The latest step by which the imperative to raise up blacks drags down the whole society: the federal government is making it impossible for businesses to conduct criminal background checks on applicants
As I recently observed, one of the types of equality of outcome which left-liberals seek is equality of outcome for felons. As the EEOC’s new initiative
shows, that was no exaggeration. To put in a nutshell the meaning of this move, the
more criminal blacks’ behavior becomes, the
more burdens businesses must take on to assure that black felons are not disadvantaged by their criminal record. If, say, X percent of the black population are felons, then productive, mainly white-owned businesses must take on Burden X. But if X+30 percent of the black population are felons, then white-owned businesses must taken on Burden X+30. The worse blacks behave, more whites must sacrifice themselves to equalize blacks’ outcomes.
There is only one way to end this socialistic horror in which the law-abiding and productive are punished for the sake of the criminal and dysfunctional: repeal the employment provisions (Title VII) of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and dismantle the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission whose mission it is to enforce Title VII. The federal government should have no involvement in, and no power over, the choices private employers make in whom they hire.
Of course there is zero chance of such a repeal being effected in the present order of our society. Liberalism must be toppled before it can happen.
Here is the story, from aol.com:
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s updated policy on criminal background checks is part of an effort to rein in practices that can limit job opportunities for minorities that have higher arrest and conviction rates than whites.
“The ability of African-Americans and Hispanics to gain employment after prison is one of the paramount civil justice issues of our time,” said Stuart Ishimaru, one of three Democrats on the five-member commission.
But some employers say the new policy — approved in a 4-1 vote — could make it more cumbersome and expensive to conduct background checks. Companies see the checks as a way to keep workers and customers safe, weed out unsavory workers and prevent negligent hiring claims.
The new standard urges employers to give applicants a chance to explain a report of past criminal misconduct before they are rejected outright. An applicant might say the report is inaccurate or point out that the conviction was expunged. It may be completely unrelated to the job, or an ex-con may show he’s been fully rehabilitated.
The EEOC also recommends that employers stop asking about past convictions on job applications. And it says an arrest without a conviction is not generally an acceptable reason to deny employment.
While the guidance does not have the force of regulations, it sets a higher bar in explaining how businesses can avoid violating the law.
“It’s going to be much more burdensome,” said Pamela Devata, a Chicago employment lawyer who has represented companies trying to comply with EEOC’s requirements. “Logistically, it’s going to be very difficult for employers who have a large amount of attrition to have an individual discussion with each and every applicant.”
The guidelines are the first attempt since 1990 to update the commission’s policy on criminal background checks. Current standards already require employers to consider the age and seriousness of an applicant’s conviction and its relationship to specific job openings. And it is generally illegal for employers to have a blanket ban based on criminal history.
But the frequency of background checks has exploded over the past decade with the growth of online databases and dozens of search companies offering low-cost records searches.
About 73 percent of employers conduct criminal background checks on all job candidates, according to a 2010 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management. Another 19 percent of employers do so only for selected job candidates.
That data often can be inaccurate or incomplete, according to a report this month from the National Consumer Law Center. EEOC commissioners said the growing practice has grave implications for blacks and Hispanics, who are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system and face high rates of unemployment.
“You thought prison was hard, try finding a decent job when you get out,” EEOC member Chai Feldblum said. She cited Justice Department statistics showing that 1 in 3 black men and 1 in 6 Hispanic men will be incarcerated during their lifetime. That compares with 1 in 17 white men who will serve time.
The EEOC also has stepped up enforcement in recent years. It currently is investigating over 100 claims of job discrimination based on criminal background checks.
Earlier this year, Pepsi Beverages Co. paid $3.1 million to settle EEOC charges of race discrimination for using criminal background checks to screen out job applicants, some who were never convicted.
Constance Barker, one of two Republicans on the commission, was the only member to vote against the new policy. She blamed colleagues for not letting businesses see a draft of the guidelines before voting to approve them.
“I object to the utter and blatant lack of transparency in the process,” Barker said. “We are now to approve this dramatic shift … without ever circulating it to the American public for discussion.”
But other members said the commission held a major hearing on the issue last year and took more than 300 comments.
Nancy Hammer, senior government affairs policy counsel at the Society for Human Resource Management, said a big concern is the potential conflict between the new guidance and state laws that require criminal background checks in certain professions.
Nurses, teachers and day care providers, for example, are required by some state laws to have background checks. The new guidelines say a company is not shielded from liability under federal discrimination laws just because it complies with state laws.
Devata, the employment attorney, said the new guidelines may have a chilling effect that discourages employers from conducting criminal checks.
“I think some businesses may stop doing it because it’s too hard to comply with all the recommendations in the guidance,” she said.
The NAACP praised the new guidelines, saying they would help level the playing field for job applicants with a criminal history.
“These guidelines will discourage employers from discriminating against applicants who have paid their debt to society,” NAACP President-CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous said.
- end of initial entry -
Paul Kersey writes:
Excellent stuff. On the same subject, I saved this article from earlier this month. Here’s the worst part of that article:
More Details: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Background: Created by the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Budget and staffing: $367 million and 2,400 employees working in 53 field offices and Washington, D.C., headquarters.
Duties: Investigates claims that employers, employment agencies, labor organizations and state and local governments discriminated against employees or job applicants on the basis of their race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age (40 and older), disability or genetic information.
The law covers most employers with at least 15 workers and applies to hiring, firing, promotions, harassment, training, wages and benefits.
The process: The EEOC tries to resolve claims without going to court. If it decides not to pursue a claim or file a lawsuit, it usually gives the complainants a letter authorizing them to sue in federal court within 90 days. It usually takes 30 days to two years to resolve a claim, or longer if the EEOC sues. The EEOC works with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, which investigates job discrimination complaints under state law. The department investigated 2,169 discrimination complaints last year and obtained $2.2 million in compensation and other benefits for victims. A right to sue letter isn’t required to sue in state court.
LA replies:
The opening part of the article sent by Mr. Kersey tells how Mark Louks, a white employee at Noble Metal Processing in Michigan, complained to his employer because a supervisor used the N-word in reference to a black worker. Louks was fired. He sic’ed the EEOC on the company. The article continues:
In 2008, the EEOC sued Noble in federal court, accusing it of repeatedly denying promotional opportunities to nonwhites and of retaliating against Louks.
The company denied the charges, but settled out of court in 2010, paying $190,000 to Louks and several minority workers.
The EEOC would have required the firm to launch an anti-discrimination training program, but it went out of business. Its lawyer wouldn’t comment.
Louks said he has struggled since the firing to find steady work, but has no regrets: “Somebody had to stand up.”
Evidently Louks doesn’t mind that his suit may have forced the company out of business and him out of his job. Remember the core affirmation of post-1964 liberalism:
All discrimination must be eliminated. Even a single act of discrimination is a moral horror which damns our country.
If true-believing liberals had to choose between leaving some discrimination in place, and destroying the universe, they would destroy the universe.
Steve R. writes:
In the past, I have hired a higher percent of blacks than is represented in the general population. Those that have been able to stay out of trouble are a good bet. However, since blacks are more likely to commit crimes than other races and I am no longer able to know whether a prospective black employee has a criminal record, well … duh.
The minimum wage laws and now this. As ever, leftists are incapable of improving society—in this case, incapable of giving non-criminal blacks a fair chance at employment. I can’t decide if they are more “reform challenged” on account of their denial of human nature—namely the fact that employers, like all people, typically act in furtherance of their own interests—or if it’s more due to their failure to accept the laws of causation.
LA replies:
The laws of causation? I must point out that you have used the C-word, which decent people do not do.
I thought of saying this because a reader just sent me an article from a liberal website which begins:
Drop the I-Word is a public education campaign powered by immigrants and diverse communities across the country that value human dignity and are working to eradicate the dehumanizing slur “illegals” from everyday use and public discourse. The i-word opens the door to racial profiling and violence and prevents truthful, respectful debate on immigration. No human being is “illegal.”
Makes perfect sense to me. Moreover, why should we stop at banning the term “illegal aliens” for people who have illegally entered this country? Why not ban all words that lead to inegalitarian results? Indeed, why not go to the root and ban the concept of causation? After all, right-wingers always justify their bigotry by saying things like, “I will no longer be able to hire non-criminal blacks at my company, because the new EEOC guidelines will make it too difficult for me to do criminal background checks, and if I can’t determine whether a black applicant does not have a criminal record, it’s too risky for me to hire him.” Or they say, “The company went out of business, because the government forced it to hire unqualified job applicants and placed intolerable burdens on it to avoid discrimination suits.” Or they say, “Very few blacks were hired as firemen, because very few blacks had the necessary abilities to be firemen.” Or they say, “George Zimmerman was particularly on the alert for a possible burglar, because the Retreat at Twin Lakes had recently had many burglaries and other crimes.” Because is a racist code word that has no place in a decent society.
Richard Woland writes:
E-Verify is a criminal background check. I wonder if the Obama justice department will try to kill it using Title VII?
LA replies:
Now that’s being an alert critic of liberalism.
April 28
LA writes:
Correction: Paul Nachman reminds me that E-Verify does not check for criminal background but only checks whether a job applicant’s proffered social security number is genuine.
However, since using a fake social security number is (I presume) illegal, and since job applicants using fake social security numbers are generally illegal aliens, E-Verify is in effect a check for illegal activity, and is aimed at denying people jobs for having violated the law, and therefore is treating them unequally for having violated the law. So it seems to me that Prof. Woland’s point is still valid.
LA to Paul Nachman:
Tell me if my comment is satisfactory.
April 28
Paul Nachman replies:
The statement about E-Verify is correct but incomplete. The check is on more than “Does this SS# exist?” It’s “Does it exist and also go with this name and date of birth?” Also, there’s now a photo of the SS# owner for many people, too, and the employer can check to see if the photo made available by E-Verify matches the photo on the document proferred in person. (i.e. It’s not a matter of “Does this person standing before me look like the photo E-Verify supplies?” It’s a matter of “Do these documents match each other?”)
I’m dubious about Woland’s point, but you’re expressing your opinion there, so no problem.
LA replies:
When I approved Mr. Woland’s point, I wasn’t taking it as a literal prediction, but as a whimsical speculation about a fully consistent application of liberal principles.
Paul T. writes:
If we are to be truly egalitarian, we need to stop using the word “criminal,” which stigmatizes those who, through no fault of their own, are forced to define their own concept of existence and to support themselves by operating outside the constructed “rules” of society—rules which, traditionally at least, have largely rationalized existing power relations while having a disparate impact on the powerless. Instead of “criminal,” I propose “alternative life strategist,” or “altstrat.” This could also be used as a verb, as in, “Quantavius altstrated my car.” (Though in that case, “redistributed my car” would also do).
Steve R. writes:
I am delighted that my comment regarding liberal antipathy toward causation became part of a thread that provides me the ability to use “alstrated” instead of those “racist” verbs. I relish the opportunity to explain it to my oppression-obsessed friends and proclaim that I will no longer tolerate hate crimes, so well-disguised, in the use of those now unmentionable verbs.
Seriously, about causation, in my experience any liberal who is aware of the saying, “Correlation does not imply causation,” will forever use it as his argument of last resort, no matter how strong and obvious the connection between a cause and an effect. I used to think that this was just a ploy. But policy decisions like the EEOC’s cause me to wonder if liberals believe that actions have consequences. The real-world consequences of that particular regulation are just too obvious to be unforeseeable. So, instead, how about a new rule, amenable with liberal thought, which will enable liberals go on denying obvious causal relationships: “The law of unintended, but foreseeable, correlatives.”
April 30
Richard Woland to Paul Nachman:
I greatly enjoy and respect your writing. Adding to that, I am not a lawyer but an employer who also deals regularly with employment issues. Let me do my best to explain.
As I understand it, employers originally only collect an employee’s social security number and DOB from the I-9 which in effect also acts like an affidavit because right by the line where the employee signs and it reads, “I am aware that Federal law provides for imprisonment and / or fines … ” the prospective employee must check that he is legally entitled to work. Without trying to sound cute, E-Verify is not really a check for a criminal record (illegal) as much as it is a check to see if someone is (legal). However, used in conjunction with the I-9, which is often signed in front of the employer and which they have to sign as well, E-Verify makes it manifestly evident that the non-matching employee has lied and broken the law unless they can prove otherwise. Fraudulently filing an I-9 is what is what I believe could be referred to in legal parlance as a perjury trap. Like lying in a deposition or testing positive on an employee drug test, getting caught becomes a problem in addition to whatever other legal issues are involved. So in that sense, the E-Verify process is more like recording a crime rather than checking for a criminal record. I am not trying to parse this but I think everybody got my point. That having been said, I stand corrected.
April 30
Ken Hechtman writes:
Paul T. wrote:
If we are to be truly egalitarian, we need to stop using the word “criminal,”
Suppose you met us halfway. You could keep using “criminal” as an adjective and you could talk about “criminal acts,” “criminal behavior,” “criminal intent” and so on. But you could also stop using it as a noun. You could stop suggesting that anybody ever charged with a crime is dangerous by definition and by nature and always will be.
In all seriousness, the comments in this thread point out the difference between how liberals and conservatives understand crime and justice. To liberals, when a member of society is charged or even convicted of a crime, he remains a member of society. He’s still very much “us.” And once he gets out of jail, he’s fully “us” again. The slate is wiped clean. “Paid his debt to society” is the classic liberal catchphrase in this regard. To conservatives, someone who breaks his society’s laws has renounced his membership in it, even declared war on it. He’s not “us” anymore, if he ever was. He’s “them.” And he always will be. “Menace to society” is the counterpart conservative catchphrase. [LA replies: You are greatly exaggerating. No one has suggested that merely by having committed a crime and paid the price, a person is henceforth not a part of society. This is a typical liberal caricature of a conservative position. And I don’t think people have said that person once he has paid the price to society remains “a criminal.” What they have said—what I have said—is that a convicted felon remains, under the law, a felon. That is simply true. While in other respects a convicted felon can return to society, in one respect he cannot: he loses his right to vote. And that is what liberals want to end, not because liberals were ever bothered before by felons losing the right to vote, but because a third of the black male population are convicted felons. You want to overthrow an established principle of our society, because it has a disparate impact on blacks. Over and over, society must abandon its standards, because blacks do so much worse by those standards. That’s Black-Ruled America.]
Do you see how this applies to the specific issue of criminal record checks? Conservatives look at the ex-convict job applicant and they see a criminal, a threat that employers will always have the right and the responsibility to protect themselves from. Liberals look at him and they see a man who’s trying to do the right thing. He’s served his time, paid his debt to society and is now looking for an honest living. He’s trying to rejoin society. Exactly the way he’s supposed to do. Liberals don’t see how it makes sense to tell him “We’ll let you out of jail now but three-quarters of the jobs in the country are going to be closed to you forever. Good luck trying to support yourself legally and stay out of jail.” [LA replies: You want to create a tyranny in which employers are forced by the state to hire people that they know from experience will be bad and troublesome employees. Some employers will hire convicted felons, they may know that in certain circumstances it will work out. Other employers may have had very bad experience with hiring convicted felons, and not want to hire them anymore. In particular, they may have experienced that black former convicts present a very real prospect of bad and unlawful behavior on the job. Consider what has happened every time a city dropped its standards for police officers in order to hire more blacks, and ended up hiring ex-cons to be officers! The blacks brought their criminality into the police department, until it became so disastrous the policy had to be dropped. You want to take away private and public employers’ right and ability to have that choice. Your ideology is a racial-socialist tyranny.]
Something else. When you talk about making across-the-board criminal record checks “impossibly burdensome” for businesses, you’re talking about going back to the way things were less than 20 years ago. It’s only that recently, with the appearance of online databases, that record checks became so trivially quick and cheap it was possible to do blanket checks of every single job applicant. Before that, when it took an in-person trip to the courthouse and possibly a search through paper records, very few employers did it at all and almost none did it across the board. So sure, businesses are going to complain that the government is talking away a right they’ve always had and in theory that may be true. But in practice it isn’t true. [LA replies: I don’t know about this. Perhaps Steve R. can reply.]
Steve R. writes:
Ken Hechtman writes:
” … when it took an in-person trip to the courthouse and possibly a search through paper records, very few employers did it … ”
Yes, often too cumbersome. But then it became convenient. So employers used it … and we’ve come to depend on it. So what does Ken think is going to happen when we can no longer check? Does he think we’re going to say to ourselves ” Since it used to be difficult for me to know whether my prospective employee committed a crime I’ll pretend to myself that it’s now kind of similar to the way it was a long time ago. Going forward, I’ll ignore the laws of probability.”
No, actually, what many a sane employer, in need of young male laborer, will say to himself is ” one out of three, hmm, don’t think I’ll take that chance” … and black unemployment will rise.
My biggest problem is Ken’s comment:
“Conservatives look at the ex-convict job applicant and they see a criminal, a threat that employers will always have the right and the responsibility to protect themselves from. Liberals look at him and they see a man who’s trying to do the right thing.”
He implies that liberals are nicer to the “down and out” than conservatives are. The very opposite is true. In comparing the amounts given to charity by the respective two groups it has been firmly established that conservatives are significantly the more generous of the two. With respect to hiring ex-cons, I doubt there are good studies to tell us whether the same is true but consider the following:
My uncle, a religious conservative man, mostly hired ex-cons in his furniture shop. He was a good judge of character, confident of his judgement, desirous of doing good deeds, not afraid to take a chance (on many of the crimes that were committed) and like all good businessmen, in search of a cheaper labor pool. All those qualities are more commonly seen in conservatives than in liberals. I offer into evidence VFR’s wonderful post about liberal uncertainty.
Even though Ken won’t call an ex-con a criminal I’m willing to bet that liberals are less likely to give the guy a job. Is there any question which of the two political sides are more respectful to the ex-con?
Finally, does Ken expect us to believe that he is okay not knowing whether his butler or his son-in-law is an ex-con.:-)
Congratulations on the new logo!
Ken Hechtman writes:
You wrote:
What they have said—what I have said—is that a convicted felon remains, under the law, a felon. That is simply true. While in other respects a convicted felon can return to society, in one respect he cannot: he loses his right to vote.
You say that like it’s universal and self-evident. It really depends where, when and for how long.
Up to the 1830s, only a minority of states had felon disenfranchisement. By the end of the 1840s, most but not all states had it.
Today two states still disenfranchise convicted felons for life. Nine restore voting rights some number of years after release from prison. All the rest restore voting rights on release. Of those, some do it automatically, some require an application. Two states, plus Canada and most of western Europe let felons vote from inside prison.
Anyway voting isn’t the same as working. You can live without voting but everybody has to earn a living. If you want to make the argument that most crimes should be punished with life imprisonment then go ahead and make it. But if you don’t want to make the argument then you have to accept that convicted felons have a life after prison and they’re supposed to work somewhere. When three-quarters of the employers in the country are systematically screening out anyone with a criminal record simply because new technology now lets them do it, the system is broken. The government has to step in and take away what cheap bandwidth and cheap disk storage has recently given.
Ken Hechtman writes:
Steve R. writes:
Finally, does Ken expect us to believe that he is okay not knowing whether his butler or his son-in-law is an ex-con.:-)
Butler? You gotta be kidding me. My family’s got money but not that kind of money. Champagne socialists perhaps, but not limousine liberals …
I never did felony time myself. Two weeks here, two weeks there but never more than that and none of it recently. I have friends including a few close friends who have done felony time though. I have two friends who are locked up right now. Professional gangsters scare me. They’re paranoid and they have bad tempers and lousy impulse control to begin with and they live in a world where those traits are assets, not liabilities. I used to romanticize them when I was much younger. I don’t anymore. But plain ordinary one-time convicts don’t scare me. I know too many and see too few differences to be scared of them.
Fair point on the charity thing. I did know about that, but most people on the left don’t.
Natassia writes:
Ken Hechtman wrote:
“Anyway voting isn’t the same as working. You can live without voting but everybody has to earn a living. If you want to make the argument that most crimes should be punished with life imprisonment then go ahead and make it. But if you don’t want to make the argument then you have to accept that convicted felons have a life after prison and they’re supposed to work somewhere.”
Ah ah ah. No one owes anyone a job. A job is not a right. You have the right to work, but not the right to demand that someone hire you. An ex-convict can work for himself. Let him start his own business if no one will hire him. Of course, that is assuming he has any skills. Considering many young black men end up with criminal records in their late teens and early twenties and have often spent lengthy stays in jail or prison by the time they are in their late thirties, not only do these men have criminal records, but they likely have very little education and no job skills to speak of. So, Ken is not only asking that employers take a legal chance by hiring an ex-convict, but he is also asking that employers invest time, money and energy into training these men. For many employers, particularly those under the heavy burden of government regulations and those in judicial hellholes like West Virginia, it just isn’t worth the REAL COST to hire an ex-con.
Jeremy N. writes:
It strikes me that the debate over whether employers ran background checks for criminality before databases made this easy misses the point: did they take any measures to avoid hiring felons? I’m too young to know the world before computers myself, but it seems extremely unlikely to me that potential hirees were not asked about past crimes before the advent of these databases. All computers have done is make dishonesty more difficult. I’m not sure forcing ex-cons to be honest about their crimes is such a bad thing.
May 1
Clark Coleman writes:
Shouldn’t liberals favor allowing felons to own guns? After all, if we can trust them as employees and trust them to vote responsibly, how can we then say we cannot trust them with a gun? And, don’t they have the right to defend themselves like the rest of us? Can’t they be trusted to serve on juries as well?
I wonder what the liberal reaction would be if the NRA started a campaign to restore gun ownership rights to released felons.
Catherine H. writes:
In response to Mr. Hechtman, I’d like to add another difference in thinking between liberals and conservatives (or traditionalists). True conservatives recognize that actions have consequences, and evil actions may have consequences that affect the perpetrator long term, beyond the imprisonment by which he “pays his debt to society.” Such long-term consequences as the difficulty of obtaining satisfactory employment are a natural, perhaps even a just result of a felon’s free choice to commit crime, despite not being handed down by a judge. It may be that the awareness of similar consequences is an effective deterrent for some in committing crime in the first place. However, the liberal does not see the situation in terms of justice, logical consequences, or free will: he sees a hapless victim of social or economic disadvantages (i.e., one without free will or moral agency) suffering unjust punishment beyond the temporary imprisonment that is the most he can be said to owe. It never occurs to a liberal that such consequences could be salutary to both the criminal and society: they are simply unfair.
This thread reminds me of The Shawshank Redemption, a highly entertaining but inevitably liberal-spirited movie. In the movie, the character Brooks Hatlen committed murder long ago. He is an old man upon his release, and we are given to understand that society has unjustly made him dependent on the routines and structure of prison, since he is enfeebled and helpless upon his return into the world. His employer (he works as a bagger at a grocery store as part of his rehabilitation) is aware of his status as a convict and treats him coldly. Eventually, the character commits suicide. He paid his debt to society for his crime, the movie seems to say, and look what happened to him: he leaves prison with his best years behind him, his self-reliance stolen, and his reputation besmirched. We are meant to feel pity for his pathetic end. There is no recognition of the evil done to his anonymous victim, nor of the reasonableness of such long-term consequences for murder. In a liberal world, suffering is meaningless and sacrifice unfair.
James P. writes:
Ken Hechtman says,
Conservatives look at the ex-convict job applicant and they see a criminal, a threat that employers will always have the right and the responsibility to protect themselves from.
Given the recidivism rate, this is an entirely rational approach.
Liberals don’t see how it makes sense to tell him, “We’ll let you out of jail now but three-quarters of the jobs in the country are going to be closed to you forever. Good luck trying to support yourself legally and stay out of jail.”
I don’t see how it makes sense to “wipe the slate clean” entirely and let him apply for any job he wants on an equal footing with someone who has never been convicted of a crime. In particular, it makes no sense at all to refuse to permit employers to make a choice between an ex-con and an honest citizen. Give the employers the information and let them decide. If they decide not to hire a convicted felon, so be it.
Beth M. writes:
I once heard of a small businessman who made it his practice to hire very intelligent, morbidly obese women who were out of work at the time they applied. He could offer them a barely adequate salary at the start, and then never give them a decent raise thereafter, knowing that they found the whole job search process to be mortifying due to their weight. He got a very stable, docile, competent work force at bargain rates.
I remember my father in the 1970s telling my brother not to apply for worker’s compensation even though he was hurt during a summer job, because every job application asked whether you had ever applied for worker’s compensation, and having to say “yes” to that question would hurt your chances of being hired.
Even if you leave out nepotism and the never-ending diversity scam, there is a great deal of unfairness in the hiring process. I saw an article not too long ago by a human resources person saying that women are usually offered lower salaries than men, because they aren’t as likely as men to ask for the higher amount.
Glen writes:
My two cents:
We hired a young white male felon to work as a presser in our dry cleaning plant. I told him to cover up the tats on his neck and forearms. He did. Kept my eye on him. Rewarded him with good raises when he deserved it. The kid never caused a problem. In three years he went from pressing laundry shirts to dry cleaned trousers and silk pressing—that is, from earning the minimum wage to $12.50 p/hr (1997). He wanted to learn how to pre-treat (spot) clothing prior to washing or dry cleaning. I showed him how to do it. He wanted to learn how to repair laundry and dry cleaning equipment, so I had him accompany me on my daily routine where he learned about basic pneumatics, hydraulics, electricity, motors, boilers, and electromechanical troubleshooting. After 5 years he was earning $16.00 p/hr. I would have paid him more if I could. He was worth it. The kid (31 yrs/o at this point) was ready for something more. Our “journeyman-apprentice” relationship lasted eight years. He went on to technical school, but made ready use of my electronics background via telephone tutoring. He had his most visible tats removed, married the girl he was shacked up with, fathered four children, and is now earning $60K annually as an electrician for Los Angeles Metro. We’re in touch weekly.
We hired a white female felon in her early thirties to work the counter—greet customers, explain the cleaning process, answer questions, mark-in clothing, and handle cash transactions. My wife took her in hand. The customers loved her and she never stole from us. In three years she advanced to Saturday manager (allowing us to take that day off) and then went on to operate our second, “take-in” store with on-site alterations down the street—that is, from earning minimum wage to $15.00 p/hr (1999). She obtained a bachelor’s degree, remarried, is a human resource manager for a company in our area, and is still in touch.
In the early 90s we hired two (African-American) female felons. Both were caught stealing and dismissed within six months.
I have long years of experience with liberal “kindness.” Liberalism is about $tatu$. Conservatives? Today’s political con$ervatives are yesterday’s liberal$. The traditionalism of the former is superficial. It is non-existent in the latter. I’m a traditionalist with strong distributist and social nationalist leanings. This makes me a real … naughty … fellow, of course. But I walk my talk—locally, personally, physically, daily, off-line, and without an iPod. I’ve never known a libcon who was willing to do the same. If conservatives are more generous than liberals, then that is because the fools conducting these “studies” are placing traditionalists like myself in the conservative camp.
May 3
Nik S. writes:
From my corporate attorney friend:
Typically even if a plaintiff loses a case he is still not liable for the defendant’s legal expenses … thus, a disgruntled former employee has nothing to lose by suing, whereas the defendant has everything to lose by going to court…. so most cases are settled out of court, usually for between $50-100k, but often for much more than that.
It is a lucrative line of work, the kind of work for which you and I would be highly unqualified.
Ken Hechtman writes:
Catherine H. writes:
In response to Mr. Hechtman, I’d like to add another difference in thinking between liberals and conservatives (or traditionalists). True conservatives recognize that actions have consequences.
True liberals (whatever that means) recognize it too. I’d just add that this truth applies at the national level as much as the individual level. There’s too much moral posturing that passes for serious policy thinking on both sides, without taking into account that national choices have consequences too. I didn’t think I was going to convince anyone with the individual fairness argument. That was the point of my original post. But let me make the public policy argument. Because if you look at this at the national scale, it’s a different problem than “Felon A can’t get a job” vs. “Business Owner B has the government telling him what to do.”
When we have a justice system that sends three-quarters of a million people to prison every year, and half of those for victimless or non-violent crime, that’s a national choice. The voters want it that way—just ask any politician who ever lost an election for being “soft on crime.” But here’s the unavoidable consequence: The same system that puts three-quarters of a million convicted felons in jail every year also lets three-quarters of a million ex-convicts out of jail every year. Once again, if you want to make the argument for life sentences, make it. If not, you have to plan for the consequence of that many people leaving jail.
An individual business owner is going to say, “This is NOT my problem. They should have thought of that before committing their crimes,” and that doesn’t make him a bad guy. He’s just looking out for his own interests. But when an overwhelming majority of business owners in the country do the same thing, the consequence is going to be a large and growing army of unemployable young men. They’re going to have to support themselves somehow. If there’s no legal way to do it, they’ll find illegal ones. They won’t just disappear in a puff of moral indignation. And that is very much the government’s problem. Anybody in government who isn’t terrified by that prospect hasn’t been paying attention to failed states around the world.
If my tone suggests I believe the left has all the answers to this problem, I should correct that. I first started thinking seriously about this problem in 2007 when I was working on an election campaign in Manitoba. Manitoba had been under socialist government for nine years then (14 years now), long enough that the incumbents can be said to own the problems. Much like the U.S., Manitoba has high crime levels and a racially-defined underclass with a hugely disproportionate incarceration rate. The only difference is that the race in question isn’t blacks, it’s urban Indians. The private sector economy has no use for these people. Very few business owners will hire Indians of their own free will. The province can’t just pay 20 percent of the population a living wage not to work. The rest will scream blue murder and rightly so. And the Indians aren’t forgetting to have children, so the scale of the problem gets a few percentage points bigger every year.
The Conservatives know what they want to do. They just want to lock them in jail forever, they even aired an attack ad during the campaign showing an Indian man walking through the revolving door of the NDP justice system. It was the single most effective campaign issue they had. But the NDP government didn’t know what to do. That much was obvious even from the outside. The debates I heard inside the party were worse. The far-left’s accusation to the moderates was, “The Conservatives want to give all the Indians life sentences. The best we’re offering them is life sentences on the installment plan.” I even saw Trotskyites in the NDP giving serious consideration to Third Way targeted poverty reduction schemes because they were desperate to find something that might work. They didn’t care who had thought of it first.
Glen T. writes:
Be advised I won’t debate anybody on your blog. However, I will offer some homespun for the one or two who may stumble upon it:
“No one owes anyone a job. A job is not a right. An ex-convict can work for himself. Let him start his own business if no one will hire him.”
A felon should start a business? That’s extremely naïve. Or is it simple parroting of “free” market bilge from the “Austrian” or “Chicago” schools? (Don’t be upset. As a youth I spouted the same stuff until I got religion, my first commitment to something greater than myself—The USMC).
No, a felon doesn’t have the right to be hired. Neither do you. The primary economic difference between you and most felons, however, is your foundation of knowledge, skills, and an income provided by somebody else. Young felons haven’t these. The felon can’t start a ‘socially approved’ business from scratch. Help is needed. His mentor must be a leader. The personal leadership traits required include but are not limited to knowledge, experience, judgment, decisiveness, responsibility, courage, and loyalty.
I interviewed the felons we hired. Having come from a poor but close white family and having been equipped with an above average intelligence I could easily separate the b.s. from reality. We, my wife and I, took risks. We failed twice—two African-Americans. We succeeded twice—two whites of European ancestry. We did not fear any of them. All were tested—that is, challenged—and allowed to “own” their successes. We “owned” their failures until they were ready to go it alone (owning “failure” has its limitations, of course, which is why judgment, knowledge, and experience are so important in the selection process). Strict attention to detail, doing it by the numbers until it’s done right, and always leadership by example. Fatherly/motherly. Big brotherly/sisterly. No condescension. No faux superiority. Once our “felons” had proved themselves, when we had no more to teach, at that point we let them go. Encouraged them to move on. The successful ones never went away—not completely. These children of ours from other parents “owe” us nothing. They have helped to keep us sane and moving in an insane, libconned “society.”
Thanks for allowing me to be heard.
May 5
Natassia writes:
I am not really interested in a debate either, but I find it odd that Glen T. would point out the obvious: “No, a felon doesn’t have the right to be hired. Neither do you.” I am fairly certain that I said “No one owes ANYONE a job,” and yes, that includes even me.
Starting a business is not easy for anyone, and I am quite aware that it will be much more difficult for those who have spent years in prison—years that otherwise could have been spent working, saving money, getting an education. Yes, a mentor sounds like a wonderful idea, and if you want to take on that burden, God bless you for it. But no one has the right to force a man to be a felon’s mentor. It is one thing if community leaders want to preach to their followers the concept of reaching out to convicted felons by hiring them and being mentors. It is something entirely different when you alter the law to force, whether overtly or covertly, business owners to take on that burden. Not everyone is so savvy at sniffing out b.s.
Believe it or not, but my family opened our doors to a convicted felon and his fiancee and their toddler daughter. We will never do that again. Not only was he incredibly lazy, but he actually held resentment against society because he had a criminal record that made it difficult to obtain higher paying jobs. It was HIS choice to engage in criminal behavior … and yet he refused to take any responsibility for the consequences of his actions. And, he was white.
So, let each man have the CHOICE to take on the burden of helping felons … but let no man be forced to do it, especially by the heavy hand of government.
Steve R. writes:
Ken Hechtman writes:
“The same system that puts three-quarters of a million convicted felons in jail every year also lets three-quarters of a million ex-convicts out of jail every year. Once again, if you want to make the argument for life sentences, make it. If not, you have to plan for the consequence of that many people leaving jail.”
Okay, so it’s our burden to come up with a way to make ex-cons do well on the outside—well enough, that is, to prevent them from becoming a burden or threat to society.
Fine, but if it’s our burden then we must be permitted to consider human nature in crafting a solution.
A criminal used to be sent to a penitentiary, among other reasons, to become a penitent. Without sincere regret for his crime is there any reason to believe that he won’t do it again?—any reason that he belongs back among the innocents? Obviously, if a criminal doesn’t sincerely regret what he did then he’ll just try harder not to get caught the next time. The high rates of recidivism make it clear that our prisons are not turning out penitents. Instead, prisons are breeding grounds for yet more crime. Fifty years ago, when my uncle was hiring ex-cons, the chances were much greater that he was hiring a penitent—someone worth taking a chance on.
Ken H. “guilts” us and then frightens us regarding our “national choice” to eschew hiring ex-cons. But would liberals support “a national choice” to do what is reasonable to turn prisoners into penitents?—make them morally suitable to live and work among us? Highly unlikely. Why would one have to repent, be remorseful or contrite if all he did was “alstrate.”
Liberalism destroyed the traditional methods for preventing crime and dealing with criminals. Employers, co-workers and businesses shouldn’t be the ones to suffer the consequences. Not being able to know whether the people you hire are dangerous is cruel and unusual. The new laws will only have the effect of making Blacks who didn’t “do time” suffer on account of those that did. What will liberals come up with once that happens? More lawsuits I’ll wager. This will cause many to hire contractors or go abroad for workers—once again reducing employment here.
As for the felons, once employers have reason to feel safe then they will be hired. There wouldn’t be a need for the new law—once we are allowed to pay an ex-con according to his value on the open market. In the meantime I’m betting Ken Hechtman doesn’t want an unrepentant ex-con to be his butler, his baby-sitter or any employee of his.
LA writes:
That’s an excellent reply from Steve R. to Ken Hechtman. If I may restate Steve’s comment in my own words:
“Ok, you liberals demand that business owners and solid citizens must extend themselves much more to help ex-cons re-enter society. But if you liberals want us to do this, then you have to do something to make this a reasonable choice for us to make. Namely, (1) you need to recognize that the removal of traditional moral and religious standards from society, particularly with regard to the reformation of criminals, has made ex-cons less reliable and more dangerous than they were in earlier generations; and (2) you need to support the “remoralization” of society, and particularly of prisons, so that penitentiaries will once again become places in which the ideal and goal is penitence. Without a restoration of penitence as the purpose and function of prisons, former convicts will remain, as they are now, too recidivist for normal employers to take the risk of hiring them.”
It seems to me that Steve R. has put Mr. Hechtman in an impossible spot: either Mr. Hechtman rejects Steve’s call for a reasonable quid pro quo, in which case he will have confirmed the suspicion that he wants citizens to sacrifice their well-being and safety for the sake of unreformed criminals; or he will accept Steve’s offer, in which case he must give up the moral libertarianism which is the very core of the modern liberalism to which he subscribes!
May 7
Ken Hechtman writes:
Steve R. wrote
A criminal used to be sent to a penitentiary, among other reasons, to become a penitent. Without sincere regret for his crime is there any reason to believe that he won’t do it again?—any reason that he belongs back among the innocents? Obviously, if a criminal doesn’t sincerely regret what he did then he’ll just try harder not to get caught the next time. The high rates of recidivism make it clear that our prisons are not turning out penitents. Instead, prisons are breeding grounds for yet more crime. Fifty years ago, when my uncle was hiring ex-cons, the chances were much greater that he was hiring a penitent—someone worth taking a chance on.
Ken H. “guilts” us and then frightens us regarding our “national choice” to eschew hiring ex-cons. But would liberals support “a national choice” to do what is reasonable to turn prisoners into penitents?—make them morally suitable to live and work among us? Highly unlikely. Why would one have to repent, be remorseful or contrite if all he did was “alstrate.”
Could Steve provide more information here? What are some of the specific things prisons did 50 years ago that made prisoners penitent that prisons today don’t do?
I know one thing that was different 50 years ago. We didn’t lock up nearly as many people for victimless and non-violent crime as we do now. It’s a mistake to use the words “ex-con” and “dangerous, violent felon” as if they meant the same thing. These days that’s only 20% likely to be true. It doesn’t surprise me at all that a pot dealer or a shoplifter isn’t penitent after 5 years in prison. There’s no reason he should be.
Here’s the kind of prison reform I’d support personally (how many other people on the left I could bring along is a different question):
1. The stated objective of the criminal justice system is the safety of law-abiding citizens. Punishment and rehabilitation are two available tools among several that the system will use to reach the objective but neither one is the objective in itself.
2. Reserve prison sentences for violent crime and those very few property crimes that are dangerous to the public at large (e.g. large-scale fraud). Sentences should be either very short (up to a year) or very long with nothing in between. If you do this, you can get rid of mandatory minimums and still have truth in sentencing.
3. A few violent criminals are just always going to be dangerous to the public until the day they die. To the extent that we can identify them, we need to lock them up for life. The conditions they live under don’t need to be especially punitive, that isn’t the point. The point is isolation and containment.
4. Some violent criminals can be rehabilitated. What I’d try is similar to what existed in the Victorian Era. I know more about this than I do about how things worked in the 1950s. Prison terms were short but so unpleasant that after a year in Newgate or Reading Gaol, you never wanted to go back. The boot camps that were popular in the 1990s tried to recreate this but they didn’t really work. Their recidivism rate was no worse than being in general population but it was no better either.
Part of the Victorian approach, and I don’t think this was still going on 50 years ago, was the emphasis on solitary (or at least silent) confinement. When you’re in jail now, you’re very much part of a criminal society even if you’re not a career criminal yourself. I think it was true in the boot camps too. When jail was a solitary experience, you didn’t have that. But there’s a trade-off. The solitary approach costs money. And it breaks down completely if you let the prisons get overcrowded.
5. Get rid of the private prisons. There are clear conflicts between their business interests and the public interest. Recidivism is bad for public safety but it’s repeat business and money in the bank for a private prison operator. There are other conflicts but that’s the most obvious one.
James P. writes:
Ken Hechtman writes:
“When we have a justice system that sends three-quarters of a million people to prison every year, and half of those for victimless or non-violent crime, that’s a national choice. The voters want it that way—just ask any politician who ever lost an election for being “soft on crime.” But here’s the unavoidable consequence: The same system that puts three-quarters of a million convicted felons in jail every year also lets three-quarters of a million ex-convicts out of jail every year.”
On the one hand, he argues that there is “victimless” crime—presumably drug use—that does not affect society, but on the other hand he argues that “victimless” crime affects all of society because these criminals can’t get jobs after they leave prison. People who enslave themselves to a chemical have actively rejected any positive connection to the rest of society; they are in a poor position to complain when society subsequently rejects them. They freely chose to turn themselves into zombies, even though the laws against this are hardly a secret; let them face the consequences. What do law-abiding and productive citizens owe to drug addicts? Nothing! We certainly don’t owe them a job or any form of government largesse. Obligation runs both ways. The idea that people should have the “freedom” to reject society through “harmless” personal drug use but nevertheless society owes them a good job (or anything else) is logically untenable.
It would not surprise me at all to learn that Ken Hecthman is one of these liberals who supports taxpayer-subsidized shooting galleries that provide free drugs, paraphernalia, food, and other services to addicts. Somehow, the productive citizens wind up subsidizing the lives of those who seek “freedom” and “personal autonomy” through chemical stupefaction—why is it that liberal enthusiasm for autonomy always winds up costing me money?
There is simply no such thing as a “victimless” crime. Drug use unquestionably affects society, because drug use affects not merely the user but all those around him, including the user’s spouse, children, neighbors, employer, and coworkers. Addicts are either high, or they are thinking obsessively about how to get high and how to pay for it—what wonderful friends, family members, and employees such people make! Note that this is true even if drugs are legal. Take alcohol as an example. Would Ken Hechtman thus argue that an alcoholic does not negatively affect his family and friends even if he commits no other crime like DUI? Does Ken Hechtman actually believe that employers should not discriminate against alcoholics, even those who drink only at home during personal time and not working hours? I assure you that my employer is not so broadminded!
We know that drug users commonly steal to support their habits. Many addicts in Europe habitually steal even when drugs are provided to them for free! Thus, every drug user locked up for his “victimless” crime of drug use is unable to victimize others through theft. This is a net win for society.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 27, 2012 10:29 AM | Send