Posted on 11/04/2013 8:19:16 AM PST by YourAdHere
Individuals seeking employment with the Target Corporation will soon notice a change in the company’s job applications.
The Minneapolis-based company recently announced that they will no longer question applicants about their criminal history. The company said it expects to remove the question from applications nationwide in the coming year.
According to the National Employment Law Project, the decision was based on a new Minnesota law and the efforts of grassroots organizations that have been pressuring the company to change their standards.
“Target is finally doing the right thing by reforming its hiring policies so that qualified job applicants aren’t automatically screened out simply because they have an arrest or conviction from the past,” Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project, said in a statement. “Other large retailers around the nation need to follow suit, because their hiring policies send a strong message about whether they are committed to the communities that support their business.”
Applications for public sector jobs in the state have been barred from asking applicants about their criminal history. In May, Governor Mark Dayton increased the reach of the law by requiring private companies to follow the rule as well.
According to the Minnesota Department of Human rights, employers will still have the authority and legal obligation to turn away criminals with certain records, including sexual offenses.
According to the National Employment Law Project, more than 10 states and 50 cities have all fallen in line with the “Ban the Box” movement, requiring that employers eliminate the box all applicnants are asked to check if they have served time in prison.
“I think this is an excellent choice and for the organization itself, this speaks volumes as to how they are considering the people they want to hire,” said Walter Lomax, project director for the Maryland Restorative Justice Initiative.
“It is challenging whether it’s someone returning from a long-term or short-term incarceration. A criminal record is a hold-back for folks who have found themselves involved with the justice system,” he added. “We’re not saying that at some point an employee shouldn’t learn something about their employee’s criminal background. What we are saying is that they need to at least be given an opportunity for an interview. Then they can explain the circumstances of their incarceration.”
Lomax has taken up many causes related to citizens returning to the populace from incarceration. In addition to efforts to allow ex-convicts to serve on trial juries, Lomax has dealt with many returning citizens and their difficulties finding employment.
“I had one case where a man filled out 10 applications and every one asked [whether he had] a criminal record. He wasn’t called back for a single one of them,” he said. “The reality is that he has to check that box because if he doesn’t and they find out, he will be fired. It will be assumed that he is untruthful. It definitely adds a level of anxiety.”
I have never shopped there and now I never will.
so businesses are not able to screen their potential hires for criminals???
yeah....no foreseeable problems with this at all.
I had no idea they were Minneapolis-based. Now I’m glad I swore off shopping there. Haven’t in over 2 years.
Absolutely not the same as removing the question. You can ask the question and use that as a point to consider without it being an automatic disqualification. For example, there is a considerable difference between some drunken vandalism twenty years ago vs. just getting out of jail from opening up the safe at your previous job.
If someone was in jail for something minor, or something unrelated to the job, maybe this makes some sense.
But, for example, if someone had been in prison for stealing money or embezzlement from a previous employer, isn’t it legitimate to avoid hiring such a person to manage a company’s finances? Or to keep sex offenders away from working with kids?
Or is the next great “civil rights” issue the issue of ex-convict’s rights????
When I read that they don’t allow the Salvation Army on their properties at Christmas time I vowed never to shop there.And I’ve kept that vow.
Thanks for the tip RE: Salvation Army.
Absolutely right. In fact, every app I've ever filled out explicitly states that a prior conviction is not necessarily a disqualifying mark against an applicant. They want you to be truthful.
Now, truthfulness is relegated to covertness.
Target is a French outfit — perhaps they’re following Napoleonic law.
I interviewed with them back in ‘87 trying to get a computer support job for all their sites.
They said I didn’t meet their needs so I drove to CA and got a job with Intel.
Maybe I should have lied and said I had a criminal record.
This just removes the question from the ap, it doesn’t prevent them from doing a criminal background check which most companies do these days as a matter of routine.
Obama administration sues BMW plant for not employing felons
The EEOC is suing a BMW plant in Spartanburg, SC. The EEOC says they are discriminating against black people by not employing felons.
The notorious EEOC is a Soviet style commission created to fulfill the unconstitutional mandates of the Civil Rights act. In 2012, without even getting congressional approval, the Obama administration unilaterally added new mandates for the EEOC to enforce. The Obama administration is demanding companies employ dangerous black felons. When manufacturing jobs are targeted, the end results is simply to drive companies outside of the USA. The companies will look for locations where they have the freedom to hire whomever they like.
http://www.eutimes.net/2013/06/obama-administration-sues-bmw-plant-for-not-employing-felons/
I have been turned away from jobs because of it.
That stated, I am STRIDENTLY opposed to this movement. I don't mind facing up to my consequences, and damn if I will have others not face up to theirs!
Hopefully they do a background check on all of their employees first. This may be more telling than what the applicant can tell themselves. If they don’t do a background check, they are both stupid and liable for anything that happens in the store or on their property.
Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project: “Target is finally doing the right thing by reforming its hiring policies so that qualified job applicants aren’t automatically screened out simply because they have an arrest or conviction from the past.”
I believe she’s lying. Being arrested is NOT the same thing as serving time in prison. I haven’t seen the actual Target form in question, but it appears to ask the applicant if they have “served time in prison.”
This politics of “fairness” is getting absurd. It started with an honorable (if misguided) attempt to force businesses to hire blacks. A private business, one not associated with government, has constitutional rights of freedom of association and private property. The US Constitution only prevents governments from discriminating on the basis of race.
King Barry is LITERALLY fighting a war on Capitalists by pressuring them to hire insurgents. Gee, that’s odd.. That’s the same thing America did on November 6, 2008.
I don't have a problem with the ban. The problem with Scarlet Letter type policies is that people with criminal records can't ever go straight. I don't think felons should get the vote, but they should definitely not be automatically removed from employment consideration just because they have criminal records. Everyone has a stake in the reintegration of people with criminal records into society. The alternative is convicted criminals remaining on the welfare system their entire lives, with sidelines in criminal activity like drug-dealing, et al.
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.