banning the box

As of January 1st, Rhode Island became the 8th “united” state to adopt the “ban-the-box” law, meaning employers cannot ask prospective applicants on their initial questionnaire if they have a criminal history.  Allow me to explain…

 

For more than 40 years, an organization called the National Employment Law Project (NELP) has worked to remove the question on standard job applications about an individual’s conviction history and delay the background check inquiry until later in the hiring process.  In other words, NELP’s goal is to get government to “ban the box.”

 

Note that NELP actively pursues other policy initiatives, such as joining in the perceived, current, politically expedient push to increase the minimum wage.  While there certainly exists validity in exploring how to reasonably increase the wage for persons for whom the particular job is their lifework (in other words, not high school students), my limited perspective is that the current push has been articulated in order to find a popular political issue, hopefully taking the focus off of the negative ramifications of Obamacare.  But lest I digress… let us return to NELP’s primary initiative to ban the so-called box.

 

According to NELP, the goal of banning the box is “to restore the promise of economic opportunity for working families across America” and to assist unemployed workers with a felonious history to “regain their economic footing.”  NELP has promoted the perspective that asking an applicant if they have committed a felony when initially exploring employment, is an “unfair barrier.”

 

My first thought is to applaud the compassion behind such a law.  There unquestionably exists a societal stigma associated with a criminal record, and I’ve tenderly shared the heartache of friends who have unfortunately experienced brutal rejection in relation to their unlawful past.  The “have-you-ever-committed-a-felony-or-pleaded-nolo-contendere” question has long served as a screening process for potential applicants.

 

The challenge, though, that simultaneously tugs on me — arguably tugging more on my reason than emotion — is that once again, an organization such as NELP, is attempting to increase the size and scope of government; when government increases, it becomes more inefficient, costly, and prone to corruption.

 

In regard to banning that box, the reality that NELP fails to promote is that often a person’s past matters.  Please hear me, friends, on this sensitive topic.  A criminal record does not matter with all persons, all jobs, and in all scenarios.  But we also need to take into account that in many situations, a felony record does matter.  Not all convicted felons are reformed.  Recidivism rates remain unfortunately high.  I don’t say that heartlessly.  As longtime readers can attest, the Intramuralist believes in 2nd, 3rd — even 47th chances.  Those chances, though, are not baseless.  Those chances are based on the perceived repentant and determined heart of the individual.

 

As a Human Resource professional, the “box” should never be an instant disqualifier.  It depends on the kind of job and the individual heart.  A wise employer will work to discern both.  For example, is it necessary when hiring a cashier to know if they have a recent history of theft or embezzlement?  Of course it is.  Should an employer be mandated to spend time and money on an applicant before knowing such?  Great question.  I question the government’s mandates of time and money spent.

 

It is true, no less, that many prospective employers are not so wise; many seem to use the box as that instant disqualifier.  But mandating wisdom in places of foolishness is not the government’s job.  It is also not consistent with an inefficient, costly, more prone-to-corruption kind of government.  Government is getting too big… with too many mandates.

 

Allow me one more tangent comment…  if the ban-the-box movement becomes the law of the land… and if an employee with a violent, felonious record commits another violent crime in the workplace… who will be liable?  Will the employer bear responsibility?

 

Tough questions, friends… not absent compassion.  Not absent reason either.  May we always proceed with both.

 

Respectfully,

AR