment?
posted by filthy light thief at 1:01 PM on June 4, 2014 [20 favorites]
Also as stated in the prior thread, what does it mean to be "rehabilitated" if you serve your time yet are forever in the "ex-con" class of society that has greatly limited options for future employment?
posted by filthy light thief at 1:01 PM on June 4, 2014 [20 favorites]
By age 18, 30 percent of black males, 26 percent of Hispanic males and 22 percent of white males have been arrested. By age 23, 49 percent of black males, 44 percent of Hispanic males and 38 percent of white males have been arrested.
Okay, when I was that age, I knew... let's see... zero people who had been arrested, and I don't think my experience is all that unusual. Bedford County, Virginia was clearly not doing its part. For those overall numbers to be correct, there must be enormous swaths of the country where literally every teenager and college student is arrested at least once. Every single one, without exception. Seriously?
posted by Naberius at 1:04 PM on June 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
Okay, when I was that age, I knew... let's see... zero people who had been arrested, and I don't think my experience is all that unusual. Bedford County, Virginia was clearly not doing its part. For those overall numbers to be correct, there must be enormous swaths of the country where literally every teenager and college student is arrested at least once. Every single one, without exception. Seriously?
posted by Naberius at 1:04 PM on June 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
All felonies are not created equal. You got arrested on a drug charge 10 years ago and haven't been in trouble since? No biggie. You were arrested for embezzling from your last employer and now you want to work in our business office? Nope, sorry.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 1:04 PM on June 4, 2014 [23 favorites]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 1:04 PM on June 4, 2014 [23 favorites]
Yeah, it just...reminds me of the interviews I've seen HR conduct, say, when they've already internally filled a position but are going to interview anyway to be legally okay? They'll schedule these interviews, for which some poor shmoe has gotten all dressed up, sometimes even bought a suit, in the hopes of getting the job, all the while the HR guy behind the desk knows 100% that guy is not getting a job.
If the company isn't going to hire felons, it's really better that be on the packaging, rather than mandating giving people false hope and then yanking the rug out.
posted by corb at 1:11 PM on June 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
If the company isn't going to hire felons, it's really better that be on the packaging, rather than mandating giving people false hope and then yanking the rug out.
posted by corb at 1:11 PM on June 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
Okay, when I was that age, I knew... let's see... zero people who had been arrested, and I don't think my experience is all that unusual.
We may be a lot more arrest happy than we used to be.
The US schools with their own police
The charge on the police docket was "disrupting class". But that's not how 12-year-old Sarah Bustamantes saw her arrest for spraying two bursts of perfume on her neck in class because other children were bullying her with taunts of "you smell".
posted by Drinky Die at 1:11 PM on June 4, 2014 [11 favorites]
We may be a lot more arrest happy than we used to be.
The US schools with their own police
The charge on the police docket was "disrupting class". But that's not how 12-year-old Sarah Bustamantes saw her arrest for spraying two bursts of perfume on her neck in class because other children were bullying her with taunts of "you smell".
posted by Drinky Die at 1:11 PM on June 4, 2014 [11 favorites]
38 percent of white males have been arrested
I'm having a really hard time believing this too. (I'm sticking with the white guy stats because that's more representative of my family/social circle.) I can think of one ex-bf who had a DUI... and one cousin who had drug charges... and that's it. Am I really that sheltered?
posted by desjardins at 1:20 PM on June 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
I'm having a really hard time believing this too. (I'm sticking with the white guy stats because that's more representative of my family/social circle.) I can think of one ex-bf who had a DUI... and one cousin who had drug charges... and that's it. Am I really that sheltered?
posted by desjardins at 1:20 PM on June 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
I do believe there should be a total ban on asking if someone has been arrested. You can be arrested for reasons you have absolutely nothing to do with, like happening to look like someone who has committed a crime. An arrest without a conviction is totally meaningless - yet some jobs do ask if you've ever been arrested.
posted by Mitrovarr at 1:23 PM on June 4, 2014 [14 favorites]
posted by Mitrovarr at 1:23 PM on June 4, 2014 [14 favorites]
All felonies are not created equal. You got arrested on a drug charge 10 years ago and haven't been in trouble since? No biggie. You were arrested for embezzling from your last employer and now you want to work in our business office? Nope, sorry.
I totally agree with this, and I think the point of these laws, at least in the form I support, is to help people who have long ago or minor issues. It's easy to say "She smoked pot when she was twenty three? Fuck it, she's good, let's higher her" or, alternatively "What? She stole two million dollars from her employer three years ago? Fuck it, I don't care how good she is, I can't in good conscience hire her."
That sounds like it's just wasting everyone involved's time.
I disagree with this; when the candidate has had an interview and time and effort have been invested, people are much more likely to take the concrete step of overlooking minor past transgressions instead of the hypothetical "well, sure, I wouldn't mind someone who..." step. There are enough job candidates that it's easy to filter based on something like arrests if you're allowed to do so, just like people might want to say "no women" or "no immigrants" or whatever. This seems like a pretty logical way to give people a chance to prove themselves instead of being dismissed out of hand, with the safety valve of allowing employers to reject someone if, after they have given a candidate full consideration, they feel it's worth it to try again because they remain concerned.
Yeah, this still isn't perfect, but giving people a chance to try seems like a solid idea to me.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 1:23 PM on June 4, 2014 [6 favorites]
I totally agree with this, and I think the point of these laws, at least in the form I support, is to help people who have long ago or minor issues. It's easy to say "She smoked pot when she was twenty three? Fuck it, she's good, let's higher her" or, alternatively "What? She stole two million dollars from her employer three years ago? Fuck it, I don't care how good she is, I can't in good conscience hire her."
That sounds like it's just wasting everyone involved's time.
I disagree with this; when the candidate has had an interview and time and effort have been invested, people are much more likely to take the concrete step of overlooking minor past transgressions instead of the hypothetical "well, sure, I wouldn't mind someone who..." step. There are enough job candidates that it's easy to filter based on something like arrests if you're allowed to do so, just like people might want to say "no women" or "no immigrants" or whatever. This seems like a pretty logical way to give people a chance to prove themselves instead of being dismissed out of hand, with the safety valve of allowing employers to reject someone if, after they have given a candidate full consideration, they feel it's worth it to try again because they remain concerned.
Yeah, this still isn't perfect, but giving people a chance to try seems like a solid idea to me.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 1:23 PM on June 4, 2014 [6 favorites]
I think a few people are conflating arrest and conviction.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 1:24 PM on June 4, 2014 [9 favorites]
posted by ricochet biscuit at 1:24 PM on June 4, 2014 [9 favorites]
Mitrovarr, the Pew States link (3rd in the OP) indicates that some jurisdictions see things your way:
Exactly.
posted by filthy light thief at 1:26 PM on June 4, 2014
Some laws say employers cannot ask about misdemeanors, arrests without convictions, or convictions that are expunged or annulled. They don’t allow the checks without the applicant’s permission. Some say applicants cannot be disqualified if their convictions don’t relate to the type of work they’d be doing.ricochet biscuit: I think a few people are conflating arrest and conviction.
Exactly.
posted by filthy light thief at 1:26 PM on June 4, 2014
ricochet biscuit: I think a few people are conflating arrest and conviction.
There are at least three versions of 'the box'. There's the version that asks if you've ever been convicted of a felony, the version that asks if you've ever been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor, and the version that asks if you've ever been arrested.
posted by Mitrovarr at 1:26 PM on June 4, 2014
There are at least three versions of 'the box'. There's the version that asks if you've ever been convicted of a felony, the version that asks if you've ever been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor, and the version that asks if you've ever been arrested.
posted by Mitrovarr at 1:26 PM on June 4, 2014
There are at least three versions of 'the box'. There's the version that asks if you've ever been convicted of a felony, the version that asks if you've ever been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor, and the version that asks if you've ever been arrested.
I thought as much.
Recruiter: Have you ever been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor? That's robbery, rape, car theft, that sort of thing.
John Winger: Convicted? No.
Russell Ziskey: Never convicted.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 1:30 PM on June 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
I thought as much.
Recruiter: Have you ever been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor? That's robbery, rape, car theft, that sort of thing.
John Winger: Convicted? No.
Russell Ziskey: Never convicted.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 1:30 PM on June 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
"She smoked pot when she was twenty three? Fuck it, she's good, let's higher her"
The use of 'higher' in this context is either the best typo ever or a genius choice.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 1:30 PM on June 4, 2014 [10 favorites]
The use of 'higher' in this context is either the best typo ever or a genius choice.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 1:30 PM on June 4, 2014 [10 favorites]
The use of 'higher' in this context is either the best typo ever or a genius choice.
I blame the Maureen Dowd thread.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 1:31 PM on June 4, 2014 [7 favorites]
I blame the Maureen Dowd thread.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 1:31 PM on June 4, 2014 [7 favorites]
I was arrested once. Never convicted. Never went to trial. Wasn't even charged.
Shoplifting.
I was guilty, too.
People probably don't know that about me. Doesn't usually come up. So if I'm your friend, I'm one of the 38 percent.
I don't shoplift anymore, by the way. Youthful indiscretion.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 1:41 PM on June 4, 2014 [10 favorites]
Shoplifting.
I was guilty, too.
People probably don't know that about me. Doesn't usually come up. So if I'm your friend, I'm one of the 38 percent.
I don't shoplift anymore, by the way. Youthful indiscretion.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 1:41 PM on June 4, 2014 [10 favorites]
~38 percent of white males have been arrested
~I'm having a really hard time believing this too.
It's ludicrously easy to become arrested these days, especially if you live in an impoverished, high-unemployment area. Besides the urban/inner-city areas that fall into that group, this would also include quite enormous swaths of countryside featuring a largely white population. Looking around the region I live, I can easily believe 38%.
posted by Thorzdad at 1:45 PM on June 4, 2014
~I'm having a really hard time believing this too.
It's ludicrously easy to become arrested these days, especially if you live in an impoverished, high-unemployment area. Besides the urban/inner-city areas that fall into that group, this would also include quite enormous swaths of countryside featuring a largely white population. Looking around the region I live, I can easily believe 38%.
posted by Thorzdad at 1:45 PM on June 4, 2014
This is something I could get behind, although if we can persuade companies to ban the box on humanitarian grounds, I wish we could persuade even more to be gracious to those who need a second chance without having to legislate it in the first place. Freely chosen virtue is more valuable than compelled behavior, although I understand why many people think this is a lost cause no a large scale.
Well, sure that's a noble goal, but there are some valid reasons to legislate it. Right now, if a company voluntarily lowers its standards for criminal history and something terrible happens, they run the risk of a lawsuit. If they are required to lower their standards by law, its going to be a lot harder to argue that the company was negligent when it followed the legally required standards that all employers in the area have to follow.
posted by zachlipton at 1:49 PM on June 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
Well, sure that's a noble goal, but there are some valid reasons to legislate it. Right now, if a company voluntarily lowers its standards for criminal history and something terrible happens, they run the risk of a lawsuit. If they are required to lower their standards by law, its going to be a lot harder to argue that the company was negligent when it followed the legally required standards that all employers in the area have to follow.
posted by zachlipton at 1:49 PM on June 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
Okay, when I was that age, I knew... let's see... zero people who had been arrested, and I don't think my experience is all that unusual. Bedford County, Virginia was clearly not doing its part. For those overall numbers to be correct, there must be enormous swaths of the country where literally every teenager and college student is arrested at least once.
You realize most college-aged people are not actually in college, right? Cite. Attending college—especially full-time, four-year college—is a privilege enjoyed by an elite minority, and this has been even more true in the past than it is today. So if your friends were all college students, then no, they are not at all representative of the country as a whole.
posted by enn at 1:49 PM on June 4, 2014 [8 favorites]
You realize most college-aged people are not actually in college, right? Cite. Attending college—especially full-time, four-year college—is a privilege enjoyed by an elite minority, and this has been even more true in the past than it is today. So if your friends were all college students, then no, they are not at all representative of the country as a whole.
posted by enn at 1:49 PM on June 4, 2014 [8 favorites]
~38 percent of white males have been arrested
~I'm having a really hard time believing this too.
Well, according to the FBI.
Nationwide, law enforcement made an estimated 13,687,241 arrests (except traffic violations) in 2009.
Nearly 75 percent (74.7) of the persons arrested in the Nation during 2009 were males.
In 2009, 69.1 percent of all persons arrested were white, 28.3 percent were black, and the remaining 2.6 percent were of other races.
So, we do arrest a lot of white men. No idea if that is enough to get to that 38% number.
It stinks to be arrested no matter what, but a white guy at least has an easier time with it because they don't face the racism in the justice system or the racism out there in society. To a lot of employers a pot arrest sounds like normal kid stuff for a white teenager and "possibly a gangster!" for black kids.
Anyway, this is way too many men arrested and committing crimes and this is one of those areas I wish we had groups that could work specifically on certain men's issues free of the MRA toxicity and hate. Some laws need to change. Male culture in regards to substance abuse, risk taking, and violence needs to change. We need to address poverty. We need good jobs for everybody or some other form of support for them. We need to address mental health.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:58 PM on June 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
~I'm having a really hard time believing this too.
Well, according to the FBI.
Nationwide, law enforcement made an estimated 13,687,241 arrests (except traffic violations) in 2009.
Nearly 75 percent (74.7) of the persons arrested in the Nation during 2009 were males.
In 2009, 69.1 percent of all persons arrested were white, 28.3 percent were black, and the remaining 2.6 percent were of other races.
So, we do arrest a lot of white men. No idea if that is enough to get to that 38% number.
It stinks to be arrested no matter what, but a white guy at least has an easier time with it because they don't face the racism in the justice system or the racism out there in society. To a lot of employers a pot arrest sounds like normal kid stuff for a white teenager and "possibly a gangster!" for black kids.
Anyway, this is way too many men arrested and committing crimes and this is one of those areas I wish we had groups that could work specifically on certain men's issues free of the MRA toxicity and hate. Some laws need to change. Male culture in regards to substance abuse, risk taking, and violence needs to change. We need to address poverty. We need good jobs for everybody or some other form of support for them. We need to address mental health.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:58 PM on June 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
Minnesota just banned the box this year. I am relieved, as my tattooed son-in-law did time for an intent-to-sell pot bust a few years ago and it's greatly crimped his employment chances (and the tats don't help either, however unfair that may be). I'm hoping his prospects will improve, as he is currently in an obsolescent job selling advertising in some state-wide circulation periodicals.
posted by Mental Wimp at 1:58 PM on June 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by Mental Wimp at 1:58 PM on June 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
One complicating bit with that survey is that it only covers people who were born between 1980 and 1984. It's not a survey where you ask a sample if they were arrested by ages 18 and 23. It's a survey where you ask the same people each year, "have you been arrested?"
You realize most college-aged people are not actually in college, right? Cite. Attending college—especially full-time, four-year college—is a privilege enjoyed by an elite minority, and this has been even more true in the past than it is today.
It doesn't seem quite that dire. About 66% of recent high school graduates started college last year, and of those, 92% were full time and 6 of 10 went to a four year school. Source
posted by smackfu at 2:04 PM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
You realize most college-aged people are not actually in college, right? Cite. Attending college—especially full-time, four-year college—is a privilege enjoyed by an elite minority, and this has been even more true in the past than it is today.
It doesn't seem quite that dire. About 66% of recent high school graduates started college last year, and of those, 92% were full time and 6 of 10 went to a four year school. Source
posted by smackfu at 2:04 PM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
enn--the facts you cite do not suggest those attending college are an "elite minority" depending on when and where you look. college attendance by 18-24 years old averages over 30% +/- of that population and in many states over 35-40%--this may be a minority but it hardly suggests an elite minority.
posted by rmhsinc at 2:14 PM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by rmhsinc at 2:14 PM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
You realize most college-aged people are not actually in college, right? Cite. Attending college—especially full-time, four-year college—is a privilege enjoyed by an elite minority, and this has been even more true in the past than it is today.
It doesn't seem quite that dire. About 66% of recent high school graduates started college last year, and of those, 92% were full time and 6 of 10 went to a four year school.
Not everyone graduates high school, either. Lies, damn lies, etc.
posted by Etrigan at 2:19 PM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
It doesn't seem quite that dire. About 66% of recent high school graduates started college last year, and of those, 92% were full time and 6 of 10 went to a four year school.
Not everyone graduates high school, either. Lies, damn lies, etc.
posted by Etrigan at 2:19 PM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
It doesn't seem quite that dire. About 66% of recent high school graduates started college last year, and of those, 92% were full time and 6 of 10 went to a four year school.
High school graduates are also a select group which excludes many people in this age range. And it's true that many more people are going to college now than did even 10 years ago. But the fact remains that most people 18-24 are not enrolled in college, so when you are talking about making national policy on the basis of the experiences of people in that age group, if you look only at college students, you will have a very distorted idea of what those experiences are.
rhmsinc—it is a minority which is wealthier than the population at large (and, I would bet, much less likely to be arrested), which is all I meant by the word "elite." I didn't mean to imply (and don't think that I did) that it's a particularly small minority.
posted by enn at 2:20 PM on June 4, 2014
High school graduates are also a select group which excludes many people in this age range. And it's true that many more people are going to college now than did even 10 years ago. But the fact remains that most people 18-24 are not enrolled in college, so when you are talking about making national policy on the basis of the experiences of people in that age group, if you look only at college students, you will have a very distorted idea of what those experiences are.
rhmsinc—it is a minority which is wealthier than the population at large (and, I would bet, much less likely to be arrested), which is all I meant by the word "elite." I didn't mean to imply (and don't think that I did) that it's a particularly small minority.
posted by enn at 2:20 PM on June 4, 2014
"Minnesota just banned the box this year. I am relieved, as my tattooed son-in-law did time for an intent-to-sell pot bust a few years ago and it's greatly crimped his employment chances (and the tats don't help either, however unfair that may be). I'm hoping his prospects will improve, as he is currently in an obsolescent job selling advertising in some state-wide circulation periodicals."
I'm relieved too. My husband is a kind, bright and passionate man. I truly believe this benefits the businesses, as well as the applicants.They may have been missing out on some stellar candidates by blanket-rejecting everyone who checks the "felon" box.
posted by Bacon Bit at 2:34 PM on June 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
I'm relieved too. My husband is a kind, bright and passionate man. I truly believe this benefits the businesses, as well as the applicants.They may have been missing out on some stellar candidates by blanket-rejecting everyone who checks the "felon" box.
posted by Bacon Bit at 2:34 PM on June 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
There are at least three versions of 'the box'. There's the version that asks if you've ever been convicted of a felony, the version that asks if you've ever been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor, and the version that asks if you've ever been arrested.I believe it would be illegal for most employers in the UK to ask at least two of those questions.
What happened to "none of your business, you're my employer not my mum".
posted by fullerine at 2:41 PM on June 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
fullerine: What happened to "none of your business, you're my employer not my mum".
Drastic oversaturation of the labor market. You can't say that sort of thing when there are ten others as qualified as you that won't.
posted by Mitrovarr at 2:44 PM on June 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
Drastic oversaturation of the labor market. You can't say that sort of thing when there are ten others as qualified as you that won't.
posted by Mitrovarr at 2:44 PM on June 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
I wonder also if people are mixing up being arrested and being detained for that measure. If so, stop and frisk alone bumps those numbers up big time.
posted by corb at 2:54 PM on June 4, 2014
posted by corb at 2:54 PM on June 4, 2014
Also, mixing up felonies and misdemeanors.
Here's my confession: about 15 years ago, when I definitely should have known better, I was running around with out of date paperwork on my car. And since I hadn't notified the cops that I'd fixed a broken taillight on my car, my driver's license was suspended. And I wasn't notified--and that's a fact. Motor vehicles department says it does not notify people of this kind of suspension, I have no idea why.
So I got stopped and arrested and hauled off in handcuffs, because NY State had made it a misdemeanor to drive on a suspended license, though at a very low-level (like fourth-degree or something.) I got my paperwork in order, got a lawyer and went to court, where the charge was ultimately expunged. But I still think that if I were asked if I'd ever been arrested, I'd have to say yes. So yeah, ban the box.
On the other hand, if my company is hiring a paroled rapist, I'd definitely want to know that.
posted by etaoin at 3:25 PM on June 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
Here's my confession: about 15 years ago, when I definitely should have known better, I was running around with out of date paperwork on my car. And since I hadn't notified the cops that I'd fixed a broken taillight on my car, my driver's license was suspended. And I wasn't notified--and that's a fact. Motor vehicles department says it does not notify people of this kind of suspension, I have no idea why.
So I got stopped and arrested and hauled off in handcuffs, because NY State had made it a misdemeanor to drive on a suspended license, though at a very low-level (like fourth-degree or something.) I got my paperwork in order, got a lawyer and went to court, where the charge was ultimately expunged. But I still think that if I were asked if I'd ever been arrested, I'd have to say yes. So yeah, ban the box.
On the other hand, if my company is hiring a paroled rapist, I'd definitely want to know that.
posted by etaoin at 3:25 PM on June 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
Question from outside the US: what would be the consequence of giving a false answer to that question? To a private employer.
It seems to me that if the only consequence is that you get fired if the truth is discovered, then at least you had a job and income for that time, rather than being passed over due to telling the truth.
posted by cogat at 4:01 PM on June 4, 2014
It seems to me that if the only consequence is that you get fired if the truth is discovered, then at least you had a job and income for that time, rather than being passed over due to telling the truth.
posted by cogat at 4:01 PM on June 4, 2014
Question from outside the US: what would be the consequence of giving a false answer to that question? To a private employer.
Fraud is still fraud, even if to a private entity. It's unlikely that you'd get charged, because it's likely more trouble than it's worth for the company, but it's definitely possible.
posted by Etrigan at 4:05 PM on June 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
Fraud is still fraud, even if to a private entity. It's unlikely that you'd get charged, because it's likely more trouble than it's worth for the company, but it's definitely possible.
posted by Etrigan at 4:05 PM on June 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
On the other hand, if my company is hiring a paroled rapist, I'd definitely want to know that.
So we should accomodate your level of prejudice but pass a law to prevent the next guy from acting on his.
posted by layceepee at 4:19 PM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
So we should accomodate your level of prejudice but pass a law to prevent the next guy from acting on his.
posted by layceepee at 4:19 PM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
I don't think Ban The Box will really have much of an effect. The potential liability of hiring ex-cons is just way too high. If one of your employees assaults a customer, and you knew (or should have known) that they had a criminal past, you could be in deep legal trouble. I don't have any solution for this. It only takes a very small number of bad actors to ruin things for everyone else.
Ironically, when you get high enough up in the ladder, people stop asking about criminal history and doing background checks. They certainly haven't at my last few jobs. I imagine it just doesn't even occur to them that a highly-paid white-collar professional could be a criminal.
posted by miyabo at 4:19 PM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
Ironically, when you get high enough up in the ladder, people stop asking about criminal history and doing background checks. They certainly haven't at my last few jobs. I imagine it just doesn't even occur to them that a highly-paid white-collar professional could be a criminal.
posted by miyabo at 4:19 PM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
These laws aren't banning background checks. They're banning employers from asking if you're a felon on an application.
posted by Bacon Bit at 4:29 PM on June 4, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by Bacon Bit at 4:29 PM on June 4, 2014 [6 favorites]
Yeah, it's gotta be paired with tort reform re negligent hiring causes of action.
posted by jpe at 4:42 PM on June 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by jpe at 4:42 PM on June 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
On the other hand, if my company is hiring a paroled rapist, I'd definitely want to know that.
So we should accomodate your level of prejudice but pass a law to prevent the next guy from acting on his.
posted by layceepee at 7:19 PM on June 4 [+] [!]
Seriously? Prejudice? Safety, pal, since one rape in my lifetime is one too many. And the recidivism rate for sex offenders is pretty goddamned high.
posted by etaoin at 4:52 PM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
So we should accomodate your level of prejudice but pass a law to prevent the next guy from acting on his.
posted by layceepee at 7:19 PM on June 4 [+] [!]
Seriously? Prejudice? Safety, pal, since one rape in my lifetime is one too many. And the recidivism rate for sex offenders is pretty goddamned high.
posted by etaoin at 4:52 PM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
I have a friend who spent 5 years in federal prison and has now been out for over 10 years. He's going back this month to talk to prisoners about ways to keep from going back. I think for him the fact that his old job took him back (after five years! after committing a serious crime!) was a big part of his success. So, I think this is a great idea.
posted by vespabelle at 4:53 PM on June 4, 2014
posted by vespabelle at 4:53 PM on June 4, 2014
I work as a recruiter for a staffing agency. We do some professional and office/clerical staffing, but the bulk of what we do is general labor--factory jobs--some skilled labor positions, too, but mainly grunt work. As a company, we don't have any blanket policies on convictions, but we do follow the rules given to us by our clients, which, for the most part are drug screens and background checks for everyone, no felonies or even MISDEMEANORS for most positions. And we're not talking nice, cushy, even livable wage positions here. More than one company pays $8/hr and won't hire felons even if the charge is decades old and the candidate has been a model citizen since then. To have access to most of the $9-$10/hr jobs, candidates can't even have misdemeanors.
This is especially unfair because some misdemeanors are for things like driving on a suspended license ( in my state) and other inane horseshit. The bulk of our employees are young african american men and women, although plenty of working class caucasians, too. There is definitely a disproportionate number of black men than white men and men than women with criminal backgrounds that keep them from finding work. Our application process takes over an hour. You have no idea how depressing it is to tell someone who has gone to great lengths to live a clean and good life, who has put on their best suit of clothes and taken an hour more out of their day to apply with our agency--who desperately wants even an $8/hr job--that because of some transgression in the past (or the nature of that transgression) that, realistically, I have no way of knowing when I might have work for him. In fact, it's a good chance it might be never. The list of ready-candidates for the locale factory that takes convicted felons is as long as your arm and they aren't exactly booming. Getting called for a job there is like winning the lottery for some of these guys.
All of that said, one of the first questions I ask a prospective candidate is whether or not they have any convictions. I have to. I don't want to waste the applicant's time any more than we have already. In cases where I can present the resume of a candidate with a less than perfect criminal history to a client I will do so--even if that client generally doesn't think they want to hire "those people." If the applicant has a skill they need badly enough and credentials to back it up, they do tend to be more likely to bend. Trouble is, there aren't many applicants who fit that description.
Anecdotally, I think those with felony convictions are, on the whole, more dedicated and better workers than other employees. This may only be because they know their options are limited. In many cases, however, I can tell that they are simply just a little more driven to prove to their employers, their families and themselves that the past is the past. This is who they are now. And that hope is one of the greatest things I get to see in my job. Unfortunately that is tainted by the flip-side of that ongoing desperation. If the best you can do, going straight, working our ass off, reporting to your PO regularly, taking the piss test and all that shit is $8 lousy fucking dollars an hour, the temptation to get (back) into illegal activities is huge.
posted by apis mellifera at 4:56 PM on June 4, 2014 [22 favorites]
This is especially unfair because some misdemeanors are for things like driving on a suspended license ( in my state) and other inane horseshit. The bulk of our employees are young african american men and women, although plenty of working class caucasians, too. There is definitely a disproportionate number of black men than white men and men than women with criminal backgrounds that keep them from finding work. Our application process takes over an hour. You have no idea how depressing it is to tell someone who has gone to great lengths to live a clean and good life, who has put on their best suit of clothes and taken an hour more out of their day to apply with our agency--who desperately wants even an $8/hr job--that because of some transgression in the past (or the nature of that transgression) that, realistically, I have no way of knowing when I might have work for him. In fact, it's a good chance it might be never. The list of ready-candidates for the locale factory that takes convicted felons is as long as your arm and they aren't exactly booming. Getting called for a job there is like winning the lottery for some of these guys.
All of that said, one of the first questions I ask a prospective candidate is whether or not they have any convictions. I have to. I don't want to waste the applicant's time any more than we have already. In cases where I can present the resume of a candidate with a less than perfect criminal history to a client I will do so--even if that client generally doesn't think they want to hire "those people." If the applicant has a skill they need badly enough and credentials to back it up, they do tend to be more likely to bend. Trouble is, there aren't many applicants who fit that description.
Anecdotally, I think those with felony convictions are, on the whole, more dedicated and better workers than other employees. This may only be because they know their options are limited. In many cases, however, I can tell that they are simply just a little more driven to prove to their employers, their families and themselves that the past is the past. This is who they are now. And that hope is one of the greatest things I get to see in my job. Unfortunately that is tainted by the flip-side of that ongoing desperation. If the best you can do, going straight, working our ass off, reporting to your PO regularly, taking the piss test and all that shit is $8 lousy fucking dollars an hour, the temptation to get (back) into illegal activities is huge.
posted by apis mellifera at 4:56 PM on June 4, 2014 [22 favorites]
Yes^^. I've spent LOTS of time in the visiting room in a Federal Prison Camp. Convicts are mostly not crazed maniacs that want to go around attacking, raping and stealing. They're just people that didn't, and don't, have a lot of options and social support and/or made a bad decision. They end up going back because they get out and are in an even worse situation than before. My husband has managed to stay employed the entire time he's been out-7 years-(probably) because he's white(in spite of tattoos) and he has a huge support network. A lot of them don't. And that's who these laws might end up helping.
posted by Bacon Bit at 5:19 PM on June 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by Bacon Bit at 5:19 PM on June 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
Seriously? Prejudice? Safety, pal, since one rape in my lifetime is one too many.
I think if you judge a person solely based on a group that they are a member of rather than any actual knowledge of the individual, that's prejudiced.
posted by layceepee at 5:58 PM on June 4, 2014
I think if you judge a person solely based on a group that they are a member of rather than any actual knowledge of the individual, that's prejudiced.
posted by layceepee at 5:58 PM on June 4, 2014
Really, almost all information on an application is useless.
posted by michaelh at 7:27 PM on June 4, 2014
posted by michaelh at 7:27 PM on June 4, 2014
michaelh: Really, almost all information on an application is useless.
Really? I mean, most of it seems to make sense. There's important personal information for contacting people, like name and address, your employment and educational history, which are both obviously relevant, maybe some references, and a couple of other important questions that address things like whether you can work in the US. I can't think of much that's useless on an application, except maybe some information that goes too far in depth (i.e. address of a previous employer - what are you going to do, send a letter?) At least, that's what's on online applications. Are you suggesting that stuff is useless or are paper applications different?
posted by Mitrovarr at 8:24 PM on June 4, 2014
Really? I mean, most of it seems to make sense. There's important personal information for contacting people, like name and address, your employment and educational history, which are both obviously relevant, maybe some references, and a couple of other important questions that address things like whether you can work in the US. I can't think of much that's useless on an application, except maybe some information that goes too far in depth (i.e. address of a previous employer - what are you going to do, send a letter?) At least, that's what's on online applications. Are you suggesting that stuff is useless or are paper applications different?
posted by Mitrovarr at 8:24 PM on June 4, 2014
One of the advantages of not being a felon is not having to check that box. Cut the years from 7 to 3, including background checks. That seems reasonable to me. When I was vetting people at my old job, I wanted to know who these people were. If this guy beat up his wife last year, he's not welcome.
posted by Brocktoon at 9:41 PM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Brocktoon at 9:41 PM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
I like this idea. But I'd also really like we give voting rights back to convicted felons after their prison sentence. (hell, I'd make it a right during their sentence, but I'm extreme that way.) I can't see how an arrest record after time served means your automatically downgraded from a basic right of citizenship.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 10:03 PM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by [insert clever name here] at 10:03 PM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
I like this idea. But I'd also really like we give voting rights back to convicted felons after their prison sentence.
This doesn't happen everywhere and varies by jurisdiction. Two states allow prisoners to vote while they're still imprisoned.
http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000286
posted by krinklyfig at 10:19 PM on June 4, 2014
This doesn't happen everywhere and varies by jurisdiction. Two states allow prisoners to vote while they're still imprisoned.
http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000286
posted by krinklyfig at 10:19 PM on June 4, 2014
Brocktoon: If this guy beat up his wife last year, he's not welcome.
I understand your reasoning. However:
A. If he's not welcome to work anywhere, he'll inevitably end up homeless and committing more crimes just to survive, and just boomerang back into jail. When he gets out from that the cycle will continue. Meanwhile, he's costing as much to incarcerate as a middle-class job pays and contributing nothing.
B. If he doesn't have a job, his kids aren't getting child support. Crap jobs will be entirely consumed by his survival costs and won't allow him to contribute anything meaningful.
C. If society offers him nothing, he has absolutely no incentive to improve his behavior.
posted by Mitrovarr at 10:37 PM on June 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
I understand your reasoning. However:
A. If he's not welcome to work anywhere, he'll inevitably end up homeless and committing more crimes just to survive, and just boomerang back into jail. When he gets out from that the cycle will continue. Meanwhile, he's costing as much to incarcerate as a middle-class job pays and contributing nothing.
B. If he doesn't have a job, his kids aren't getting child support. Crap jobs will be entirely consumed by his survival costs and won't allow him to contribute anything meaningful.
C. If society offers him nothing, he has absolutely no incentive to improve his behavior.
posted by Mitrovarr at 10:37 PM on June 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
I was having a bit of a hard time swallowing the asserted high percentages of arrests, too . . . until I remembered I'd been arrested once myself, as a white male teen.
One summer night, I was up late in my grandmother's garage replacing various parts on the rear end of a fairly crummy used car I'd managed to buy. I then switched to working on the front end for a while. At about 2 a.m. I got thirsty, hopped behind the wheel, and drove three blocks to a 7-11 for a Coke. Either I'd momentarily forgotten that I'd taken the rear license plate off the car, or my adolescent self didn't figure it could possibly make any difference, driving such a short distance at that hour. BAM, pulled over. I had two or three dollar bills in my pocket but had left my wallet and driver's license back in the garage. BAM, arrested.
Hardly anybody knows that random little story about me (I'd nearly forgotten it myself)—so I guess it's not too hard for me to imagine that lots of people I know have been arrested at one time or another, too, and that I've simply never heard about it.
posted by azaner at 11:02 PM on June 4, 2014
One summer night, I was up late in my grandmother's garage replacing various parts on the rear end of a fairly crummy used car I'd managed to buy. I then switched to working on the front end for a while. At about 2 a.m. I got thirsty, hopped behind the wheel, and drove three blocks to a 7-11 for a Coke. Either I'd momentarily forgotten that I'd taken the rear license plate off the car, or my adolescent self didn't figure it could possibly make any difference, driving such a short distance at that hour. BAM, pulled over. I had two or three dollar bills in my pocket but had left my wallet and driver's license back in the garage. BAM, arrested.
Hardly anybody knows that random little story about me (I'd nearly forgotten it myself)—so I guess it's not too hard for me to imagine that lots of people I know have been arrested at one time or another, too, and that I've simply never heard about it.
posted by azaner at 11:02 PM on June 4, 2014
Keep the box. Ban the credit check.
posted by charlie don't surf at 11:04 PM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by charlie don't surf at 11:04 PM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
Keep the box. Ban the credit check.
Why not do away with both?
posted by krinklyfig at 12:02 AM on June 5, 2014 [3 favorites]
Why not do away with both?
posted by krinklyfig at 12:02 AM on June 5, 2014 [3 favorites]
Okay, when I was that age, I knew... let's see... zero people who had been arrested, and I don't think my experience is all that unusual.
My brother has been arrested (many times). My nephew has been arrested. Three of my uncles have been arrested (one of them was in for a few years). Several of my cousins. One of my cousins is doing life. If I start counting in-laws the list quickly swells. By the way, I come from a Hispanic family. Also two (white) friends of mine were arrested for possession when I was in high school.
I guess I do think your experience may be unusual. Or mine is.
posted by vacapinta at 3:34 AM on June 5, 2014 [1 favorite]
My brother has been arrested (many times). My nephew has been arrested. Three of my uncles have been arrested (one of them was in for a few years). Several of my cousins. One of my cousins is doing life. If I start counting in-laws the list quickly swells. By the way, I come from a Hispanic family. Also two (white) friends of mine were arrested for possession when I was in high school.
I guess I do think your experience may be unusual. Or mine is.
posted by vacapinta at 3:34 AM on June 5, 2014 [1 favorite]
Okay, when I was that age, I knew... let's see... zero people who had been arrested, and I don't think my experience is all that unusual.
The latter part of your sentence is wildly incorrect, and you don't actually know how correct the former part is. Your premises are bad, and you should feel bad.
posted by Etrigan at 4:34 AM on June 5, 2014
The latter part of your sentence is wildly incorrect, and you don't actually know how correct the former part is. Your premises are bad, and you should feel bad.
posted by Etrigan at 4:34 AM on June 5, 2014
Mod note: Don't make it personal, you guys.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane (staff) at 5:37 AM on June 5, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane (staff) at 5:37 AM on June 5, 2014 [2 favorites]
One other thing to keep in mind though is that the boxes are not always a disqualifier. I've been arrested - juvenile offense, dismissed. I was able to work with a clearance and have had no trouble getting employment even at jobs that require background checks and disclosure.
posted by corb at 6:48 AM on June 5, 2014
posted by corb at 6:48 AM on June 5, 2014
Well, that's nice for you, but your experience doesn't necessarily translate. It's likely you had no trouble because your offense was as a juvenile and dismissed. Others are not so fortunate.
posted by agregoli at 7:02 AM on June 5, 2014
posted by agregoli at 7:02 AM on June 5, 2014
Right, but I think a good majority of the statistics here are for juvenile offenses.
posted by corb at 7:11 AM on June 5, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by corb at 7:11 AM on June 5, 2014 [1 favorite]
corb: Yeah, it just...reminds me of the interviews I've seen HR conduct, say, when they've already internally filled a position but are going to interview anyway to be legally okay?
This is the same kind of argument that was used in opposition to the Rooney Rule in the NFL, and the results there speak for themselves. While minority representation in the NFL is nowhere near what it should be, it's a whole lot better than it was, and anyone who's familiar with the process in the NFL credits that rule with at least forcing owners and GMs to consider candidates they normally might not have.
I'm obviously in no way trying to analogize having a criminal record with being a minority head coaching candidate in the NFL, and there are of course employers who will end up using criminal history as a disqualifying factor regardless of the existence of the box on the application form. Still, the presence of the box is a senseless way of automating discrimination against people with records that will in no way be relevant to their performance, and it should be eliminated. As others have said, companies are still free to do background investigations and filter on criminal history if they want -- just not via the blunt instrument of a box on the application form.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:34 AM on June 5, 2014
This is the same kind of argument that was used in opposition to the Rooney Rule in the NFL, and the results there speak for themselves. While minority representation in the NFL is nowhere near what it should be, it's a whole lot better than it was, and anyone who's familiar with the process in the NFL credits that rule with at least forcing owners and GMs to consider candidates they normally might not have.
I'm obviously in no way trying to analogize having a criminal record with being a minority head coaching candidate in the NFL, and there are of course employers who will end up using criminal history as a disqualifying factor regardless of the existence of the box on the application form. Still, the presence of the box is a senseless way of automating discrimination against people with records that will in no way be relevant to their performance, and it should be eliminated. As others have said, companies are still free to do background investigations and filter on criminal history if they want -- just not via the blunt instrument of a box on the application form.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:34 AM on June 5, 2014
I imagine it just doesn't even occur to them that a highly-paid white-collar professional could be a criminal.
At a high enough level, I would just assume there were. /hamburger
posted by Mental Wimp at 2:16 PM on June 5, 2014
At a high enough level, I would just assume there were. /hamburger
posted by Mental Wimp at 2:16 PM on June 5, 2014
Seriously? Prejudice? Safety, pal, since one rape in my lifetime is one too many.
The problem is, everyone has a story. Some of them are probably bullshit, but a lot of them are totally believable. The justice system is twisted and anything but just. A close friend of mine stupidly broke into someone's house to steal a safe that he and his buddy imagined would be filled with tens of thousands of dollars. They were both drug addicts and his buddy was mentally ill and off his head-meds. The owner of the home came home unexpectedly and my friend's "buddy" strangled the home owner with his belt. Killed him. Now, the guy who did the murder was a shit-bag in my opinion way before he took a human life, but now my friend is serving 14-30 years in prison for a murder. He never laid a finger on the deceased, but he was there, trembling and terrified as his crazed companion killed an innocent human being. Not a day goes by that he doesn't regret breaking into that guy's house or failing to report the "friend" to the police. He was terrified. He was terrified of his "friend" and what he might do to him. So for the rest of his life he will be known as a murderer. He is not a murderer. I look forward to the day he gets released (at least another 8-9 years from now) but what will his job prospects look like then? It's hard enough for people with bullshit drug charges. What hope does a guy with "Second Degree Murder" attached to his name have of finding work?
Last week I interviewed a guy who has decent resume, but at his last position as a manager of a Wal-Mart he refused to testify against an employee who was embezzling (stealing money from the safe at night). The gentleman I interviewed benefited in no way from the embezzlement, but he refused to testify against the guy who did. Because he refused to assist the prosecution he was charged and convicted of unarmed robbery. Now, I understand that if you have knowledge of a crime your are obligated to report it, but the charge and the effect that it's had on his life isn't really appropriate, imo. He has court documents to prove all of this, by the way, that he schleps from one job interview to the next, but it's more hassle than most employers are willing to deal with.
posted by apis mellifera at 3:00 PM on June 5, 2014
The problem is, everyone has a story. Some of them are probably bullshit, but a lot of them are totally believable. The justice system is twisted and anything but just. A close friend of mine stupidly broke into someone's house to steal a safe that he and his buddy imagined would be filled with tens of thousands of dollars. They were both drug addicts and his buddy was mentally ill and off his head-meds. The owner of the home came home unexpectedly and my friend's "buddy" strangled the home owner with his belt. Killed him. Now, the guy who did the murder was a shit-bag in my opinion way before he took a human life, but now my friend is serving 14-30 years in prison for a murder. He never laid a finger on the deceased, but he was there, trembling and terrified as his crazed companion killed an innocent human being. Not a day goes by that he doesn't regret breaking into that guy's house or failing to report the "friend" to the police. He was terrified. He was terrified of his "friend" and what he might do to him. So for the rest of his life he will be known as a murderer. He is not a murderer. I look forward to the day he gets released (at least another 8-9 years from now) but what will his job prospects look like then? It's hard enough for people with bullshit drug charges. What hope does a guy with "Second Degree Murder" attached to his name have of finding work?
Last week I interviewed a guy who has decent resume, but at his last position as a manager of a Wal-Mart he refused to testify against an employee who was embezzling (stealing money from the safe at night). The gentleman I interviewed benefited in no way from the embezzlement, but he refused to testify against the guy who did. Because he refused to assist the prosecution he was charged and convicted of unarmed robbery. Now, I understand that if you have knowledge of a crime your are obligated to report it, but the charge and the effect that it's had on his life isn't really appropriate, imo. He has court documents to prove all of this, by the way, that he schleps from one job interview to the next, but it's more hassle than most employers are willing to deal with.
posted by apis mellifera at 3:00 PM on June 5, 2014
Really? I mean, most of it seems to make sense. There's important personal information for contacting people, like name and address, your employment and educational history, which are both obviously relevant, maybe some references, and a couple of other important questions that address things like whether you can work in the US. I can't think of much that's useless on an application, except maybe some information that goes too far in depth (i.e. address of a previous employer - what are you going to do, send a letter?) At least, that's what's on online applications. Are you suggesting that stuff is useless or are paper applications different?
Except for contact info, just about everything on an application doesn't actually help the employer choose the right candidates even though that's the goal. Something like employment history seems like it must be relevant, but it's just record keeping - it says little about the actual quality of the employee. Of course you'd like to see if someone held an impressive position previously - but such a person would probably let you know that regardless of what the application said.
posted by michaelh at 11:59 AM on June 12, 2014
Except for contact info, just about everything on an application doesn't actually help the employer choose the right candidates even though that's the goal. Something like employment history seems like it must be relevant, but it's just record keeping - it says little about the actual quality of the employee. Of course you'd like to see if someone held an impressive position previously - but such a person would probably let you know that regardless of what the application said.
posted by michaelh at 11:59 AM on June 12, 2014
« Older Rocky Mountain High | Transportation planning and alternatives to drunk... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:48 PM on June 4, 2014 [6 favorites]