04/29/2012 (1:36 am)
New hiring guidelines help ex-offenders gain foothold in job market
Advocates for ex-offenders are hailing an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission report they hope will improve job opportunities for individuals often turned away because of criminal histories.
The EEOC, in an “enforcement guidance” issued last week, ruled that undue emphasis on an ex-offender’s background in some some instances violates federal statutes governing employment discrimination.
The EEOC said the specter of discrimination becomes even more pronounced when hiring managers factor race or ethnicity into employment decisions.
Citing studies reflecting a felony conviction rate of African American men that tops 25 percent, the National Employment Law Project welcomed the new guidelines as an antidote to what it termed “especially severe” discrimination against ex-offenders of color.
Michael Holmes, executive director of the St. Louis Agency on Training and Employment (SLATE), says the obstacles encountered by individuals with a criminal backgrounds cuts across racial lines.
“We have a major public institutions that discriminate against both white and black people because they have a criminal record,” said Holmes. “Now they can’t use that as a way to eliminate (an ex-offender) with the skills they are looking for.”
The ruling could give a boost to thousands – by some estimates up to 18,000 - ex-offenders in the St. Louis region who are currently-out-of-work and searching for employment.
“Some businesses do have a blanket policy about not hiring ex-offenders,” said David Kessel, chief operating officer of the Employment Connection, a St. Louis non-profit that helps ex-offenders overcome job barriers. “(The EEOC) guidance gives employers clarification on what they should be doing to make better hiring decisions.”
Kessel believes the unemployment rate for ex-offenders in the St. Louis area runs as high as 75 percent.
The EEOC guidelines were not universally acclaimed.
The National Retail Federation criticized a recommendation that employers eliminate queries about criminal and arrest records on application forms.
A ban on the “box” that alerts a company of an an applicant’s brushes with the law will restrict an “employers’ ability to ensure the safety of their workers and customers,” Senior Vice President for Government Relations David French said in a statement.
A 2011 NRF survey revealed that 87 percent of its members turn to criminal background checks prior to hiring bad credit personal loan lenders.
Les Johnson, the vice president for grant and management services for ARCHS, an advocate that sponsors programs that support at-risk populations including ex-offenders, praised the EEOC initiative.
But he cautioned the hiring process will continue to require discretion and common sense on the part of applicants with criminal records.
A paroled bank robber, for instance, needs to make a better choice than seeking employment with a financial institution. Just as a convicted drug offender may want to steer clear of opportunities at a pharmacy.
“We’ve always said that a criminal record should not be the sole qualification for an (ex-offender) applying for a job as fork lift driver at a warehouse producing pallets,” Johnson said. “But we also ask ex-offenders to take responsibility on the front end, explain to the employer what the offense (entailed), that time has been served, amends have been made and that they are now trying to earn a decent wage.”
The EEOC report also points employers to the difference between a conviction and arrest.
“The fact of an arrest does not establish that criminal conduct has occurred, and an exclusion based on an arrest, in itself, is not job related and consistent with business necessity,” the EEOC said.
Holmes questioned why ex-offenders have a particularly difficult time landing job offers from governmental institutions.
He understands why a local or state government office would want to avoid public backlash over tax-payer supported salaries going to people with criminal records.
But points out that many of those same institutions welcome state and federal funds for job training.
“You’re taking training money, but not hiring ex-offenders? That’s crazy,” Holmes said.
Companies that stiff-arm ex-offenders, he added, need to take responsibility for contributing to a vicious cycle.
“In prison, they get three meals a day, healthcare and a roof over their head and when they get out they don’t have any money. If they can’t provide for themselves, they’re going do what they know in order to survive and go back to crime rather than starve to death,” Holmes said. “If you do your time, and you’re qualified for a job, then you should be given another chance.”
Compare life insurance quotes for term life and whole life insurance plans. Get free insurance quotes and information.