I received this question for discussion. Here goes:
Basically, some US Cities are starting to eliminate questions from their job applications asking whether prospective employees have been convicted of a crime. The purpose – to keep convicts from being shut out of the workforce.
They may still conduct background checks before hire, but the basic idea is to get more convicts in the workforce.
As an interesting side note, one of the cities is New Haven, CT, although a number of major cities have taken the same step or are considering doing so.
So what do you think? Should applicants be asked questions about their criminal record?
What should be the policy toward hiring people convicted of crimes?
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
I think this is an issue where the EEOC’s stance is reasonable. Blanket prohibitions against people with a criminal record will likely have adverse impact against certain ethnic groups as well as perpetuate a society of difficulty for those with records. The decision to exclude someone from an employment opportunity based on a criminal record should be based on an analysis of the requirements of the position, risks, and link between past criminal behavior and essential tasks of the job.
I believe the question about a criminal record should NOT be ask on the employment application, due to most employers using it as a discriminating screening process. Not asking about the criminal record at this stage of the employment process, is allowing people with criminal records a viable chance for employment. These people should be offered the same opportunity to be lawfully employed as anybody else, so that they can take care of themselves and their families. They need to reintegrate into society, after they paid their debt for the crime they committed, otherwise why let them out to do nothing or possibly commit more crimes. It’s too often that you hear an ignorant comment, “Well, they shouldn’t have committed the crime in the first place”. My response to that would be; what does the two have to do with each other? Is society trying to impose their on justice, after the courts already decided that or is their a more deceitful motive? There are already laws in place to protect society from people that are considered a high risk to the most vulnerable. For instance, while it may be appropriate to prohibit anyone convicted of a child sex offense from working in day care, it would be unreasonable to say that anyone who has ever been convicted of any offense should be prohibited from working with children. The EEOC has offered guidance for employers in hiring people with criminal convictions, which is not to exclude people with a conviction, unless there is a “business justification”. The employer must show that it considered these three factors to determine whether its decision was justified by business necessity: The nature and gravity of the offense or offenses; the time that has passed since the conviction and/or completion of the sentence; and the nature of the job held or sought. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has concluded that because African American and Latino workers are arrested and convicted more often than whites, hiring policies that exclude workers with a criminal record may discriminate in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The problem I believe is one of weighing competing demands. Based on the Googling for information discussion, it would appear organizations often put more weight on the risks of negligent hiring than on EEOC concerns.