Comments

1
First of all one should proof one's blog entries before publishing -- its council member BAGSHAW I counted at least two "Bashaws", and its an amendment she PROPOSED not "opposed"...

That being said -- this is yet another way for Seattle to drive employers out of the city. If I'm employing someone I have the right to choose who I hire, and being a convicted felon is not, nor should it be a protected class. I've hired convicts and I've rejected convicts, but it's my business and I get to make that decision, not the city of Seattle.
2
Cienna wrote, "But Bagshaw's amendment struck through `Will have' and replaced it with `May have' in both clauses. This may seem like a slight change but it has larger legal ramifications, as numerous civil rights and legal organizations testified today."

It would only seem like a slight change to someone who isn't paying attention or doesn't understand English.

It's highly unlikely for them to do so, but pigs may fly. Basing a policy on whether pigs may fly is quite different than basing one on whether they will fly.
4
I see it less as a protected class issue and more of a recidivism issue. The latter argument is much easier to make than the former.
5
In this "Christian Nation" we must always remember the words of Jesus "A man shall be punished by society for any misdeed for the rest of his life on earth. Forgiveness is the sign of Satan"

Not sure where that is at in the Bible but I'm sure a troll will point it out
6
Sorry, but I'm not buying. How can anyone prove that a criminal record "will have a negative impact"? Who can predict the future? Refuse to hire a convicted embezzler and you get the HRC breathing down your neck because you can't prove what will happen in the future. I applaud the sentiment, but this legislation is straight out of la-la land. Lets have some reporting on how many ex-cons the Stranger has working late at night.
7
@3: Comparison to race and gender is bullshit, as well as completely offensive. If you can't figure out the difference between immutable characteristics and criminal activity, then it's no wonder you've (obviously) never been put in a position of authority to hire anyone. Prospective employers aren't asking anyone to "pay their debt," They just see a criminal background as valid evidence of whether someone would do a good job, which usually entails following rules, not breaking laws. You might as well say that high school dropouts are at risk for homelessness, so employers shouldn't "discriminate" on the basis of education. This whole thing is frankly crazy. I expect overriding legislation from Olympia in 5, 4, 3 . . .
8
And Cienna, I find your smug dismissal of Councilmember Bagshaw's work on a re-entry coalition repulsive. What the fuck have you ever done for ex-cons?
9
@7, the comparison was to the necessity to follow laws, not to who individuals are/what they've done. Laws. You know, what we elect our representatives to enact, whether city, county, state, or federal. As far as Olympia, I think they're busy (or should be) with a budget.
10
I agree with @1 because our unemployment rate of 4.6 percent clearly shows that no employer wants to work in Seattle.

Wait.

Um.

Never mind.
11
@1--Okay, how do you feel about sex? I can easily imagine you asking for a list of sexual partners. After all, it's your business, huh?
12
@8, What the fuck have *you* done, on that same note?
13
@11: Holy shit, did you just draw a comparison between having sex and committing a felony?
14
Whenever anything happens in Seattle (or Washington State, for that matter) that someone disagrees with, we always hear the same old OMG THIS WILL MAKE ALL THE EMPLOYERS/RICH PEOPLE LEAVE!!!!!

It never happens (although I kind of wish it would - at least the rich people. And they can take all their wannabes with them. This town was a lot more fun before all the rich people arrived.)
15
As a person who employs well over 100 people, I support this law. There is no question that so many employers use background checks and deny jobs to people based on any excuse they can find, that it can be very difficult for someone coming out of jail to find a job. And if someone can't work, they are probably more likely to end up on the street, and eventually commit more crimes. Or at the very least be a deterrent to business activity in the downtown core and end up being another person reliant on our housing and social service system that can't get our of that system.

If businesses in Seattle want to see an improvement in the atmosphere in the downtown core, steps like this are needed. At the same time, we need to reform the social service/ housing funding and operations, but that is coming.

Since our arrests and prosecutions are also racially biased, this law should also help increase the minority workforce.

The argument we are driving businesses out of Seattle is complex. At some point, yes, it will be difficult to open and operate new small businesses in Seattle if there are too many laws making business difficult. However, I don't see this law creating a huge burden on business. And I hire people weekly. I have yet to do a criminal background check. In fact, we have even taken advantage of federal tax credits for hiring felons (which many small businesses don't know about but should).
16
I'm usually a right-wing nut, but this law makes total sense.

First, if you're relying on job applicants to check a box stating they've been convicted of a felony, which applicant is more likely to cause trouble: the one who honestly checks 'yes' or the one who dishonestly checks 'no'? You're essentially weeding out the cohort of honest ex-convicts and letting in the liars and sociopaths.

Then there's the provision that (from KOMO): "[the law] would only allow employers to ask for criminal background checks after evaluating and identifying several qualified candidates. Similar laws are on the books in five other states."

Who's going to be conducting background checks on the first pass? Waste of time and money.

So by eliminating the check box, you're actually getting to know the candidate before including their criminal record in the evaluation, which seems absolutely fair. I don't see how this adds any onerous regulation at all to the hiring process.
17
What a waste of paper it would be if Bagshaw's amendment went through. More harmful than nothing at all, since it gives the appearance of progressive legislation without the reality.
18
@12: I read to prisoners each Friday afternoon. You?

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.