Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Caption contest!
Next Post: ADM considers high-tax Minnesota
Posted in:
* Gov. Pat Quinn has issued an order forbidding state agencies from asking on job applications whether they have a criminal past…
Promoting the decision to what he calls “Ban the Box,” State Rep. LaShawn K. Ford (D-Chicago) says the governor’s administrative order doesn’t mean private employers will be required to hire ex-cons. It simply means applications for state government jobs will no longer include a box indicating whether an applicant has pled guilty, or been convicted of a criminal offense, other than a minor traffic violation.
State agencies would still be allowed to conduct background checks, and request information on criminal convictions, but not until later in the process.
“I think that it’s important that employers hire the best qualified person that they feel comfortable with for the job,” Ford says. “Employers in private (business) or state agencies should never hire a person that appears to not be a fit for the job.”
Ford gives an example of someone he knows who would benefit: a retiree who had a pocket knife in his pocket 50 years ago. As for the really bad guys, Ford says they’re unlikely to apply for a legitimate job anyway.
As for himself, the lawmaker says he anticipates federal bank fraud charges against him –- unrelated to his service in the General Assembly -– being tossed out of court soon.
It’s important to note that the agencies can ask in subsequent interviews about a criminal record.
It’s also interesting that Ford actually thinks the federal bank fraud charges against him will be tossed out of court.
* Background…
According to the National Employment Law Project, one in four work-eligible adults—a total of 65 million people—has some type of criminal record. Many of these people have their job applications thrown away or at least discredited: In 2012, more than two-thirds of employers run criminal background checks on applicants, according to a Society of Human Resources Management survey.
The problem specifically impacts African Americans who have almost six times the incarceration rate of their white counterparts. At a community forum hosted by the Worker’s Center for Racial Justice at the Louis Farrakhan-owned Salaam restaurant in Chicago’s Auburn Gresham neighborhood, several black men described their struggles to find a job after a brush with the law. […]
Quinn’s order makes Illinois part of a national trend. In recent years, armed with the catchy “Ban the Box” motto, advocates for the formerly incarcerated have persuaded states, counties and cities across the U.S. to remove the criminal-history question from their applications to the National Employment Law Project, 10 states have enacted some type of Ban the Box initiative, and eight of those did so within the past four years. All these initiatives prohibited criminal-background checks in public-sector job searches, and four also included private employers.
* More…
Sweig, founder of the Institute for People with Criminal Records, also said the term “Ban the Box” doesn’t accurately portray the meaning of the proposal.
“The term Move the Box is more accurate,” he said. “Ban the Box is an unfortunate misnomer nationwide, and in my view is at the root of mistaken legislator perceptions of the bill’s intent and operation.”
He said, “Now that it’s failed three times in the legislature, the only way for it to become a law is by executive order,” he said. “And I think the governor will be receptive to the bill.”
Thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 10:05 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Caption contest!
Next Post: ADM considers high-tax Minnesota
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
What is it with Gov. Quinn and his soft spot for felons? Yeesh. You’d think after the disastrous MGT push issue in his last campaign that he might take a more anti-crime stance. Then again, he will be relying on the felon vote out of the city during the General…so, good politics I guess.
Comment by So. ILL Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 10:12 am
I don’t have a problem getting rid of the box on the application. I would note that if you check the box you have to provide an explanation with your application and hopefully agencies would look at that explanation to determine if there is anything there to be worried about. But I think all of that can be done later if it is relevant to the job (and I’m not sure in most cases that it is relevant). As far as I’m concerned once you have served your time or paid your fines the matter should be closed.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 10:12 am
@So. ILL:
The box doesn’t specify felonies. It is ANY crime, misdemeanors included. And are you for denying anybody employment just because they have a record? Going to punish them the rest of their life? Give me a break.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 10:14 am
Obviously its lawful to take a criminal history into consideration when hiring. Ignoring it is silly. But it should be taken in context. The guy that 5 years ago got a misdemeanor charge because of a bar fight vs the guy who was locked up for a a year or more on violent felonies… two different animals when applying for a janitorial job, maintenance, etc. lets face it, most of these are not applying to handle the check book or become cops.
But we should not let this go to far. Some places try to make it so you can’t take prior bad acts into consideration in hiring. That’s just as silly as banning anyone with a conviction on anything from being hired.
the only part of this post that bothers me is this:
“Now that it’s failed three times in the legislature, the only way for it to become a law is by executive order,”
I’m kind of sick of Law by executive order. No matter who is doing it. If something fails int he legislature there should be no power to create the same “law” by executive order or regulation.
Comment by RonOglesby Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 10:24 am
I am ok with this…. Are state agencies even hiring anyone….
Then again I figured he wouldn’t do something like this until the pension crisis is solved, that is priority one, right?
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 10:24 am
From the explanation Illinois policy doesn’t seem to bad. Some of the others.
” 10 states have enacted some type of Ban the Box initiative, and eight of those did so within the past four years. All these initiatives prohibited criminal-background checks in public-sector job searches, and four also included private employers.”
Seem like short sighted PC, crap that will have bad consequences
Comment by Fed up Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 10:26 am
==According to the National Employment Law Project, one in four work-eligible adults—a total of 65 million people—has some type of criminal record==
Seems to me that we need an explanation as to how such a high percentage of work eligible (taking that to mean illegal immigrants not counted) adults could have a criminal record. Are we making too many things criminal offenses?
Because, although I am not a liberal, I do have to agree that we cannot prosper as a nation if 25% of our eligible work force have their past held against them.
Comment by mythoughtis Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 10:31 am
Fine as far as it goes, but let’s be honest, much of government is confidential information &/or entrustment of taxpayer resources. Not like they are gonna let many convicts have a shot at that stuff.
Comment by Shark Sandwich Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 10:34 am
—
Are we making too many things criminal offenses?
—
Yes, next question.
Comment by RonOglesby Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 10:37 am
Tons of criminals have been hired by the state of Illinois.shoe box Powell.dan walker,geo Ryan,rod blagojevich etc etc
Comment by foster brooks Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 10:43 am
When Quinn gets done destroying the pensions, the available pool of job applicants is going to dry up. He is planning ahead. He can accomplish 3 things at once. Reduce prison overcrowding, find jobs for the ex-cons, and fill the state jobs that no one else will take.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 10:46 am
So why not expunge the entire idea of a “criminal history” altogether?
What purpose does it serve other than to hold back people released?
Comment by Re-Pete Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 10:47 am
==Some places try to make it so you can’t take prior bad acts into consideration in hiring.==
I’m generally not in favor of holding something over somebody’s head the rest of their life. Depends on what it is, I suppose, but I don’t like the concept of labeling somebody forever based on something they did in their past.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 10:52 am
”
So why not expunge the entire idea of a “criminal history” altogether?
What purpose does it serve other than to hold back people released?
”
Because it is relevant. Do you want someone with 2 convictions for theft in charge of or given access to high dollar items? Probably not.
Or someone with a conviction for domestic violence, should they be given a child care or teaching potion? again, probably not.
Now, would this rule these same individuals (once the debt to society is paid) from being a mechanic, or carpenter, or data entry person? not if they have cleaned up. they need to earn the trust of society back again. And history of an individual is important in hiring decisions.
Comment by RonOglesby Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 11:03 am
@demo
—
I’m generally not in favor of holding something over somebody’s head the rest of their life. Depends on what it is, I suppose, but I don’t like the concept of labeling somebody forever based on something they did in their past.
—
neither am I, but see me response above about why criminal history is pertinent.
Comment by RonOglesby Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 11:04 am
So basically, another way to get cronies hired. If they are not immediately dq’ed, the IL Friends and Family Hiring policies will continue.
Perhaps do something about the lazy HR people who don’t do more investigations.
Comment by Wumpus Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 11:06 am
Good for Ford. This has been a good and fair idea all along.
I hope he’s right about his case, though I don’t know much about the details.
From what I have seen in the press, the case never would have been brought if the bank had continued to operate. The Feds can be narrowly focused, and reluctant to shift tracks once their train is running.
Comment by walkinfool Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 11:06 am
Just because financial service firms generally don’t hire convicted felons because of bonding doesn’t mean the Illinois Department of Revenue can’t, according to Pat Quinn? In Illinois, today’s elected politicians could be tomorrow’s convicted felons and they need somewhere to work when they get out.
Comment by Steve Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 11:07 am
Probably because he recognizes that there are probably more per capita felons amongst Cook County Democrats than in the general population.
“What is it with Gov. Quinn and his soft spot for felons?”
Comment by AFSCME Steward Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 11:14 am
I like “Move the Box” - different state agencies, I’d imagine, will continue to ask about certain types of criminal background - e.g., fraud for anything involving finance; domestic abuse for anything in DCFS.
Comment by Robert the Bruce Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 11:16 am
I worked at a state agency that hired a guy who had several prior convictions on drug and weapon charges. Apparently someone thought this jerk deserved a 2nd (and 3rd, and 4th) chance. The guy came to our agency and then stole several laptop computers and money. He was eventually fired, and did prison time for it.
Sorry, but I just don’t have much of a soft spot for repeat offenders like this and no real interest in helping them get back on their feet when they’ve squandered several opportunities because of their stupid actions.
Comment by ??? Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 11:16 am
??? - Tuesday
Isn’t a convicted felon with ties to a powerful politicians more important than honest , qualified workers who don’t have political connections?? After all, Illinois respects corruption.
http://www.uic.edu/depts/pols/ChicagoPolitics/anticorruption.htm
Comment by Steve Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 11:22 am
I am a conservative on crime. There are consequences for criminal behavior. One of them is suspicion about a person’s character if they have a criminal record. This is a legitimate factor to be considered when hiring an individual, including for government.
I also understand the societal implications for persons seeking employment after being convicted. I think there is a middle ground, without completely eliminating the question. Perhaps only questioning about felonies that occurred for a certain number of years prior to the application could be a compromise.
The idea that real bad guys wouldn’t apply for legitimate jobs simply isn’t true. There are many gangbangers that currently hold jobs. Additionally, the military has had issues with gang members within its ranks. Questions about recent criminal behavior are totally relvent.
Comment by AFSCME Steward Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 11:24 am
==Just because financial service firms generally don’t hire convicted felons because of bonding doesn’t mean the Illinois Department of Revenue can’t, according to Pat Quinn? ==
That’s not at all what is going on but feel free to perpetuate a lie if it makes you feel good. Try a bit of reading comprehension. It does NOT say that criminal records will not be considered. It just removes the box from the application form. There are still background checks for some jobs.
I’m not a defender of Quinn, but on this issue he’s right. Try a little less hyperbole and focus a bit more on the facts. It makes an argument better when you have facts.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 11:28 am
@AFSCME Steward:
Your logic is sound. What you say is reasonable and appropriate IMHO.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 11:30 am
Get busted as a young adult and you are never forgiven. It can happen.
Comment by Mokenavince Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 11:33 am
John “quarters” Boyle is the poster child to keep the box
Comment by foster brooks Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 11:53 am
The real crime here is the use of executive order for something that has failed to pass the legislature 3 times:
Comment by Kevin Highland Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 12:51 pm
===The real crime here ===
Geez, take a breath.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 12:53 pm
This troubles me. It sure seems like a way for people to more easily slip through the cracks, at least some of whom probably should not be given the opportunity to slip through the cracks. If a person is “asked” whether they have a criminal history in later employment interviews is not the incentive for them to shade the truth much stronger than if they actually have to check a box and then add their signature to verify the information is true and correct? Most people deserve second chances. But I do think that it should be based on both the buyer and seller (employer and employee) knowing what’s what and who’s who.
I can’t imagine lawyers who represent the state can be very thrilled about his.
Comment by Responsa Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 1:39 pm
Weren’t we all told to toe the line, so that bad behavior does not get on your permanent record?
Comment by Plutocrat03 Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 2:17 pm
It’s amazing the federales dug deep into one loan at a failed back to file criminal charges against Ford, but never filed any criminal charges against the bankers who drove the economy into the ditch.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 2:17 pm
=State agencies would still be allowed to conduct background checks, and request information on criminal convictions, but not until later in the process.=
I know that this thread is about a practice in agencies. However, if an applicant is required to generally agree to a background check–ANY kind of a background check at whatever stage in the process to be considered for employment, I believe that whatever legislation exists (including e.g., limiting a background check based on roles and responsibilities), the agreement to submit to a background check overrides everything. That could mean a seriously exhaustive check that years ago would have been unprecedented and required only for jobs that require some sort of “security clearance.”
And, lawyers would probably advise that whatever check is conducted (even if it varies role by role) simply be conducted “consistently” to avoid, e.g., discrimination suits as much as possible.
In the private sector it seems even more complex in that many companies seem to be hiring more “temp” workers through employment agencies and contracting firms. In those cases, there’s usually a company background check that is conducted and whatever the employment agency or consulting firm conducts and its generally the latter who require the agreement for ANY kind of background check to even consider you. Furthermore, I do not believe there is consistency in such checks from one employment agency/contracting firm to another, including off-shore agencies and contracting firms.
Therefore, the passage of legislation regarding “limits” seems simply feel good and frivolous.
OTOH, many applicants–especially with recent headlines regarding privacy invasions that are often described as tantamount to “an abuse of power and/or authority” see the need to agree to an exhaustive background check (even though they might not conduct such a check) are concerned–especially as the language includes the ability to conduct “periodic checks” at their discretion with no end date to the agreement.
And, the agreement is perceived as and even sometimes described as “non-negotiable.”
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 8:53 pm
Also, you have to wonder about the credibility of the sources that are being used–from a variety of perspectives. There are a bunch of readily available “internet” based checks that are NOT accurate–and as a matter of fact, should probably be sued in some instances for the information they’re provided (e.g., the practice of assuming that a name is a unique idea and reporting anything and everything associated with such a name in a general vicinity as the pertaining to the background of a particular individual).
Also, many courts are currently “automating” their records searches and making them available to the general public. Hitch behind that one sometimes? They list the name, the court case, and the disposition of a matter (which is sometimes simply referenced as “Closed”). Therefore, if a “People” suit was brought against an individual, but dismissed for want of prosecution, etc., not exercising due diligence to check what the verdict was could result in a the loss of a job simply because the suit was filed and is listed as “closed.”
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 9:04 pm
Sorry for all the typos. Bad keyboard. 1st paragraph “the practice of assuming that a name is a unique IDENTIFIER….”
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 9:06 pm
I think the State should keep the box but change it to ask if they were ever plead guilty or convicted of a felony. I don’t see a problem with that and, in some cases, an even more extensive check before hiring.
I’m not advocating anything new or anything I would not want to have to go through. Been there, done that. Before I was hired by the State, because of the sensitive data I was going to have access to, I had to pass a full background check, including fingerprinting and interviews of family and friends, by what was then know as the Illinois Bureau of Investigation.
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 10:18 pm
Sounds to me like some pols were trying to get their family or supporters into State jobs, but had problems because said family or supporters had criminal pasts.
This is Illinois, none of it is principle, it’s all personal and it’s all about who gets the money and other goodies.
Comment by Harry Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 12:30 am