Log In


Reset Password
Opinion Editorial Cartoons Op-Ed Editorials Letters to the Editor

Overcoming mistakes

Applicants with criminal records deserve a fair shot at employment

While some Coloradans urge the state to follow the lead of other states and designate the third drunken-driving conviction a felony rather than a misdemeanor as is currently, others are considering just how harmful that label can be – sometimes almost forever – to a successful job search or to a education or a choice in living arrangements.

The arguments for the felony category for drunken drivers – getting tough on repeaters of a crime that can cause death – are offset by the uncertainty as to whether that criminal label is actually a deterrent, and to the added costs to the state it brings.

What is beginning to receive some attention is that many Americans with a criminal record – a felony or some misdemeanors – are being precluded from gainful employment in most occupations for years, if not forever. Misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies that are tied to drug use and sales, or perhaps theft and forgeries, which might have happened years ago, are preventing otherwise prepared job-seekers from being able to move past the initial stage of an employment application. Check the box if you have a criminal record, and the possibility of being hired is usually gone.

That box also exists on a college application, a loan application and, in some cases, on apartment and rental agreements. What it means is that after time is served and penalties are paid, offenders continue to have their education, employment and living options severely limited. Employment that corresponds to abilities and goals can be impossible.

A partial solution: Several states with their statutes, and a few of the major big-box retailers with their human-resources policies, have modified job-search procedures to consider only past involvement with the law near the end of the interview and hiring process. That allows a candidate with a record to have his education and experience, and whatever else it is that might make him a good fit for the position, be considered first. Then, with the pool reduced to a handful of possible candidates, does the employer decide whether a particular criminal record should be disqualifying.

This shift in hiring procedures does not come solely from the heart. Employers are wanting to cast the largest net possible in their hiring, seeking the best possible workforce. They recognize that many crimes, especially having taken place some time ago, have no bearing on successfully filling the job at hand.

There is a limit, of course. Someone who has embezzled from their place of work should not expect to be looked favorably on by a bank that is looking for a teller, or a former drug user as a pharmacist.

But in many prospective employee-employer matches, postponing consideration of a past criminal record makes good sense.

The United States has too many of its citizens in prison, and for too long a time, and is not giving them the opportunity to learn the skills they need to return to the workforce. What can be done to partially offset those shortcomings is to make an effort to consider the suitability of a job prospect before weighing whether a criminal record should be disqualifying. That is the right thing to do, and it is good business policy.



Reader Comments