Ban The Box - Activist Action

[PAF]

It is not Left versus Right -- it is Liberty versus Tyranny.


I believe that every Right should be up upheld (through education) and violators of Natural Rights should be fully punished.


As far as those in prison, and restoration of Rights, WE are paying an enormous amount of money representing and incarcerating millions of innocent people over stupid laws that the government illegally imposes, one example being marijuana, among hundreds of other things.


The problem becomes, once in prison, they are mandated to "Check a Box" on a job application, which discriminates somebody from actually wanting to work in order to not live off of the system. This also affects their ability to rent, apply for a personal/business loan, etc. Without an opportunity to work and earn a wage, they are most certainly guaranteed to return to the streets only to be picked up by "Law Enforcement" and sent back to prison again.


I do not care about who started this campaign, but IMO it will lead to more people working and less living off of the system. Once we tackle that problem, we can move to the next:


Ban The Box Campaign:

http://bantheboxcampaign.org/






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKDvbufS8o4

 

[Danke]

Yes, the government should dictate what an employer/landlord can and cannot ask an applicant.

 

[PAF]

Yes, the government should dictate what an employer/landlord can and cannot ask an applicant.

The government has no business asking anything.

As it stands, people are not able to return to work because: 1. government manufactures victimless crimes 2. government ensures that after "serving" a sentence, the person who served must still live off the system.

Once we tackle that problem, we can move to the next

 

[Swordsmyth]

The government has no business asking anything.

As it stands, people are not able to return to work because: 1. government manufactures victimless crimes 2. government ensures that after "serving" a sentence, the person who served must still live off the system.

Then you are attacking the problem from the wrong angle.

Why do you support the government telling private employers and landlords what questions they can ask?

 

[PAF]

Then you are attacking the problem from the wrong angle.

Why do you support the government telling private employers and landlords what questions they can ask?

Perhaps this organization can be vetted here since I admittedly did not have time to do so. I do not usually post threads without vetting them first, it is my bad if this is a government organization.

My goal is simple: let the free market determine who it wants to hire/fire without government interference. Race, religion, whether convicted of a crime, and other information should not be mandated by any government, but only by the company if it so desires.

The problem does exist, that it is difficult for people leaving prison to find employment, which means that they are being supported by me, the tax payer. In many cases, it is manufactured welfare to maintain corrupt LEO/court system/revenue.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Perhaps this organization can be vetted here since I admittedly did not have time to do so. I do not usually post threads without vetting them first, it is my bad if this is a government organization.

My goal is simple: let the free market determine who it wants to hire/fire without government interference. Race, religion, whether convicted of a crime, and other information should not be mandated by any government, but only by the company if it so desires.

The problem does exist, that it is difficult for people leaving prison to find employment, which means that they are being supported by me, the tax payer. In many cases, it is manufactured welfare to maintain corrupt LEO/court system/revenue.

If it is a private effort to get individuals to not ask the question then that is different but "ban" implies a government prohibition.

 

[106459]

Yeah, I think I'm going to cross the fence on this one. It should be illegal for an employer to ask if you're a previously convicted criminal or not.

It seems to me like that should be more of a personal matter and a 4th amendment right to privacy. So, you commit a crime, go through the justice system, pay your debts, and are released. Why would we release someone who is a menace to society? If there's an issue, fix the justice system. Don't destroy individuals who fulfilled their obligations. We have the premise that we'd rather set 100 guilty men free than imprison 1 man who is innocent. But we would ruin 100 innocent lives in order to prevent one criminal from gaining employment?

The thing that particularly bothers me is that I can understand and agree with the freedom of association, maybe you don't like certain genders, sexual orientations, or beliefs - that's fine, you shouldn't be forced to associate with them. But committing a crime isn't really a belief or personality trait. It's a reality that, at one point in the past, you did one thing. And now, because of that, you can be systematically denied employment (essentially, a livelihood) because everyone can make an online application with a checkbox, run a background check for pennies on the dollar, and throw those applications out without ever having to give it a look.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Yeah, I think I'm going to cross the fence on this one. It should be illegal for an employer to ask if you're a previously convicted criminal or not.

It seems to me like that should be more of a personal matter and a 4th amendment right to privacy. So, you commit a crime, go through the justice system, pay your debts, and are released. Why would we release someone who is a menace to society? If there's an issue, fix the justice system. Don't destroy individuals who fulfilled their obligations. We have the premise that we'd rather set 100 guilty men free than imprison 1 man who is innocent. But we would ruin 100 innocent lives in order to prevent one criminal from gaining employment?

The thing that particularly bothers me is that I can understand and agree with the freedom of association, maybe you don't like certain genders, sexual orientations, or beliefs - that's fine, you shouldn't be forced to associate with them. But committing a crime isn't really a belief or personality trait. It's a reality that, at one point in the past, you did one thing. And now, because of that, you can be systematically denied employment (essentially, a livelihood) because everyone can make an online application with a checkbox, run a background check for pennies on the dollar, and throw those applications out without ever having to give it a look.

An employer has every right to ask, they are the one who will bear the risk if the job they are offering requires at least average odds that the employee is honest or better.

If you want to see more ex-cons employed then you need to get government out of the way of the economy so that employers who don't need to be especially concerned about the trustworthiness of an employee in that position are desperate enough to hire them.

Ex-cons have already benefited from the small improvement in the economy that Trump's policies have caused.

You can also try to get rid of phony crimes like drug laws.

 

[PAF]

If it is a private effort to get individuals to not ask the question then that is different but "ban" implies a government prohibition.

I would BAN the IRS. I would BAN the FedDeptEd. I would BAN welfare. I would BAN every politician who even hinted at violating Natural Rights. So, what does that make me?


Your Post #8 was spot on

 

[Krugminator2]

I am for employers voluntarily being able to not ask this question which is already the case.

On the other hand, I am absolutely not in favor of making it illegal to ask that question. All drugs should be legal. But people who do drugs are losers. If you went to prison for dealing drugs or using drugs (even if you shouldn't go to prison in a free society), I would want to know that in hiring. And drugs are the minor question. If you serve for rape or child molestation, an employer has the right to know if they ask. The ice cream truck company shouldn't have to be in the dark if some pedo wants to get a job their. They have their own reputation at risk.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

There's been arguments that this creates more problems than it solves, since employers will just assume possible criminal status from the background of the applicants if they can't ask the question. We all know who that will hurt the most.

In any case, employers should be able to ask that and be able to drug test employees and prospective employees whenever they want, even if drugs were legal.

 

[pcosmar]

In any case, employers should be able to ask that and be able to drug test employees and prospective employees whenever they want, even if drugs were legal.

They never did before Reagan Mandated it.. And it was accomplished through the Insurance Carriers.. No Compliance,No Insurance.

 

[Libertea Party]

There's been arguments that this creates more problems than it solves, since employers will just assume possible criminal status from the background of the applicants if they can't ask the question. We all know who that will hurt the most.

In any case, employers should be able to ask that and be able to drug test employees and prospective employees whenever they want, even if drugs were legal.

This^ See the following:

"In June 2016, a large experimental study was published by Amanda Agan and Sonja Starr on the racial gap in callback rates of employers to job applicants of different racial backgrounds in New Jersey and New York City before and after Ban the Box laws went into effect. Agan and Starr sent out 15,000 fictitious online job applications to companies in those areas with racially stereotypical names on the job applications. Prior to the implementation of Ban the Box laws in New Jersey and New York City, the gap in the callback rate between the job applications with stereotypically black names and stereotypically white names was 7 percent. After the implementation of Ban the Box laws, the racial gap in the callback rate increased to 45 percent.[9][10][11][12][13] A July 2016 study by Jennifer L. Doleac and Benjamin Hansen found that in jurisdictions where Ban the Box laws have been implemented, the probabilities of young, non-college educated, black and Hispanic males being employed have declined.[14][12][15][16][17] An October 2006 study with a similar finding published by Harry J. Holzer, Steven Raphael, Michael A. Stoll found that employers who made routine criminal background checks for all job applicants, regardless of their racial backgrounds, hired black applicants (especially black males) at a higher rate than those employers that did not make routine criminal background checks for all applicants.[18][19]

A 2017 study reported by The Quarterly Journal of Economics (the following year) found that before the Ban The Box (BTB) was implemented, whites received 7% more employer callbacks than blacks. After the BTB was implemented, the gap rose to 43%, concluding that blacks were negatively affected by the BTB.[20]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_the_Box