House Bans The Box
by Christine Stuart | Apr 21, 2010 5:48pm
(6) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: State Capitol
The House passed a bill Wednesday that bans the state and its agencies from disqualifying potential employees because of past criminal convictions.
Under current law a state agency must consider past criminal convictions at the beginning of the hiring process, but the bill passed Wednesday would only allow a criminal background check at the end of the hiring process.
Rep. Selim Noujaim, R-Waterbury, said he initially opposed the bill. He said he didn’t think it was fair to offer a job to a person before a criminal background check was done. He said giving something to a person then taking it away would hurt their feelings, so he helped draft an amendment that would have the criminal background check done before the conditional offer was made.
He said it will allow for the background check to be done before the person is offered the job.
Rep. Timothy O’Brien, D-New Britain, said the bill would only apply to state employees that don’t fall under a list of exceptions, which includes law enforcement agencies and licensing of mortgage lenders.
“This gives somebody who has straightened their life out a real chance of showing what they can do,” O’Brien said.
LaResse Harvey of A Better Way Foundation said called the bill a step in the right direction.
“It restores justice to those discriminated against because they made a mistake in their past,” Harvey said.
Harvey said if the bill passes the Senate and is signed by the governor, the state will join four municipalities that already have passed similar ordinances.
Those communities include New Haven, Hartford, Norwich, and Bridgeport.
Click here to read Melinda Tuhus’ previous report on the issue.
(6) Comments
posted by: cslicer | April 21, 2010 8:47pm
Well this proves the State of Conn Politicisans is “snowing” the very people they work for. The US Federal Trade Comission has a law in place already for over 15 years now. It’s reffered to the “Fair Credit Reporting Act”. The FCRA requires employer to make an offer of employment on the contigency of the background being cleared. So where has CONN been for the last 15 years ?
posted by: Brian Parker | April 21, 2010 9:41pm
Have we lost our minds in this State?
This bill is dumb morally, economically and emotionally.
posted by: Doug Hardy | April 21, 2010 10:49pm
It would seem to me that a job application doesn’t need the box for applicants to check if they have a criminal record. Employers hiring for jobs that require safety and such - like childcare - need to do background checks anyway, box or no box. If an employer doesn’t want to conduct a simple criminal background check for $25, then they’re not even trying to protect themselves.
posted by: GoatBoyPHD | April 21, 2010 10:50pm
Actually the bill isn’t dumb. 20 years ago application look back periods were 7 years for many employers on job applications. Someone with a DWI or public distubance arrest for protesting would have that fall off their record or not show up at all as the search was usually for felonies.
Pretty much anything from 2000 on will live forever in the information age. No matter how trivial.
I’ll take it further. I’ve seen foreign IT employees with criminal records hide their pasts in days. There’s a reason why Puerto Rico is issuing new Birth Certificates. Americans who play by the rules are at a disadvantage to foreigners coming in with fake credentials based on fake birth certificates.
posted by: beefair | April 22, 2010 11:47am
It seems to me that the Fair credit reporting act speaks to credit history and not criminal history. Of course I can be wrong. What’s more important than the passage of any legislation is its enforcement. Conn seems to be a bit lax on that part.
posted by: Peter Dewberry | May 4, 2010 7:04am
“This bill is dumb morally, economically and emotionally.”
I lead a faith-based non-profit, offering programs to inmates. We have 11 separate volunteer teams working in the state prison system.
There are some 18,000 inmates in CT, incarcerated at an approximate cost of $40,000 per prisoner, per year, at a total cost of about $720,000,000 to us the tax-payers of CT each year. This does not include the cost of welfare benefits for the children and other family members, dependent on these prisoners. To say that this bill is “dumb economically” indicates a real lack of understanding the true costs of imprisonment.
95% of the 18,000 inmates in CT prisons will be released into the community. Many will re-offend and return to prison, mostly because, there are not enough programs in prison aimed at rehabilitation, with the result that these men and women are not prepared to take their place as productive members of the community. It is morally right put in place programs that rehabilitate and equip incarcerated men and women to make it on the outside.
Every single inmate I speak with doesn’t want to come back, but they are often in despair because they know that there are few resources available to them on the outside. They also know that getting a job is almost impossible due to “The Box”. Far from being “dumb morally”, this bill is a small step toward helping those released to be become productive citizens.
This bill is dumb . . . emotionally. I’m not sure what Brian from Sunday Morning Coffee means by this.