Families of SOs Community Group
WE HAVE MOVED!!! ............................. ............................... ......................... ............................ ............................. .......................... HERE: http://support-for-families.boards.net ............. ................ ............... ................ ............................... .................Please create a profile...
Recently, this "Ban the Box" campaign has become a focus in Missouri. The Springfield News Leader published a story (see link below) that I decided to respond to by sending out the letter (email) below to the President of the NAACP chapter in Springfield.
http://www.news-leader.com/story /news/local/ozarks/2016/04/19/ban-box-naacp-says-council-sidestepping-controversial-issue/82948662/
Mrs. Cheryl Clay,
I read the story involving the “Ban the Box” campaign story in the Springfield News Leader. While I agree with the assessment that our city council is dragging their feet here, which is normal for them when it comes to their protecting the under-classes of people, I do not agree that the issues are so simply argued.
Before I explain what I mean I want you to understand that as a guardian of a forensic client, and one who has worked with adults released from prisons, I am well aware of the issues and difficulties that they face in terms of politician positions, employment, and housing. Moreover, I have worked in managerial positions where part of my duties was interviewing and hiring of employees.
As I understand it, the underlining argument supporting the elimination of the box on employment applications that requires disclosure of prior criminal history, is that it allows an applicant to get his or her foot in the door for an interview and thereby having the chance to explain their criminal history. The counter argument is that if one is permitted to wait to disclose their criminal history then it wastes the time of management and the employers financial resources for having to pay for the time it takes to conduct interviews of people who would not qualify for employment because of his or her criminal history. Both arguments have a great deal of merit.
What I am curious about is why no attention is being paid to the corporations who financially profit off of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by using the slave labor of inmates, but many of whom have policies that prohibit hiring individuals with a felony history. Some of these companies are: Whole Foods; McDonald’s; Wal-Mart; Victoria’s Secret; AT&T; BP, Wendy’s; Starbucks; Sprint; Verizon; Fidelity Investments; Corrections Corporations of America; JC Penny’s; Kmart; American Airlines; IBM, Boeing, Motorola, Microsoft, Texas Instrument, Dell, Compaq, Honeywell, Hewlett-Packard, Nortel, Lucent Technologies, 3Com, Intel, Northern Telecom, TWA, Nordstrom’s, Revlon, Macy’s, Pierre Cardin, and Target Stores. See also Teamster Nation Blog Spot
It seems to me, that if legislators enacted laws prohibiting the state from entering into any contract with private corporations unless the corporation agrees to hire those in prisons, we would achieve major victories of getting those with felony histories employed after they are released from prison. However, social-justice organizations and other advocates focus on the “Ban the Box” issue as if it is going to actually make a sizable difference in combating unemployment rates among felons when it is not going to do such.
If I am an employer who invokes my right not to hire felons, then why should I be forced to waste my financial resources interviewing people who will not qualify because of their felony history, just to appease some social-justice organization? This is a question business leaders are asking and deserve a sound answer.
On the flip side, if I am a felon who was forced to work for some corporation in slave labor while I was in prison, then why am I not also good enough to hire when I am released from prison? This is a question those released from prison also need answered.
Furthermore, why is that social-justice organization’s stand on the front lines to advocate the rights of those with a felony history to be employed, especially when it involves the African American community, except when the felon is a person with disabilities? Moreover, when the person is a member of the group that is hated the most; i.e. sex offenders? Seems to me that the avocations made are based on political favoritism, public popularity, and convenience rather than necessity and equality.
http://www.news-leader.com/story /news/local/ozarks/2016/04/19/ban-box-naacp-says-council-sidestepping-controversial-issue/82948662/
Mrs. Cheryl Clay,
I read the story involving the “Ban the Box” campaign story in the Springfield News Leader. While I agree with the assessment that our city council is dragging their feet here, which is normal for them when it comes to their protecting the under-classes of people, I do not agree that the issues are so simply argued.
Before I explain what I mean I want you to understand that as a guardian of a forensic client, and one who has worked with adults released from prisons, I am well aware of the issues and difficulties that they face in terms of politician positions, employment, and housing. Moreover, I have worked in managerial positions where part of my duties was interviewing and hiring of employees.
As I understand it, the underlining argument supporting the elimination of the box on employment applications that requires disclosure of prior criminal history, is that it allows an applicant to get his or her foot in the door for an interview and thereby having the chance to explain their criminal history. The counter argument is that if one is permitted to wait to disclose their criminal history then it wastes the time of management and the employers financial resources for having to pay for the time it takes to conduct interviews of people who would not qualify for employment because of his or her criminal history. Both arguments have a great deal of merit.
What I am curious about is why no attention is being paid to the corporations who financially profit off of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by using the slave labor of inmates, but many of whom have policies that prohibit hiring individuals with a felony history. Some of these companies are: Whole Foods; McDonald’s; Wal-Mart; Victoria’s Secret; AT&T; BP, Wendy’s; Starbucks; Sprint; Verizon; Fidelity Investments; Corrections Corporations of America; JC Penny’s; Kmart; American Airlines; IBM, Boeing, Motorola, Microsoft, Texas Instrument, Dell, Compaq, Honeywell, Hewlett-Packard, Nortel, Lucent Technologies, 3Com, Intel, Northern Telecom, TWA, Nordstrom’s, Revlon, Macy’s, Pierre Cardin, and Target Stores. See also Teamster Nation Blog Spot
It seems to me, that if legislators enacted laws prohibiting the state from entering into any contract with private corporations unless the corporation agrees to hire those in prisons, we would achieve major victories of getting those with felony histories employed after they are released from prison. However, social-justice organizations and other advocates focus on the “Ban the Box” issue as if it is going to actually make a sizable difference in combating unemployment rates among felons when it is not going to do such.
If I am an employer who invokes my right not to hire felons, then why should I be forced to waste my financial resources interviewing people who will not qualify because of their felony history, just to appease some social-justice organization? This is a question business leaders are asking and deserve a sound answer.
On the flip side, if I am a felon who was forced to work for some corporation in slave labor while I was in prison, then why am I not also good enough to hire when I am released from prison? This is a question those released from prison also need answered.
Furthermore, why is that social-justice organization’s stand on the front lines to advocate the rights of those with a felony history to be employed, especially when it involves the African American community, except when the felon is a person with disabilities? Moreover, when the person is a member of the group that is hated the most; i.e. sex offenders? Seems to me that the avocations made are based on political favoritism, public popularity, and convenience rather than necessity and equality.
Very interesting.
State legislators have the power to enact laws that force the state not to enter into any contract with a private corporation that is going to financially profit off of prison slave labor unless the corporation also agrees to hire inmates when they are released from prison. And the fact that they are already trained and have experience with the corporation and its service or product means the corporation does not have to spend money training them once they are released from prison.
It is a win - win situation that benefits the public by way of reducing unemployment rates of felons. Moreover, it's a win - win situation for the state, as not only does it eliminate the issues parole officers face in parolees having a difficult if not impossible time trying to find employment, but it also reduces state expenses on public benefits.
As for the tiered level for a protected class. I see that as a dangerous thing to do as it sets the stage of codifying a second-class citizenship status until the person "earn's rights" of a citizen.
The ban the box suggestion amounts to nothing more than a band-aid solution that will really have not meaningful effect in the broader realms and long-term scope. It simply appeases felons and advocacy groups to shut them up really, but will not make a sizable difference in reducing unemployment rates.
One other very legitimate argument can be made -- why are felons not writing a letter and attaching it to their application to explain their criminal history and advocate for themselves, and attaching letters from those whom they know to advocate for the felon -- if the argument is that of banning the box so that a felony can get their foot in the door just to explain their history and advocate for themselves??
https://casetext.com/posts/19-businesses-pledge-action-for-workers-with-criminal-records?platform=hootsuite
I am a firm believer in these situations that THEY get what they ask for .... if they refuse to hire felons then their job pool will start dwindling en masse. The last statistic I saw about felons was that 1 in every 4 USA citizens have a criminal record. It may not matter to them right now with so many looking for work but it will catch up some day. I think to myself how much they are missing by banning folks based on a label. The people who gave my son a chance have ended up getting one of the best employees they have had. His job now he went from "assistant" to on site manager of a storage facility in less than a year - he has also surpassed the sales goals of the storage facility and receives bonuses for it! If his boss had not been willing to give him a chance that would not have happened.
I have seen statistics also (have been unable to verify the source) that estimate in 10 years 1 in every 8 USA men will be a RSO - not only does this hinder the job market but my 90 yr old mother always brings up the question of what are they going to do if they have to institute the draft? Not all but many of the RSO men are of draft eligible age. I have already told my son if that happens and they draft youinsist they give you in writing that when you return your record and registry is gone - expunged.