Ban the box movement...

[Left Seater]

Any of you familiar with the ban the box movement? I wasn't until today when some recent college social work grad came by and wanted to chat. I was the only one in the office so I just waived her back and she wasted no time launching into her "talk."

She wanted me to remove the box on our employment application where we direct the applicant to check if they have anything other than a class C misdemeanor. I was informed that by having this box I was preventing good people from getting a job. I asked her for her definition of a good person. It was nothing like a convicted criminal. I asked her if her group had hired any of these criminals and she had no idea.

We went round and round a bit and then I asked her about liability. If I were to remove said box and someone we hired did something to harm a customer or my business would her group pay to make everyone whole. She said no. We then discussed how business liability insurance worked and she had a good understanding. So I asked her what my insurance company might think about removing the box. In her first moment of honesty she allowed that most business that have removed the box have seen a small increase in premium.

We talked a little more about background checks and she had her second moment of honesty. She allowed that by removing the box they were hoping more applicants would get to the background check stage where one either wasn't done or the background check failed to find the criminal history.

So bottom line of this whole thing is trying to sneak a criminal background past employers. When I got tired of the discussion I informed the young lady that she didn't do enough to convince me that removing the box was in my best interest. She thanked me for my time and said she would work on getting the city to force me to do it. I then let her know that I would be happy to get a PO Box outside of the city and call that my business address. She had no comeback to that and left.

Anyone else heard of or had to deal with this ban the box crap? I could see where this might be ok for a Wal mart greeter or a guy working on a roofing crew, but how is that going to work for someone who has access to your house? Do you want a convicted child predator working in your house while you are not home and your wife and daughter are?

[Screw_Michigan]

I think you made all this up.

[Screw_Michigan]

So bottom line of this whole thing is trying to sneak a criminal background past employers.

It is? I must have missed the part that precluded you from performing background checks on applicants, "banned box" or not.

It must be so incredibly difficult to be a persecuted job creator in Obummer's America. I don't know how you do it.

[Goober McTuber]

[Rooster]

It sounds like more SJW crap where the various diversity lovers want to ensure there are no markers for us to discriminate against other new-to-the-fold SJWs. Funny how it's all the ones with records want us to pretend they don't have one. Now there's a push to allow felons to vote. Sexual preference? How about 64 of 'em? Feeling kinda out of sorts? Be a trans-something or other. Hey, lets not mark clothing as boys or girls! And on and on and on it goes.

[Screw_Michigan]

It sounds like more SJW crap where the various diversity lovers want to ensure there are no markers for us to discriminate against other new-to-the-fold SJWs. Funny how it's all the ones with records want us to pretend they don't have one. Now there's a push to allow felons to vote. Sexual preference? How about 64 of 'em? Feeling kinda out of sorts? Be a trans-something or other. Hey, lets not mark clothing as boys or girls! And on and on and on it goes.

Have another drink, Sally.

[Mikey]

For some reason this reminded me of a band that was very cool back in the 70s.
They look sort of old now.

[Rooster]

So Screwy, you dispute that at the heart of all this emphasis on obsfucation and blurring of social lines is purposeful and deliberate by the Left? I submit to you that identity politics and intentional social change is a concerted attack on the social structure of the United States for the goal of unrest and dissent. By way of example, Black Lives Matter is a George Soros funded organization meant to destabilize the relationship between communities and the organizations that impose order on society. Presently that is manifested by fomenting unrest in inner cities against police. The recent Bernie Sanders rally is a further attempt to make it go mainstream into politics as a talking point, further illustrated by the Martin O'Malley rally wherein he was harangued into taking back his statement that all lives matter.

This is Saul Alinsky orthodoxy right down the line.

[Screw_Michigan]

So Screwy, you dispute that at the heart of all this emphasis on obsfucation and blurring of social lines is purposeful and deliberate by the Left? I submit to you that identity politics and intentional social change is a concerted attack on the social structure of the United States for the goal of unrest and dissent. By way of example, Black Lives Matter is a George Soros funded organization meant to destabilize the relationship between communities and the organizations that impose order on society. Presently that is manifested by fomenting unrest in inner cities against police. The recent Bernie Sanders rally is a further attempt to make it go mainstream into politics as a talking point, further illustrated by the Martin O'Malley rally wherein he was harangued into taking back his statement that all lives matter.

This is Saul Alinsky orthodoxy right down the line.

Wow, you are one fucked up loon.

[Left Seater]

Clearly this was too many words for Screwy to read in one sitting. She clearly stated the intent was to get more applicants with criminal backgrounds past the initial stage where hopefully they slide by.

Screwy, is it better for the criminal applicant to get some false hope and be strung along until the background check eliminates them from the position or to know up front?

Further this doesn't seem to be a red vs blue thing. Maybe the movement started on one side but a Google search shows this has traction in both red and blue areas.

[Rooster]

Perhaps it isn't a red vs. blue thing in this particular instance, but the attempt to erase the past is a distinctly Left wing issue. Personal records expungement of a criminal record fits neatly into the whole borderless/genderless/diversity sphere of thought. It is at the heart of voter ID arguments, drivers licenses for illegals, multiple/ambiguous sexual identity and the celebration of such, dissolution of gender marked bathrooms, eligibility for sports in Title IX, so on and so forth. it's only found it's fullest expression in President Obama who promised to fundamentally change America. Your ban the box movement is just a small but ongoing part of that transformation.

[mvscal]

So Screwy, you dispute that at the heart of all this emphasis on obsfucation and blurring of social lines is purposeful and deliberate by the Left? I submit to you that identity politics and intentional social change is a concerted attack on the social structure of the United States for the goal of unrest and dissent. By way of example, Black Lives Matter is a George Soros funded organization meant to destabilize the relationship between communities and the organizations that impose order on society. Presently that is manifested by fomenting unrest in inner cities against police. The recent Bernie Sanders rally is a further attempt to make it go mainstream into politics as a talking point, further illustrated by the Martin O'Malley rally wherein he was harangued into taking back his statement that all lives matter.

This is Saul Alinsky orthodoxy right down the line.

I'm sure it's merely a bizarre coincidence that Sanders and O'Malley have had their events disrupted by these obnoxious porch monkeys.

“George Soros is delighted to join more than one million Americans in supporting Ready for Hillary,” Vachon said. “His support for Ready for Hillary is an extension of his long held belief in the power of grassroots organizing.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/g ... z3iisLhyFk

[PSUFAN]

Ban the box is happening in PGH. City Council is fond of passing laws that will not stand up in a court of law. Proponents can only shrug at the inevitable question...how do you keep the wrong people away from positions they can't handle? I can see trying to help deserving people get back on the right track, but you need realistic safeguards.

[Screw_Michigan]

Screwy, is it better for the criminal applicant to get some false hope and be strung along until the background check eliminates them from the position or to know up front?

The former. How would they know otherwise? Do you tell them when you throw their application into the trash due to checking the box?

[Screw_Michigan]

She clearly stated the intent was to get more applicants with criminal backgrounds past the initial stage where hopefully they slide by.

I guess you're arguing for being able to use the box as a discriminating factor in hiring so businesses aren't "forced" to perform background checks. That's your right. It's also not foolproof. What percentage of box checkers are actually telling the truth?

Please respond clearly with specific examples so my reading comprehension challenged ass can follow along.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

“George Soros is delighted to join more than one million Americans in supporting Ready for Hillary,”

George Soros funds everybody.

Please tell me you're in on how this whole thing works...right?

[Left Seater]

So how exactly is it better for a criminal to be told they are not qualified later in the process vs early?

It takes time and effort they could put into finding a position that will accept their criminal background. Why waste your own time and get more hopeful with each passing step only to be denied later? How does submitting for skills tests and or multiple interviews help you only to be told you are no longer a candidate.


I also understand that not everyone will be truthful on the employment application. Some choose not to check the box as it is and then the background check reveals it. Our application has the standard line that says the applicant is being completely truthful and that anything that isn't correct and later revealed to be wrong is grounds for having their application rejected and or termination if hired. There is an additional line for pilots that restates this for their hours and type ratings.

Twice I have had a background check reveal info that the applicant didn't disclose. One guy was very upfront about it and I let him know he had disqualified himself from further consideration. The second tried to play it off like the punishment had been completed and she didn't understand that she had to list it. My wife had her come in like it was an interview and asked her to read from the application the line about being truthful and then explain it in her own words. When she did my wife let her know she had disqualified herself from further consideration.

By having the box I save people time and energy when they will not be considered once it is known. It also saves my time and effort and some money.

[mvscal]

George Soros funds everybody.

Yeah...uh, no.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

George Soros funds everybody.

Yeah...uh, no.

Yeah...uh, yeah... you fucking child.

George "Wall Street" Soros and George "Occupy Wall Street" Soros...


...are the same guy.

It's called "controlled opposition".

[Wolfman]

The "boxes" that should be banned are those racialist ones asking if you are white or green or whatever. While we're at it, shit can the ones about age. I guess we're lucky that ones for straight, gay, bisexual and whatever do not exist. Please don't tell me they do somewhere.

[Derron]

I wasn't until today when some recent college social work grad came by and wanted to chat. I was the only one in the office so I just waived her back and she wasted no time launching into her "talk."

Right here is where you fucked up. Even letting one of them whiny psycho babble liberal bleeding heart bitches into your office. But it seems like it worked out for you. More than one or two of these pervert posters on here would have waved her back, dropped trou and said get with it.

Even the biggest and smaller business's have enough sense to have a solid vetted lawsuit proof employment application, and dropping something like that would only come after a legal review which will cost lots of money, so yeah the liberal can go fuck off.

[Diego in Seattle]

Where most people get rejected by Left Seater:

☑ Have you ever given out Halloween candy to lower income children?

[R-Jack]

We don't need to get rid of it altogether. Can we just edit down some of the wording.

There nothing wrong with just shaving the box a little

[Screw_Michigan]

So how exactly is it better for a criminal to be told they are not qualified later in the process vs early?.

How is it not? Just admit you don't want to be hit up for a background check for every additional candidate who is too stupid to check the box up front.

Do I need to spell it out for you?

[Left Seater]

I am paying for a background check regardless. Do I want to waste my time with someone who I am never going to hire because I can't ask them a question up front? Hell no.

I still don't see how this helps someone who is going to get eliminated later. Getting close and rejected a few times prolly doesn't help the self of steam.

[War Wagon]

So Screwy... I submit to you.

All that the resident jizz mopper, wanna' be ambulance chaser saw.

You should be more careful, grasshopper.

[Rooster]

:grin: Duly noted.