Posted on Nov 2, 2015
How do you feel about now being on equal footing with federal job applicants who now don't have to report having a criminal record?
14K
100
66
8
8
0
President Obama on Monday announced a new executive order that prevents federal agencies from making job-applicants reveal they have a criminal record as part of his overall criminal justice reform effort. The so-called “drop the box” initiative would allow prospective employees not to check a box on some federal applications that acknowledges a criminal record. “It is relevant to find out if somebody has a criminal record,” Obama said at an event in Newark, N.J. “I’m not suggesting ignore it. I’m suggesting that when it comes to applications, give folks a chance to get through the door.”
The president said 19 states and major U.S. companies such as Koch Industries, Target and Walmart have already removed the question from applications, and he urged Congress to pass legislation to expand the effort.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/02/obama-issues-executive-order-that-keeps-notice-criminal-record-off-federal-job/
The president said 19 states and major U.S. companies such as Koch Industries, Target and Walmart have already removed the question from applications, and he urged Congress to pass legislation to expand the effort.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/02/obama-issues-executive-order-that-keeps-notice-criminal-record-off-federal-job/
Employment
Job Performance
Orders
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 22
7
7
0
The only thing that concerns me with this is seeing the words "Obama" and "Executive Order" in the same sentence yet again. It would be nice to see legislation come from the legislative branch again... That being said, I am perfectly fine with the drop the box initiative. Not only for federal employment.
My brother-in-law being an ex-felon really opened my eyes to the situation because I personally took him under my wing to help him get on his feet and get his life on track after he got out. I had connections with businesses all over town, and thought that getting him a job would be no trouble. We had two houses at the time, and let him live in one of them while I helped him find a job. I drove him around and helped him put applications all over town and pulled all the connections that I had. There are incentives to hire out there, however, this worked against him, because the temp agency that the one employer used for all hiring refused to send him to the company because he would not sign over the one time grant for hiring felons to the temp agency because it was intended for offering full time employment. It took almost 3 months before we got him a job working part-time for minimum wage, where he quickly became one of the businesses favorite employees because he showed up to work, busted his ass, and never complained. I was still supplementing his income, while he took out loans to pay to go to school where he got a welding certificate, and later was able to get into a manufacturing job. Long story short, he's now married with a kid making $70,000 a year because he's been promoted 5 times in 2 years at that manufacturing job and is working above people who have been there for 15 years because of his work ethic.
To get to the point, he has told me a thousand times that if not for my wife and I taking him in, and helping him through he would have without a doubt been back in prison because of the problems he had getting employment after getting out would have definitely led him to "find some pot to sell to pay the bills". Now, he was someone who wanted to change his life and get clean, and we helped him tremendously, but these are the reasons that 60% of felons are back in prison within 6 months. If we are going to let these people out after serving the sentence for the crime they committed, then we need to give them the opportunity to succeed in building a new life, not toss them on the street, tell them they are unemployable, and say good luck.
Rant over.
My brother-in-law being an ex-felon really opened my eyes to the situation because I personally took him under my wing to help him get on his feet and get his life on track after he got out. I had connections with businesses all over town, and thought that getting him a job would be no trouble. We had two houses at the time, and let him live in one of them while I helped him find a job. I drove him around and helped him put applications all over town and pulled all the connections that I had. There are incentives to hire out there, however, this worked against him, because the temp agency that the one employer used for all hiring refused to send him to the company because he would not sign over the one time grant for hiring felons to the temp agency because it was intended for offering full time employment. It took almost 3 months before we got him a job working part-time for minimum wage, where he quickly became one of the businesses favorite employees because he showed up to work, busted his ass, and never complained. I was still supplementing his income, while he took out loans to pay to go to school where he got a welding certificate, and later was able to get into a manufacturing job. Long story short, he's now married with a kid making $70,000 a year because he's been promoted 5 times in 2 years at that manufacturing job and is working above people who have been there for 15 years because of his work ethic.
To get to the point, he has told me a thousand times that if not for my wife and I taking him in, and helping him through he would have without a doubt been back in prison because of the problems he had getting employment after getting out would have definitely led him to "find some pot to sell to pay the bills". Now, he was someone who wanted to change his life and get clean, and we helped him tremendously, but these are the reasons that 60% of felons are back in prison within 6 months. If we are going to let these people out after serving the sentence for the crime they committed, then we need to give them the opportunity to succeed in building a new life, not toss them on the street, tell them they are unemployable, and say good luck.
Rant over.
(7)
(0)
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS
This is an excellent example of how family can rally together rather than leaving it to society to 1) prosecute the crime, 2) incarcerate the felon, then 4) rehabilitate, train, and integrate the felon back into society--all very expensive costs initiated by a poor decision (as you well know). Question: did your bro-in-law develop this remarkable work ethic before prison, while in prison, or afterwards? Most VocRehab programs have lists of 'felon friendly' employers, as do state employment One Stops. Kudos to you and your bro-in-law.
(1)
(0)
SPC(P) (Join to see)
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS Well, if you ask him, it's because it was the mechanism he picked up for how to stay clean. He would go to the gym and work out, or go to work and bust his ass, because it channels his energy to something useful and kept him out of trouble. I suppose it was in large part to his desire to turn his life around.
I would say it was a family trait, but that would imply he had a family. His deadbeat father left home when he was 6, and he was dealing drugs by the time he was 12, and didn't get picked up until he was 34. However, even when told by his attorney that he could potentially get a reduced sentence by playing the "poor me" card, he refused to, and accepted full responsibility for everything he had done. He had a 3 month old girl when he finally got arrested, who was his motivation to turn his life around. They didn't send him to rehab, he went straight to federal prison for 5 years.
After he got out, and he had gotten a start, he tried to work things out with the mother of his child, who unfortunately used the opportunity to frame him as the evil ex-con and filed a restraining order against him falsely claiming he threatened her (I was around ALL the time, it never happened, and even his parole officer recommended he fight it). Unfortunately, the presiding judge over the case was the former prosecuting attorney who sentenced him in his drug case, and his lawyer warned him that if he didn't contest it, she would get the restraining order and he couldn't see his kid, but if he fought it and lost, he could be sent back to prison for 'violation of parole'. Of course, she was a chronic drug user, and even showed up to court high, but she also had the free legal assistance of a battered women's shelter, whereas my brother-in-law was paying thousands he didn't have in legal fees, so ultimately he opted to not fight it and so he hasn't been able to see his girl since.
Fortunately, that didn't set him back. He was able to get the much better job, found a wife, had another child and they are doing great now.
I would say it was a family trait, but that would imply he had a family. His deadbeat father left home when he was 6, and he was dealing drugs by the time he was 12, and didn't get picked up until he was 34. However, even when told by his attorney that he could potentially get a reduced sentence by playing the "poor me" card, he refused to, and accepted full responsibility for everything he had done. He had a 3 month old girl when he finally got arrested, who was his motivation to turn his life around. They didn't send him to rehab, he went straight to federal prison for 5 years.
After he got out, and he had gotten a start, he tried to work things out with the mother of his child, who unfortunately used the opportunity to frame him as the evil ex-con and filed a restraining order against him falsely claiming he threatened her (I was around ALL the time, it never happened, and even his parole officer recommended he fight it). Unfortunately, the presiding judge over the case was the former prosecuting attorney who sentenced him in his drug case, and his lawyer warned him that if he didn't contest it, she would get the restraining order and he couldn't see his kid, but if he fought it and lost, he could be sent back to prison for 'violation of parole'. Of course, she was a chronic drug user, and even showed up to court high, but she also had the free legal assistance of a battered women's shelter, whereas my brother-in-law was paying thousands he didn't have in legal fees, so ultimately he opted to not fight it and so he hasn't been able to see his girl since.
Fortunately, that didn't set him back. He was able to get the much better job, found a wife, had another child and they are doing great now.
(1)
(0)
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS
SPC(P) (Join to see) - I studied emotional resilience in grad school and since then I've always been interested in what qualities inform a 'turn around'. He has that entrepreneurial drive and it sounds like his daughter was also a significant motivator. Many prisoners become institutionalized and don't thrive upon release; others finally learn to channel their considerable energies into a work ethic. Prison may well have been a catalyzing event which became essential to his development. Please congratulate him for me and that I admire his emotional resilience. You also are an angelic brother-in-law. Well done!
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
What good could possibly come from not reporting if someone that might be your co-worker has a criminal record.
(6)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
It would be status quo. How do they do those things now? So, someone convicted of a violent crime is ok? I think not!
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see) I didn't see anything about Violent crimes in the article posted.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS - I think this is very short-sighted, especially for positions that require clearances. This would require putting applicants who would have automatically been excluded through the background check process before excluding them. Waste of time and money.
(4)
(0)
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS
COL Jean (John) F. B. - Nah, Eric Holder says he and the president have a 'vast amount of discretion' when it comes to which laws they will enforce:
"Attorney General Eric Holder maintained Tuesday that he has a “vast amount” of discretion in how the Justice Department prosecutes federal law.
Holder’s remarks, during testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, came in response to GOP accusations that he is flouting the law with his department’s positions on marijuana legalization, criminal sentencing and a contentious provision of the president’s signature healthcare law.
Leading the questioning was House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who asked Holder whether he believed there were any limits to the administration’s prosecutorial discretion.
“There is a vast amount of discretion that a president has — and, more specifically, that an attorney general has,” Holder responded. “But that discretion has to be used in an appropriate way so that your acting consistent with the aims of the statute but at the same time making sure that you are acting in a way that is consistent with our values, consistent with the Constitution and protecting the American people.”
http://thehill.com/regulation/administration/202932-holder-claims-vast-amount-of-discretion-in-enforcing-law
"Attorney General Eric Holder maintained Tuesday that he has a “vast amount” of discretion in how the Justice Department prosecutes federal law.
Holder’s remarks, during testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, came in response to GOP accusations that he is flouting the law with his department’s positions on marijuana legalization, criminal sentencing and a contentious provision of the president’s signature healthcare law.
Leading the questioning was House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who asked Holder whether he believed there were any limits to the administration’s prosecutorial discretion.
“There is a vast amount of discretion that a president has — and, more specifically, that an attorney general has,” Holder responded. “But that discretion has to be used in an appropriate way so that your acting consistent with the aims of the statute but at the same time making sure that you are acting in a way that is consistent with our values, consistent with the Constitution and protecting the American people.”
http://thehill.com/regulation/administration/202932-holder-claims-vast-amount-of-discretion-in-enforcing-law
(0)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS - Yes... I am familiar with that whole line of BS coming from him and the Resident. To me, their failure to uphold the responsibilities of their offices should result in their impeachment.
(1)
(0)
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS
COL Jean (John) F. B. - Cherry-picking laws to enforce is incomprehensible--why bother having laws in the first place if enforcing them is discretionary? What a waste of time and money...
(1)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
SGT Sean Wike - We are talking about applicants for Federal jobs, which typically also includes the same rules for government contractors. In my line of work, for example, we have very few employees who do not require a Secret clearance, and most require a Top Secret. We have thousands of applicants each year and eliminating that box/question simply gets rid of one of the discriminators we use to determine which applicants we will follow-up with. Adds another step and cost to the applicant process.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google