What's the best way to reveal you're a felon?
May 6, 2011 5:43 PM Subscribe
What is the best way to present a felony conviction during the job application/interview process?
I'm asking for someone who recently served time for felony man 2. So far the responses from recruiters and HR people has been overwhelmingly negative in response. When we ask how this could have been handled better the responses vary wildly. So, in your experience as workers and employers, what's the most successful way you've seen someone handle disclosing their status as a felon?
I have other resources, of course, but wanted to hear any anecdotal evidence or personal stories, from both sides of the situation.
I'm asking for someone who recently served time for felony man 2. So far the responses from recruiters and HR people has been overwhelmingly negative in response. When we ask how this could have been handled better the responses vary wildly. So, in your experience as workers and employers, what's the most successful way you've seen someone handle disclosing their status as a felon?
I have other resources, of course, but wanted to hear any anecdotal evidence or personal stories, from both sides of the situation.
Felony man 2? Is that second degree felony manslaughter?
posted by ThatCanadianGirl at 5:57 PM on May 6, 2011
posted by ThatCanadianGirl at 5:57 PM on May 6, 2011
Response by poster: decathecting- both. So far the latter type of job, and it's been mentioned in the cover letter. Recruiters have said both "Be up front with all the info in your cover letter, explain everything beforehand" and "Don't tell us anything until we ask, and then say as little as possible." Employers have called to cancel phone interviews because they don't hire felons (illegal, but so far that's the repsonse) which makes me think it would be better to do a great interview and disclose at the end.
TCG- yes, sorry, that's how we've been referring to it.
posted by kittensofthenight at 6:03 PM on May 6, 2011
TCG- yes, sorry, that's how we've been referring to it.
posted by kittensofthenight at 6:03 PM on May 6, 2011
Is there some reason it has to be disclosed at all? That is, is there a parole requirement or some other law that mandates disclosure of his record? If not, I would not disclose unless asked specifically. Not in a cover letter, not during the interview, not after the interview, not after being hired. I can't see any upside to volunteering that information at all, ever, unless the employer asks or unless disclosure is required under parole terms or some other law. Just don't say anything unless you have to.
(By the way, I've been doing some research, and I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, but I can't find any law making it illegal to decline to hire felons. It's not illegal under federal law, so far as I can tell, so unless there's a law in your state prohibiting the use of such information in hiring, it may not be illegal to refuse to hire felons.)
posted by decathecting at 6:16 PM on May 6, 2011
(By the way, I've been doing some research, and I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, but I can't find any law making it illegal to decline to hire felons. It's not illegal under federal law, so far as I can tell, so unless there's a law in your state prohibiting the use of such information in hiring, it may not be illegal to refuse to hire felons.)
posted by decathecting at 6:16 PM on May 6, 2011
Find out up front if the company does background checks (most large ones will) and don't bother applying. Nothing good will come of it. Apply to small mom n pop shops that won't pay for a background check and be quiet.
posted by fingersandtoes at 6:20 PM on May 6, 2011
posted by fingersandtoes at 6:20 PM on May 6, 2011
(sorry, I realize you haven't given us a gender, and I've used a male pronoun. I really tried to avoid it, but I slipped. Whoops!)
posted by decathecting at 6:20 PM on May 6, 2011
posted by decathecting at 6:20 PM on May 6, 2011
Best answer: Some recruiters are going to tell you to be upfront because it saves them time. Others just want to get some people in the door as soon as possible. In my experience as an interviewer, yeah, it's something that I would want to know upfront. And, no, I probably wouldn't hire an ex-felon with a violent past. However, my company doesn't really perform background checks. So if you don't tell me, I'm not going to know. It's up to your friend whether s/he wants to risk it.
But on that note - whether you reveal your past felony at some point in the process or not, do not put it in your cover letter unless there's some legal reason you have to. I actually saw a cover letter once where the applicant immediately rushed to explain that he had a marijuana-related offense on his record, but he had learned from his past (and then a bunch of stuff about his qualifications). I really didn't care about what he did, honestly, but his presentation came off as excessively nervous and highly unprofessional. With the right qualifications, I would've still considered him, but in a big pile of applicants who were also very qualified and far more professional, he was quickly shuffled to the bottom.
posted by katillathehun at 6:21 PM on May 6, 2011
But on that note - whether you reveal your past felony at some point in the process or not, do not put it in your cover letter unless there's some legal reason you have to. I actually saw a cover letter once where the applicant immediately rushed to explain that he had a marijuana-related offense on his record, but he had learned from his past (and then a bunch of stuff about his qualifications). I really didn't care about what he did, honestly, but his presentation came off as excessively nervous and highly unprofessional. With the right qualifications, I would've still considered him, but in a big pile of applicants who were also very qualified and far more professional, he was quickly shuffled to the bottom.
posted by katillathehun at 6:21 PM on May 6, 2011
Putting it in the cover letter is too up front, I think. I'd be inclined to wait until the interview when/if they ask "And what's this gap in your work history from 2008 and 2010?" Have a stock statement about the offence. I'm not sure what constitutes felony man 2. Is that impaired driving causing death? Bar brawl? Depends what kind of job it is, but say you've learned from your mistakes and don't plan on getting in trouble again. (Or, your friend should say something like that.)
posted by ThatCanadianGirl at 6:30 PM on May 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by ThatCanadianGirl at 6:30 PM on May 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
Best answer: I'm with decathecting, don't volunteer what won't help. Of course the recruiters and HR have been negative, they're lazy. I'd highly recommend having him learn to program or fix computers in some way. I've never been checked and I've worked for companies of almost all sizes. I don't have a record, but it's something that I do know.
posted by rhizome at 8:04 PM on May 6, 2011
posted by rhizome at 8:04 PM on May 6, 2011
This book, From Prison to Paycheck, by Pam Hogan may be helpful. She has a good reputation in re-entry circles.
Here's a reentry guide for San Francisco, and one for Colorado.
posted by gingerbeer at 8:32 PM on May 6, 2011 [3 favorites]
Here's a reentry guide for San Francisco, and one for Colorado.
posted by gingerbeer at 8:32 PM on May 6, 2011 [3 favorites]
Best answer: I once had someone who had a criminal record (which had to be disclosed on my company's job application) hand deliver the resume and cover letter to me. The person was very professional, didn't waste my time with their delivery (just a few minutes: "hi, here's my application", a 60 second summary of "I'm well qualified", a 30 second summary of "You'll note I've disclosed a criminal history", and maybe 15 seconds of "Please give me a chance"). I would like to believe that I would have asked the person for an interview regardless of their criminal history (assuming they had the right qualifications), but seeing the person in person definitely pre-empted any possible hesitation that the criminal history might have given rise to.
posted by gubenuj at 10:05 PM on May 6, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by gubenuj at 10:05 PM on May 6, 2011 [3 favorites]
Best answer: Your friend should not be taking advice on this issue from HR and recruiters! Your friend is best advised to contact a local legal aide center (many of them are free or sliding scale income-dependent) and address this question to a qualified lawyer there. Whether and how your friend has to disclose the past conviction depend *entirely* on where she/he lives and how the law is written in that state.
The question of who needs to disclose a felony conviction and why is highly politicized. Employers say "We need to know; it's pertinent," and offenders say, "But I've done my time, why won't anyone trust me enough to give me a job? If I can't get a job, how will I support myself?"
Although jail time is *supposed* to serve as the offender's debt to society, when it comes to seeking employment afterward, it's clear that society doesn't feel repaid. The fact that employers are legally able to include a yes/no felony disclosure checkbox on job application forms makes that perfectly clear. Unfortunately, what a checked "yes" doesn't make clear is whether the conviction was for marijuana possession, a sex offense, murder, or a whole host of other things, many of which may not be relevant to the employer at all.
According to criminal defense lawyer William Kickham in a post on the Boston Criminal Attorney Blog, as of August 6, 2010, "... Massachusetts was the first state in the nation to ban the majority of employers from asking job applicants about their criminal history on job application forms."
As with any issue that primarily affects the disadvantaged and the poor, lawmakers have been slow to act because disadvantaged demographics don't tend to vote in numbers large enough or give enough in campaign contributions to force them to do so. That Massachusetts finally did so is a direct result of pressure asserted by registered black voters there during Governor Deval Patrick's first gubernatorial campaign. As a result, he promised CORI (Criminal Offender Record Information) reform in 2006, and made good on it in 2010.
Kickner calls the reform "balanced ... preserving the privacy rights of those convicted of certain (but not all) crimes, while preserving employers’ and other organizations’ rights to legitimate criminal history data." This is a good summation of the issue.
He then gives several felony conviction examples:
"Under the new statute, all employers, including licensing authorities, housing providers, and volunteer organizations will have access, for a fee, to a new state database that lists only convictions or pending charges. If someone has been convicted of a felony, such as a Massachusetts drug offense, but has not been charged with any subsequent offenses, most felony convictions will be erased from the database 10 years following the completion of a sentence, and misdemeanor convictions will be removed five years after any sentence is completed. Murder and Massachusetts sex offense convictions will always appear in the database."
And he also discusses the issue of coping with a felony conviction and looking for employment, in ways that echo gubenuj's comment:
"Because all employers will have access to the new database – not just the small minority that previously did -- job application forms cannot inquire into criminal history. I believe this is a key improvement, as employers will still have ready and legitimate access to a rapid and accurate source for criminal records, but many job applicants won’t be either encouraged to lie on a job application, or otherwise be prevented from getting a foot in the door. This defeats the whole purpose of a criminal offender records system. Very importantly, this provision (not requiring a job applicant to provide information about his or her criminal history on an application,) will not apply to employers who by law cannot hire ex-convicts. Employers can still decline to hire somebody if they have a criminal record. None of that has changed. But a key benefit in this reform, I believe, is that employers will now be encouraged to have conversations with applicants as individuals, instead of weeding people immediately because of one question they’ve answered on an application."
Your friend is lucky to have you as a friend. The "system" (or should that be "systems," since so many states go their own way?) is stacked against former felons. If we want to rehabilitate criminals then we should make damned sure that is what prison achieves. If we want to be permanently rid of them, then we should exile them forever to another land. As things now stand, we mostly just punish them in jail, and then punish them some more afterward: "Employers can still decline to hire somebody if they have a criminal record." Then we wonder why the "system" is so expensive, and why so many fail.
I'm getting off my soapbox now.
Best of luck to your friend!
posted by Violet Blue at 1:05 AM on May 7, 2011 [8 favorites]
The question of who needs to disclose a felony conviction and why is highly politicized. Employers say "We need to know; it's pertinent," and offenders say, "But I've done my time, why won't anyone trust me enough to give me a job? If I can't get a job, how will I support myself?"
Although jail time is *supposed* to serve as the offender's debt to society, when it comes to seeking employment afterward, it's clear that society doesn't feel repaid. The fact that employers are legally able to include a yes/no felony disclosure checkbox on job application forms makes that perfectly clear. Unfortunately, what a checked "yes" doesn't make clear is whether the conviction was for marijuana possession, a sex offense, murder, or a whole host of other things, many of which may not be relevant to the employer at all.
According to criminal defense lawyer William Kickham in a post on the Boston Criminal Attorney Blog, as of August 6, 2010, "... Massachusetts was the first state in the nation to ban the majority of employers from asking job applicants about their criminal history on job application forms."
As with any issue that primarily affects the disadvantaged and the poor, lawmakers have been slow to act because disadvantaged demographics don't tend to vote in numbers large enough or give enough in campaign contributions to force them to do so. That Massachusetts finally did so is a direct result of pressure asserted by registered black voters there during Governor Deval Patrick's first gubernatorial campaign. As a result, he promised CORI (Criminal Offender Record Information) reform in 2006, and made good on it in 2010.
Kickner calls the reform "balanced ... preserving the privacy rights of those convicted of certain (but not all) crimes, while preserving employers’ and other organizations’ rights to legitimate criminal history data." This is a good summation of the issue.
He then gives several felony conviction examples:
"Under the new statute, all employers, including licensing authorities, housing providers, and volunteer organizations will have access, for a fee, to a new state database that lists only convictions or pending charges. If someone has been convicted of a felony, such as a Massachusetts drug offense, but has not been charged with any subsequent offenses, most felony convictions will be erased from the database 10 years following the completion of a sentence, and misdemeanor convictions will be removed five years after any sentence is completed. Murder and Massachusetts sex offense convictions will always appear in the database."
And he also discusses the issue of coping with a felony conviction and looking for employment, in ways that echo gubenuj's comment:
"Because all employers will have access to the new database – not just the small minority that previously did -- job application forms cannot inquire into criminal history. I believe this is a key improvement, as employers will still have ready and legitimate access to a rapid and accurate source for criminal records, but many job applicants won’t be either encouraged to lie on a job application, or otherwise be prevented from getting a foot in the door. This defeats the whole purpose of a criminal offender records system. Very importantly, this provision (not requiring a job applicant to provide information about his or her criminal history on an application,) will not apply to employers who by law cannot hire ex-convicts. Employers can still decline to hire somebody if they have a criminal record. None of that has changed. But a key benefit in this reform, I believe, is that employers will now be encouraged to have conversations with applicants as individuals, instead of weeding people immediately because of one question they’ve answered on an application."
Your friend is lucky to have you as a friend. The "system" (or should that be "systems," since so many states go their own way?) is stacked against former felons. If we want to rehabilitate criminals then we should make damned sure that is what prison achieves. If we want to be permanently rid of them, then we should exile them forever to another land. As things now stand, we mostly just punish them in jail, and then punish them some more afterward: "Employers can still decline to hire somebody if they have a criminal record." Then we wonder why the "system" is so expensive, and why so many fail.
I'm getting off my soapbox now.
Best of luck to your friend!
posted by Violet Blue at 1:05 AM on May 7, 2011 [8 favorites]
I don't know what area of work your friend is looking for - but I work in the construction industry. Construction can be hard work, but if you are smart, you can also make VERY good money.
Construction also seems to attract many troubled souls. The industry needs lots of grunts to do hard manual labor - but once proven, a grunt can move up to a better position.
I have a former felon, attempted murder, who works for me. I have known of a few other felons on other job sites too.
posted by Flood at 3:43 AM on May 7, 2011
Construction also seems to attract many troubled souls. The industry needs lots of grunts to do hard manual labor - but once proven, a grunt can move up to a better position.
I have a former felon, attempted murder, who works for me. I have known of a few other felons on other job sites too.
posted by Flood at 3:43 AM on May 7, 2011
Seconding don't apply to companies that do background checks. Background checks take a while to complete -- you could have a situation in which you get hired, your company pays for a background check on you, then you get fired a month later after a call from the background check company. Smaller places can't afford that kind of service so you're likely to do better.
posted by miyabo at 6:43 AM on May 7, 2011
posted by miyabo at 6:43 AM on May 7, 2011
Response by poster: Usually I'm helping people find warehouse/construction work and this is not much of an issue, but the response has been different from employers in the computer industry, so I appreciate the response. I think we'll have a more streamlined, confident approach in the next round.
You've all been a lot of help.
Thanks, Metafilter!
posted by kittensofthenight at 4:20 PM on May 8, 2011
You've all been a lot of help.
Thanks, Metafilter!
posted by kittensofthenight at 4:20 PM on May 8, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by decathecting at 5:50 PM on May 6, 2011