From The Mickey Mouse State: San Francisco Considers Legal Protection for Criminals

Feuer Frei! · 07-25-11, 12:48 AM

A legislative proposal in San Francisco seeks to make ex-cons and felons a protected class, along with existing categories of residents like African-Americans, people with disabilities and pregnant women. If passed by city supervisors, landlords and employers would be prohibited from asking applicants about their criminal past.
Supporters say it's an effort to help former offenders get back on their feet, but critics call the concept a crime in itself.
"My mother is an immigrant, my mother-in-law is a Jew and I'm a gay man. Those are all protected categories, but you're going to put a felon in there as a protected category? That's not right," said Andrew Long, a board member of the San Francisco Apartment Association.
But ex-cons contend they're immediately disqualified by employers and landlords reluctant to trust anyone with a rap sheet.
"People don't want to hire felons," says Monique Love, who served time five years ago on a drug offense. Clean and sober now, she says boxes on application forms asking about criminal history unfairly discriminate against her. At one recent interview, Monique says she never got the chance to tell her story of recovery and rehabilitation.
"I didn't get a shot. Not a shot," she says. "As soon as he saw that box was checked, the boss was like, 'I'm sorry, we can't help you.'"
According to The City's Human Rights Commission, San Francisco has the highest recidivism rate of any big city in California, almost 80 percent. With an influx of new prisoners set to be released because of the state's budget crisis, supporters argue felons need legal protections before they're disqualified simply because of their record, which could be decades old and for crimes that have nothing to do with the job they're hoping to get.
Commission Director Teresa Sparks calls it a public safety issue.

"Without housing, it's hard to keep a steady job, and many times because of that, people recommit," Sparks said. She argues a criminal history shouldn't be the only reason someone is denied housing or work.
"All we're saying is get a chance to know them, see if they're qualified otherwise, before you use that as a criteria for taking them out," she said.
Hawaii, New York and Philadelphia have enacted similar policies to prevent blanket discrimination against felons in the private job market, and some cities in Illinois and Wisconsin have imposed such restrictions on rental property owners.
At a public hearing at San Francisco's City Hall this week, some landlords worried that if the policy passes here, they'll face a barrage of lawsuits from unscrupulous convicts.

"Some ex-cons will probably make this a business, going from apartment complex to apartment complex, getting denied for whatever reason, and then filing a nuisance lawsuit," Long said.
Sparks says rental property owners could turn away sex offenders and people who've committed some violent crimes, like murder. Employers could also reject job applicants if their crimes are "significantly related" to the position they are seeking, but they could only inquire about the applicants' criminal past at the end of the interview process.
That doesn't sit well with Gary Bauer, owner of Bauer's Intelligent Transportation, one of San Francisco's biggest transportation companies. He says he needs to know about an applicants criminal history right up front.
"We won't discriminate against anyone, but we need to know what we're looking at. What is their background? Is it grand auto theft? We're running transportation," Bauer said, adding, "Being in California, and in San Francisco, it gets tougher and tougher every year ... when they come down with these things."
Public hearings continue to formalize the legislation, with lawsuits sure to follow, if San Francisco gives legal protections to people who broke the law.

SOURCE

Betonov · 07-25-11, 12:55 AM

If it's only protection from people drilling into one's past, why not. How's a reformed convict going to get his life in order if he's constantly being reminded by others that he was a convict once. He/she did the time in prison.
But there's so much abuse potential here

Growler · 07-25-11, 11:02 AM

Like anything else, the few who genuinely deserve the chance will lose to the many who will abuse and exploit it.

Skybird · 07-25-11, 01:27 PM

If I were an employer owing a company that were my own, I would insist on my right to know whom I employ. I also reserve the right to refuse somebody for whatever reason I have on my mind - it is my company. I may be willing to give somebody a chance who was released from priuosn - but the decision to do so I demand to be mine, and mine exclusively. I also reserve the right to accept or refuse somebody on basis of another characteristic of his/hers. It is my company. My wage I pay them. My responsibility in every regard. Ifd the state wants me to employ the poieple he tells me to employ, then I suggest the state runs a state-owned economy and in those companies does what he wants.

In Germany, and EU-wide, they are preparing a variation of the Californian idea, that is that companies should accept anonymous candidates for assessment to employ them or not. No gender, no age, no nationality, no migration history shall be mad eknown to the emploeyer, he should only look on the claimed qualifications.

But in many types of work, espoeically wshere teamwork is needfed and team chemistry is an important factor, this is an incapacitation of the employer. It also means to reject an employer the choice whether or not he wants to support the EU-wide migration polices by accepting or refusing migrants as candiate - and this is the real direction this EU proposal is aimed at.

In Germany, according laws are under preparation.

If I were a company owner, to me the conseqeune would be clear. I would not grow and employ new people, thus would refuse to create jobs, or IU would remove my business to poutside the EU or even would shut down my business alltogether. I do not accept neither socialist 5-year-plan-economies like the EU seems to plan for all of Europe by isntalling a europe-wide economy govenrment that neutrlaises the autonomy of national states in their economic decisions, nor dictatorial incapacitation of this type that tries to force me to support policies of the EU that I reject, and refuse to support: on foreign migration, for example. To employ a migrant, to me would depend on two things, my personal imrpoession of the individual in question, and also on his cultural background and palce he came from. None of these critzerions would rule for or against anything in advanmce, but I insist on being left the freedom to reflect on both. If a state wants me to not care for whom I employ (and then cannot get rid of anymore due to our excessive social protection legislations), then all I can say: I sell my business, and you, dear ideological superstate, can run all economic business all by yourself - I'm out of here.

This all, California and Germany/EU, is just another example of ideologists' attitude: leave people the illusion to have the free choice to keep them calm and non-revolting , but if they do not chose the way you demand them to chose, then force them.

Spit.

It is also an open secret that excessive emplyoment protection laws prevent many jobs from being created in small family companies, because these small bhusinesses remain free and relatiovely independant as long as they do not have more than I think 9 or 10 employees. One more, and new legal obligations would partially incapacitate the runner of the business while nevertheless leaving him all the responsibilities, and would negate his ability to fire people again iof they do too much nonsense or do not fit into the team or the business runs bad and he canot afford to pay so many wages anymore. Often this is the case for small craftsman family businesses who try to treat their employees very fairly indeed - but they cannot afford to risk the ruin of all the company and all employess because they let one more employee in and thus fell under difefrent laws that prevent them to fire employees once business runs bad or the person in question misbehaves or is not trustworthy or whatever.

Stealhead · 07-25-11, 08:14 PM

I agree an employer has the right to know about a persons criminal past.I mean you have to tell an employer about your past(work history ans such) anyway why should an Ex-con be exempt on part of their past?Such a law is only going to make many employers less likely to hire anyone if they don't have to.Why take the risk if you can not legally request to know the persons past.

You know if you commit a crime and go to prison and you have a hard time getting a job when you get out too ****ing bad man you should have thought about the consequences of your actions and I guess the ex cons that truly do straighten out their lives well good things happen to be people who do the right thing so those people will find an employer who is willing to give the person a chance.

Also that law is 100% bull**** because companies get tax breaks(kick backs) for hiring ex-cons as it is already there are plenty of places that hire ex-cons ever been inside a restaurant or a 7/11?Those places hire them all the time that is a fine job to work for 4 or 5 years for an ex-con.(not to say that every employee is an ex-con or that they are necessarily no good)

I am sorry but it is just not right to give legal protection to a person who clearly showed that they at least at one point in time said:"**** the law."

07-25-11, 12:48 AM	#1
Feuer Frei! Navy Seal Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Valhalla Posts: 5,295 Downloads: 141 Uploads: 17	From The Mickey Mouse State: San Francisco Considers Legal Protection for Criminals A legislative proposal in San Francisco seeks to make ex-cons and felons a protected class, along with existing categories of residents like African-Americans, people with disabilities and pregnant women. If passed by city supervisors, landlords and employers would be prohibited from asking applicants about their criminal past. Supporters say it's an effort to help former offenders get back on their feet, but critics call the concept a crime in itself. "My mother is an immigrant, my mother-in-law is a Jew and I'm a gay man. Those are all protected categories, but you're going to put a felon in there as a protected category? That's not right," said Andrew Long, a board member of the San Francisco Apartment Association. But ex-cons contend they're immediately disqualified by employers and landlords reluctant to trust anyone with a rap sheet. "People don't want to hire felons," says Monique Love, who served time five years ago on a drug offense. Clean and sober now, she says boxes on application forms asking about criminal history unfairly discriminate against her. At one recent interview, Monique says she never got the chance to tell her story of recovery and rehabilitation. "I didn't get a shot. Not a shot," she says. "As soon as he saw that box was checked, the boss was like, 'I'm sorry, we can't help you.'" According to The City's Human Rights Commission, San Francisco has the highest recidivism rate of any big city in California, almost 80 percent. With an influx of new prisoners set to be released because of the state's budget crisis, supporters argue felons need legal protections before they're disqualified simply because of their record, which could be decades old and for crimes that have nothing to do with the job they're hoping to get. Commission Director Teresa Sparks calls it a public safety issue. "Without housing, it's hard to keep a steady job, and many times because of that, people recommit," Sparks said. She argues a criminal history shouldn't be the only reason someone is denied housing or work. "All we're saying is get a chance to know them, see if they're qualified otherwise, before you use that as a criteria for taking them out," she said. Hawaii, New York and Philadelphia have enacted similar policies to prevent blanket discrimination against felons in the private job market, and some cities in Illinois and Wisconsin have imposed such restrictions on rental property owners. At a public hearing at San Francisco's City Hall this week, some landlords worried that if the policy passes here, they'll face a barrage of lawsuits from unscrupulous convicts. "Some ex-cons will probably make this a business, going from apartment complex to apartment complex, getting denied for whatever reason, and then filing a nuisance lawsuit," Long said. Sparks says rental property owners could turn away sex offenders and people who've committed some violent crimes, like murder. Employers could also reject job applicants if their crimes are "significantly related" to the position they are seeking, but they could only inquire about the applicants' criminal past at the end of the interview process. That doesn't sit well with Gary Bauer, owner of Bauer's Intelligent Transportation, one of San Francisco's biggest transportation companies. He says he needs to know about an applicants criminal history right up front. "We won't discriminate against anyone, but we need to know what we're looking at. What is their background? Is it grand auto theft? We're running transportation," Bauer said, adding, "Being in California, and in San Francisco, it gets tougher and tougher every year ... when they come down with these things." Public hearings continue to formalize the legislation, with lawsuits sure to follow, if San Francisco gives legal protections to people who broke the law. SOURCE __________________ "History is the lies that the victors agree on"- Napoleon LINK TO MY SH 3 MODS

07-25-11, 11:02 AM	#3
Growler A long way from the sea Join Date: May 2005 Location: Iowa Posts: 1,913 Downloads: 21 Uploads: 0	Like anything else, the few who genuinely deserve the chance will lose to the many who will abuse and exploit it. __________________ At Fiddler’s Green, where seamen true When here they’ve done their duty The bowl of grog shall still renew And pledge to love and beauty.

07-25-11, 01:27 PM	#4
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,603 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	If I were an employer owing a company that were my own, I would insist on my right to know whom I employ. I also reserve the right to refuse somebody for whatever reason I have on my mind - it is my company. I may be willing to give somebody a chance who was released from priuosn - but the decision to do so I demand to be mine, and mine exclusively. I also reserve the right to accept or refuse somebody on basis of another characteristic of his/hers. It is my company. My wage I pay them. My responsibility in every regard. Ifd the state wants me to employ the poieple he tells me to employ, then I suggest the state runs a state-owned economy and in those companies does what he wants. In Germany, and EU-wide, they are preparing a variation of the Californian idea, that is that companies should accept anonymous candidates for assessment to employ them or not. No gender, no age, no nationality, no migration history shall be mad eknown to the emploeyer, he should only look on the claimed qualifications. But in many types of work, espoeically wshere teamwork is needfed and team chemistry is an important factor, this is an incapacitation of the employer. It also means to reject an employer the choice whether or not he wants to support the EU-wide migration polices by accepting or refusing migrants as candiate - and this is the real direction this EU proposal is aimed at. In Germany, according laws are under preparation. If I were a company owner, to me the conseqeune would be clear. I would not grow and employ new people, thus would refuse to create jobs, or IU would remove my business to poutside the EU or even would shut down my business alltogether. I do not accept neither socialist 5-year-plan-economies like the EU seems to plan for all of Europe by isntalling a europe-wide economy govenrment that neutrlaises the autonomy of national states in their economic decisions, nor dictatorial incapacitation of this type that tries to force me to support policies of the EU that I reject, and refuse to support: on foreign migration, for example. To employ a migrant, to me would depend on two things, my personal imrpoession of the individual in question, and also on his cultural background and palce he came from. None of these critzerions would rule for or against anything in advanmce, but I insist on being left the freedom to reflect on both. If a state wants me to not care for whom I employ (and then cannot get rid of anymore due to our excessive social protection legislations), then all I can say: I sell my business, and you, dear ideological superstate, can run all economic business all by yourself - I'm out of here. This all, California and Germany/EU, is just another example of ideologists' attitude: leave people the illusion to have the free choice to keep them calm and non-revolting , but if they do not chose the way you demand them to chose, then force them. Spit. It is also an open secret that excessive emplyoment protection laws prevent many jobs from being created in small family companies, because these small bhusinesses remain free and relatiovely independant as long as they do not have more than I think 9 or 10 employees. One more, and new legal obligations would partially incapacitate the runner of the business while nevertheless leaving him all the responsibilities, and would negate his ability to fire people again iof they do too much nonsense or do not fit into the team or the business runs bad and he canot afford to pay so many wages anymore. Often this is the case for small craftsman family businesses who try to treat their employees very fairly indeed - but they cannot afford to risk the ruin of all the company and all employess because they let one more employee in and thus fell under difefrent laws that prevent them to fire employees once business runs bad or the person in question misbehaves or is not trustworthy or whatever. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

07-25-11, 12:55 AM	#2
Betonov Navy Seal Join Date: May 2009 Location: Slovenia Posts: 8,647 Downloads: 26 Uploads: 0	If it's only protection from people drilling into one's past, why not. How's a reformed convict going to get his life in order if he's constantly being reminded by others that he was a convict once. He/she did the time in prison. But there's so much abuse potential here

07-25-11, 08:14 PM	#5
Stealhead Navy Seal Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Kentucky Posts: 5,421 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	I agree an employer has the right to know about a persons criminal past.I mean you have to tell an employer about your past(work history ans such) anyway why should an Ex-con be exempt on part of their past?Such a law is only going to make many employers less likely to hire anyone if they don't have to.Why take the risk if you can not legally request to know the persons past. You know if you commit a crime and go to prison and you have a hard time getting a job when you get out too **ing bad man you should have thought about the consequences of your actions and I guess the ex cons that truly do straighten out their lives well good things happen to be people who do the right thing so those people will find an employer who is willing to give the person a chance. Also that law is 100% bull because companies get tax breaks(kick backs) for hiring ex-cons as it is already there are plenty of places that hire ex-cons ever been inside a restaurant or a 7/11?Those places hire them all the time that is a fine job to work for 4 or 5 years for an ex-con.(not to say that every employee is an ex-con or that they are necessarily no good) I am sorry but it is just not right to give legal protection to a person who clearly showed that they at least at one point in time said:"** the law."