 |
By "undisclosed" do you mean "uncharted"?  |
Posted on 03/10/2003 5:17:58 PM PST by Democratic_Machiavelli
[Note from DM: please read the last paragraph first, then read through the whole article.]
They had come by the hundreds, eager and excited about the possibilities that had enticed them to this unique event.
But the exhilaration did not last long.
As I approached the podium and stood before them Wednesday morning, their faces spoke volumes before I ever heard their voices.
There was more than disappointment displayed in their facial expressions and other body language. They were utterly disgusted, and many of them were quite angry.
I was the guest speaker for this first-of-its-kind job fair, but it was quite clear this crowd was in no mood for speeches.
So, other than to tell them that I understood their feelings and that I was a supporter willing to tell their story, I was not about to give a formal speech. Instead, I announced that I wanted to hear from them, and they were ready to be heard.
They were parolees -- ex-cons, if you will -- who had come looking for work. Some were dressed in business attire, many of them brought resumes and a few had brought along family and friends for support.
The problem was that the event's organizer, Texas Inmate Services, had invited 1,500 prospective employers and only two (Avon and a truck driving school) and a handful of social service agencies showed up.
Many long, empty folding tables that were to serve as company booths remained bare and unmanned. It was a rather depressing sight.
On arrival I noticed a disgruntled murmur in the crowded room, and it didn't take long to realize that something was very wrong.
"Where are the folks doing the hiring?" was the most asked question.
"We can't worry about that now," I told them. Rather, I said, we should talk about what they were going to do to fulfill one of the terms of their parole -- getting a job -- and take care of their other responsibilities.
We turned the meeting into an Oprah-Phil-Montel-type forum.
The individuals present had no fear of approaching the microphone and voicing their concern about the lack of job openings for them, their worries about trying to support their families and their contempt for a society that doesn't seem to want to give them a second or third chance to prove their worth.
Some have been looking for work for months.
Rodney, a 38-year-old Haltom City man who was paroled in November, told me later that he had been pounding the pavement every day since December, filling out applications, but that employers won't even give him the courtesy of a call back.
"We go out there to find a job," he said, "and they slam the door in our face."
Many of the parolees had advice for others in the room: change your attitude, present yourself well, be persistent and continue to trust in God no matter what happens.
They are aware that these are tough economic times, and that many people who have no criminal record are also looking for jobs. They also realize that society has a natural prejudice and fear of people who have been to prison.
But their major concern is that too many employers only look at one thing on their applications, no matter how skilled they are or how many good recommendations they have.
That one thing is the response to the question, "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?"
If they answer yes, they are usually not hired. If they answer no and get the job, they are often fired the first time a parole officer calls or comes around checking on them.
We have a responsibility to these men and women who have served their time. Our society can't simply discard thousands of people because they have a criminal record. We owe them a chance.
Otherwise, in these tough economic times, we should be prepared to build another billion dollars worth of prisons and be prepared to take care of their families when no one else is around to provide for them.
More later.
They can always find work as democrat party activists.
Wrong paragraph. This one, the second to last, is the one that got my attention. We, and I'm assuming that's society, owe these people nothing. They made a mistake and paid for it. Being an ex-con shouldn't confer any special rights or privileges. I made my own way in this world and they need to do the same.
Want to re-phrase that?
You have made clear who "them" is, but I am not sure I understand your "we" in this short sentence.
Earlier, you claim second and third chances are needed, I assume for repeat offendors.
Funny how I dont think any potential employer "owes" me anything, but convicted felons should get extra consideration for having been convicted of crimes?They did not understand that felonious behavior would jeopardise their entire future before they committed the crimes for which they were convicted? Odd,all the non-felons know this to be true.Occasionally, it also acts as a deterrant to crimes, knowing the possible permanent repercussions.
Why dont they do what everyone is telling all the out of work, non criminal IT un-employed to do...start their own business?
Or do you think some kind of quota system for felons is in order?
They aren't asking for "special rights or privileges." They are merely asking for equal consideration once they have done their time.
This is one of the biggest myths out there. Being in LE, I have never seen anyone arrested for just using. Those in our system are there for dealing, if they're in there for drugs. And if you don't think dealers ever harmed anyone, 90 percent of prisoners were impaired by drugs and/or alcohol while committing crimes.
I think the percentage of non-violent drug offenders is very, very low in jail. There are vast numbers of diversion programs and the courts are only to happy to let all the heroin pushers to teenagers walk, enough to please even the most demented libertarian.
Second, (to both) this guy isn't saying we should give ex-cons extra consideration. The problem is that no one is giving them consideration at all. The only real job possibility mentioned in the article wasn't even a trucking company...it was a trucking school.
The reason I asked people to read the last paragraph is because it underlines the point that you can't stay off welfare if there are no jobs. Everyone is having a hard time (as other posters have pointed out). But because employers aren't willing to hire ex-cons, more money is drained from the government keeping these men in jail and their families on welfare. Again, that doesn't mean we should give them extra consideration, or set up quotas. It does mean we have people who are draining the paychecks of those who have jobs.
Sure, they could start their own business. But where would they, as ex-felons, get the capital? Why should a bank trust an ex-con with money? Especially one who hasn't completely served his/her time yet?
Your point about ostracization as a deterrant is valid. But what does that do for the rare people who truly change? Are they supposed to spend the rest of their lives letting their spouse support them? Or should they continue to be a drain on society, even after they've left prison?
Maybe we should just go back to hanging people who steal bread? (no sarcasm here...I'm serious)
Interesting point about illegal aliens. A lot of the "dishwashing" jobs (from my own experience and from studies I've read) are taken up by illegals.
Another part of the problem is that companies are hiring H1-B visas for their higher-paying positions (especially in the tech industry) because the applicants are willing to take anything that will keep them in the country. Citizens (who know their own value better) get squeezed out. Monster.com had an article a while back that stated the maintenence positions (computer operator, "grunt" programmer, etc.) were moving overseas because the labor is cheaper. Those were the "dishwashing" jobs of the tech industry.
How can you work your way up from the bottom rung of the ladder if it's not there?
A book I read a while back said the problem was corporate debt. It would take too long to explain here. I'll FReepmail you with the title if you're interested.
Heck, the maximum sentence for drunk driving is a few days in jail, while you could get life in prison for doing the same with marijuana.
I go the other way with it, though. I would make alcohol illegal. Too many people killed by drunk drivers. Totally unrealistic, but that's what I'd do.
Flame away. :)
As for victimless crimes, I half agree with you. Most things are crimes because they are infringing on another person's rights. But our legal system is very screwed up. We'd have to define "victimless" to continue this discussion.
Straw man argument: I didn't say "using" I said "drug offenders" which includes dealers, mules and manufacturers as well as users.
Here are my words again: A significant fraction of felons are non-violent drug offenders ... people who haven't harmed another person at all.
And if you don't think dealers ever harmed anyone, 90 percent of prisoners were impaired by drugs and/or alcohol while committing crimes.
This is a doubly stupid comment. First, do you hold car dealers responsible for traffic accidents and fatalities? They have as much responsibility as drug dealers do for drug-related crimes. (Do you support the Brady Campaign's efforts to sue gun makers into oblivion "holding them responsible" because criminals use guns in crimes?) Second, alcohol is legal, so you are being disingenuous to cite alcohol-related crimes in a discussion of drug dealers; are you arguing that liquor sellers should also go to jail for their part in "harming others?"
Straw man argument: I didn't say they went to jail, only that they were convicted of felonies. Your comments notwithstanding, nevertheless they are ex-felons and therefore germane to this article. Whether they walk or don't, they have a criminal record and won't even be considered for employment by most companies. Is it the position of the "compassionate conservative" to tell them they have screwed up their entire lives and no one should lift a finger to give them a chance, the same as for rapists and murderers?
|
By "undisclosed" do you mean "uncharted"? |
You implied that Banks should not be expected to trust an ex-con with a loan.Why do you exempt banks from "those who should extend trust to ex-cons"?
In your own words "But what does that do for the rare people who truly change?", you have supported the notion that criminals rarely change.So what is the point in damning realistic hiring practises for the rare exception?
Finally, stealing bread is not a felony offense, unless, of course, it was a tractor trailer load of bread, or was stolen under gunpoint.
The only strawman I ever liked was in Oz.
I have NO sympathy for criminals. Let this and other obvious reason be a detriment to NOT commit crimes of ANY kind! Criminals DESERVE to be shunned. I have NO sympathy for evil. None! Zilcho! It is up to the CRIMINAL to regain societies trust and respect and NOT the other way around.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.