I don't care about Martha Stewart, and I don't think that she should be allowed to work on any Apple construction site." src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
No company would want to hire felons. So, why only Apple? My friend was rejected from hiring by a 100-employee biotech company due to the mis-identity with a fellon for the same name.
Fck yeah, Apple wants no felons because they don't want
I don't care about Martha Stewart, and I don't think that she should be allowed to work on any Apple construction site." src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
That number's good enough for me to say that companies like Apple should not take the chance with felons when it comes to sensitive projects. An important goal that society has in meting out justice against convicted criminals is deterrence. By that token, perhaps this send a message that if you want certain types of jobs, you should not commit a crime in the first place.
It depends what kind of mistakes, and how many "mistakes" somebody has made.
It most certainly does, which is way all convicted felons cannot be lumped together.
It's way too time-consuming and expensive for Apple to figure out which felon qualifies and which one does not. Moreover, it'll end up getting litigated to death by those felons who think they've been wronged. It's best in these types of situations to have a clean, unambiguous policy. Tough.
It's way too time-consuming and expensive for Apple to figure out which felon qualifies and which one does not. Moreover, it'll end up getting litigated to death by those felons who think they've been wronged. It's best in these types of situations to have a clean, unambiguous policy. Tough.
From a legal perspective, I think it is just the opposite. If you have a blanket 'no felons' policy, the EEOC guidelines say you are at a much higher risk of discrimination. If you evaluate each case individually, you are in a much better spot. That doesn't mean you have to do a full security check and reinvestigate the case, but if you have a blanket "no felons" policy you are in a problematic place.
Of course, it is not clear how 'blanket' Apple's policy is. I would guess that they did their due diligence and did at least some review of the people they fired and that it is being reported as 'no felons'
From a legal perspective, I think it is just the opposite. If you have a blanket 'no felons' policy, the EEOC guidelines say you are at a much higher risk of discrimination.
I am sure you're right. I am not a lawyer, but I find this somewhat hard to believe. Can you provide a link to EEOC's policy on this?
People make mistakes, and should have a chance to become productive members of society after they have paid their debt to society. The inability to find work will most certainly push them back into a life of crime.
It depends what kind of mistakes, and how many "mistakes" somebody has made.
Well in your case just being born was a felony worthy of a lifetime of pain. Learn to be tolerant und less of a bigot. Would be nice. But even you may possibly achieve rehabilitation :-)
Agreed released felons should be given opportunities, but let's be honest sitting in prison is by no means a way of paying back debts to society when society is paying some $30k a year to house an inmate in prison.
$30k is what the profiteering "tough on crime" folks see—money spent by (or for the more mercenary, to be made from) the government. But so much more than that is lost. People in jail lose their jobs, no income—no taxes paid, their families often end up on welfare, small businesses are lost, etc. Putting nonviolent arrestees and convicts in jail is a double whammy in terms of public and personal costs. It's also hard for them to make any restitution. It's bad business all around.
8. Targeted Exclusions that Are Guided by the Green Factors
"...Title VII thus does not necessarily require individualized assessment in all circumstances. However, the use of individualized assessments can help employers avoid Title VII liability by allowing them to consider more complete information on individual applicants or employees, as part of a policy that is job related and consistent with business necessity...."
Also some relevant bits in "9. Individualized Assessment" and "VIII. Employer Best Practices"
Paragraph 44: "We cannot conceive of any business necessity that would automatically place every individual convicted of any offense, except a minor traffic offense, in the permanent ranks of the unemployed. ... To deny job opportunities to these individuals because of some conduct which may be remote in time or does not significantly bear upon the particular job requirements is an unnecessarily harsh and unjust burden.
It is from the Society of HR Managers and recommends an individual assessment as a best practice and indicates that 88% of employers do this.
So, my reading is that while it may be OK to have a blanket policy, you are on more secure legal footing if you allow an individual assessment, particularly the ability for the individual to try and explain the facts or circumstances surrounding the offense or conduct.
It is unclear from the articles if Apple has such a policy.
Well in your case just being born was a felony worthy of a lifetime of pain. Learn to be tolerant und less of a bigot. Would be nice. But even you may possibly achieve rehabilitation :-)
Well let's see. Since I'm not a criminal, I doubt that I am in any need of any rehabilitation.
And yes, I guess that I am bigoted against criminals and other felons, and no I do not see any need to be tolerant towards people that I do not like.
The last place I worked out didn't hire felons either and if you were charged with a felony, you usually were fired. I understand that some felons regret what they did and are model citizens after being released from jail but I would bet the vast majority of them never learn and are very difficult to trust. Yes, I'm generalizing, but how many of you are willing to take a chance hiring a known felon to work on your house?
I'd have no problem with it at all. My landlord is a devout christian (a real one, not a fake one) who makes a point of hiring them for construction. I've met many of them and they are decent human beings.
I guess you'd be ok hiring the bankers and politicians who ripped off the system since 2008 and got away clean.
You think the only guilty sociopaths are convicts / ex-convicts? How naive...
We imprison a higher percentage of our population than any other country in the world. We have to understand that that's not sustainable and find solutions to reduce the prison population. But unless jobs are found for these people, they have almost no choice but to commit crimes again.
From an outsiders perspective this situation seems to have come about due to the privatisation of prisons and their use to make profits for the companies that run them, they actively lobby to create more prisoners, through supporting stricter laws.
Does anyone realize how easy it is to get a felony? Like someone above posted, it's too easy. YOU can be a felon tomorrow.
I grew up in a tough neighborhood and the cops there were handing out felonies like candy. J-Walking, traffic stops, suspicion of anything, heck even for just walking. The cops were playing the system like a game. I was almost a felon after a cop put me in handcuffs and continued to beat me at my High School. Luckily I had a good public defender who proved the police were lying, but you guessed it, they weren't tried for their crimes.
Not all felons are criminals and not all
criminals are felons. This should be obvious.
Those don't sound like felonies, but I agree that the crime committed should matter. There is a difference between an armed robbery and smoking pot.
Comments
Isn't Martha Stewart a felon?
I guess that she is, but what's your point?
I don't care about Martha Stewart, and I don't think that she should be allowed to work on any Apple construction site.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
I think what troubles me here, is the seemingly implicit assumption that only "recently convicted felons" are corruptible.
Or at least, vastly more prone to it than the rest of us.
When I worked in retail, I remember our Loss Prevention people explaining to us that about 90% of people
were susceptible to the temptation to steal, given the right circumstances...
If that figure is remotely accurate, it makes little sense not to give people the opportunity to recover from their errors.
Careful with the name calling. Don't want to see you get banned over it.
Speak for yourself.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
And it looks like you were a bit too late.
No company would want to hire felons. So, why only Apple? My friend was rejected from hiring by a 100-employee biotech company due to the mis-identity with a fellon for the same name.
Fck yeah, Apple wants no felons because they don't want
"Apple Spaceship-Powered by Felons"
I guess that she is, but what's your point?
I don't care about Martha Stewart, and I don't think that she should be allowed to work on any Apple construction site.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
just a joke...lighten up.
It most certainly does, which is way all convicted felons cannot be lumped together.
That number's good enough for me to say that companies like Apple should not take the chance with felons when it comes to sensitive projects. An important goal that society has in meting out justice against convicted criminals is deterrence. By that token, perhaps this send a message that if you want certain types of jobs, you should not commit a crime in the first place.
It's way too time-consuming and expensive for Apple to figure out which felon qualifies and which one does not. Moreover, it'll end up getting litigated to death by those felons who think they've been wronged. It's best in these types of situations to have a clean, unambiguous policy. Tough.
It's way too time-consuming and expensive for Apple to figure out which felon qualifies and which one does not. Moreover, it'll end up getting litigated to death by those felons who think they've been wronged. It's best in these types of situations to have a clean, unambiguous policy. Tough.
From a legal perspective, I think it is just the opposite. If you have a blanket 'no felons' policy, the EEOC guidelines say you are at a much higher risk of discrimination. If you evaluate each case individually, you are in a much better spot. That doesn't mean you have to do a full security check and reinvestigate the case, but if you have a blanket "no felons" policy you are in a problematic place.
Of course, it is not clear how 'blanket' Apple's policy is. I would guess that they did their due diligence and did at least some review of the people they fired and that it is being reported as 'no felons'
This is just smart business... What a surprise ! Good move.
I am sure you're right. I am not a lawyer, but I find this somewhat hard to believe. Can you provide a link to EEOC's policy on this?
People make mistakes, and should have a chance to become productive members of society after they have paid their debt to society. The inability to find work will most certainly push them back into a life of crime.
It depends what kind of mistakes, and how many "mistakes" somebody has made.
Well in your case just being born was a felony worthy of a lifetime of pain. Learn to be tolerant und less of a bigot. Would be nice. But even you may possibly achieve rehabilitation :-)
Agreed released felons should be given opportunities, but let's be honest sitting in prison is by no means a way of paying back debts to society when society is paying some $30k a year to house an inmate in prison.
$30k is what the profiteering "tough on crime" folks see—money spent by (or for the more mercenary, to be made from) the government. But so much more than that is lost. People in jail lose their jobs, no income—no taxes paid, their families often end up on welfare, small businesses are lost, etc. Putting nonviolent arrestees and convicts in jail is a double whammy in terms of public and personal costs. It's also hard for them to make any restitution. It's bad business all around.
I am sure you're right. I am not a lawyer, but I find this somewhat hard to believe. Can you provide a link to EEOC's policy on this?
I'm not a lawyer either, so this is based on my reading of http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/arrest_conviction.cfm#VB9
Particularly:
8. Targeted Exclusions that Are Guided by the Green Factors
"...Title VII thus does not necessarily require individualized assessment in all circumstances. However, the use of individualized assessments can help employers avoid Title VII liability by allowing them to consider more complete information on individual applicants or employees, as part of a policy that is job related and consistent with business necessity...."
Also some relevant bits in "9. Individualized Assessment" and "VIII. Employer Best Practices"
Green vs. Missouri Pacific:
http://openjurist.org/523/f2d/1290/green-v-missouri-pacific-railroad-company
Paragraph 44: "We cannot conceive of any business necessity that would automatically place every individual convicted of any offense, except a minor traffic offense, in the permanent ranks of the unemployed. ... To deny job opportunities to these individuals because of some conduct which may be remote in time or does not significantly bear upon the particular job requirements is an unnecessarily harsh and unjust burden.
This might be of interest as well:
https://www.shrm.org/Advocacy/issues/documents/special report final - silverman on eeoc guidance 042712.pdf
It is from the Society of HR Managers and recommends an individual assessment as a best practice and indicates that 88% of employers do this.
So, my reading is that while it may be OK to have a blanket policy, you are on more secure legal footing if you allow an individual assessment, particularly the ability for the individual to try and explain the facts or circumstances surrounding the offense or conduct.
It is unclear from the articles if Apple has such a policy.
Well in your case just being born was a felony worthy of a lifetime of pain. Learn to be tolerant und less of a bigot. Would be nice. But even you may possibly achieve rehabilitation :-)
Well let's see. Since I'm not a criminal, I doubt that I am in any need of any rehabilitation.
And yes, I guess that I am bigoted against criminals and other felons, and no I do not see any need to be tolerant towards people that I do not like.
The last place I worked out didn't hire felons either and if you were charged with a felony, you usually were fired. I understand that some felons regret what they did and are model citizens after being released from jail but I would bet the vast majority of them never learn and are very difficult to trust. Yes, I'm generalizing, but how many of you are willing to take a chance hiring a known felon to work on your house?
I'd have no problem with it at all. My landlord is a devout christian (a real one, not a fake one) who makes a point of hiring them for construction. I've met many of them and they are decent human beings.
I guess you'd be ok hiring the bankers and politicians who ripped off the system since 2008 and got away clean.
You think the only guilty sociopaths are convicts / ex-convicts? How naive...
Do you know what a felony is? Traffic tickets and misdemeanors aren't felonies.
"The main characteristic of a felony is that being found guilty of a felony will result in incarceration for at least one year. "
talking back to a cop can be blown up into a felony, or cost you your life.
We imprison a higher percentage of our population than any other country in the world. We have to understand that that's not sustainable and find solutions to reduce the prison population. But unless jobs are found for these people, they have almost no choice but to commit crimes again.
From an outsiders perspective this situation seems to have come about due to the privatisation of prisons and their use to make profits for the companies that run them, they actively lobby to create more prisoners, through supporting stricter laws.
It has become a high stakes industry.
Those don't sound like felonies, but I agree that the crime committed should matter. There is a difference between an armed robbery and smoking pot.