Have Record, Will Work

"Companies using criminal records ...to screen out job applicants might run afoul of anti-discrimination laws.....according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)"
Sam Hananel, Associated Press, Aug. 12, 2010 (1)

The EEOC, created by President Lyndon B Johnson as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is considering filing discrimination complaints against several firms that reject all ex-convicts, since the policy has a "disparate impact" on black and Hispanic job-seekers. The incarceration rate for blacks is six times that for whites and that for Hispanics is 2.3 times as high. (1)

"Disparate impact" is considered discriminatory if the policy has no bearing on job performance. For example, requiring proficiency in French for a janitorial job would be discriminatory. But is criminal conviction a reasonable disqualification for any job?

Consider this fact: Of persons released from American prisons, about 68% are arrested for a new crime within 3 years of release. (2) Since not all crimes result in arrest, and not all arrested people are actually guilty, this figure does not equal the percentage of ex-cons that re-offend. However, in my judgment, more unsolved crimes are committed than innocent people are charged, so the actual recidivism rate is really higher than 68%.

Job performance depends on following directions, but the essence of criminal behavior is ignoring rules. Crime is spurred by greed, addiction, impulsiveness and a general disregard for the rights of others. Although we would like to believe that our prisons encourage inmates to repent and "go-straight" after release, the facts indicate that at least two-thirds of them commit new crimes. This means that if a business hires an ex-con, the odds are more than two-to-one that the new employee will offend, possibly at the workplace. This risk is borne by the other employees, customers and the business itself.

Accordingly, I contend that the EEOC would be wrong to charge an employer with discrimination for rejecting all ex-convicts. I understand that if this policy is widespread, released it will be more difficult for convicts to get jobs and become law-abiding citizens. But that is their problem, it should not be that of prospective employers. Many Americans are out of work nowadays, and most of them (including most minority-group members) have never committed any crime.

A policy that shows preference to applicants with a clean record is just one more reason that crime does not pay.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Aug. 12, 2010, page 3D "Job Screening tactics assailed."

(2) Wikipedia: Recidivism.

Bogus!

"Fool me once, shame on you!
Fool me twice....that's the whole point, you can't fool me twice!"
George W Bush

I walked up to the teller window at the Pelham Parkway branch of the Bank of America on August 5 and presented a check. The check was made payable to Gerald S Glazer in the amount of $3,550 and drawn on an account at a Fifth Avenue (Manhattan) branch of the Bank, signed by Pam Daniel of Informa Economics, 775 Ridge Lake Blvd, Memphis, Tennessee. The check included a security watermark and routing digits.

I had received this check by FedEx on July 22 from Patricio Anita of 3716 10th Avenue, Rochester, NY, along with a letter:
"Hello Candidate, Please follow the instructions below carefully, complete the transactions. 1. All you need to do is get the payment cashed at your bank and deduct your commission from it and send me the rest of the money via Western Union Money Transfer. Send the rest of the money to Barbara Jones, 40-A Garden Village Drive, Apartment 3, Cheektowaga, NY 14227."

Since I never heard of any of these people, I became suspicious. I called Bank of America to find out if the check was real, but was told I would have to present it in person. Since I was planning to visit New York in early August, I decided to bring it along and present it there.

But the next day I received an e-mail from one Jacob Clark telling me to send the money to Shu Ping Liang in Guangzhou, China. Clark also asked for my phone number "ASAP". The following day Clark e-mailed me again, this time writing, " My good friend, what the position? Have you sent our money? Please, I need an update ASAP."

I replied that I was going to verify that the check was good before sending money to anyone. I added, "I do not give out my home phone number, but if you want to talk to someone, feel free to call Mr Behr at 414-771-3040."
Milwaukee readers will recognize that as the number of the County Zoo, and I hope that Mr Clark called long-distance and asked to speak to Mr Behr.

It did not take long for the teller to determine that the check was bogus. She asked if she could send it to the Bank of America Security Department, since the Bank was trying to determine who was printing these bogus checks. Since the Bank of America has more resources to investigate this scam than I do, I let her keep the check.

I have not received any further communications from Jacob Clark. But I did get an e-mail yesterday from an African bank employee asking me to help him smuggle "11.5 million USD" into the US in exchange for a share of the loot, allegedly from an abandoned bank account that would otherwise be seized by his corrupt government.

I did not reply, and have not seen any of the 11.5 million USD.