I do not have personal experience on the job seeker side, but I do know some (2) people who have managed to get government jobs with a record.
I suspect the nature of your offense would make it harder or impossible, but the public sector is a weird place- they often have very specific scoring criteria that they must follow for hiring decisions and if criminal record is not part of it they really will not consider it (at least that is my interpretation of what one of my friends said.)
I really appreciate your comment. Won't lie... was really sad to see only two people responded when I returned to this haha But, your comment was helpful. I never thought to look in the public sector. I just always assumed they would not hire someone with a criminal background but after reading your comment and researching it a bit, it isn't out of the realm of possibility... so I'm going to dive in and see if I get any bites.
Brings up the broader question of "are people with criminal records simply unhireable?"
Give people a second chance, a few of them screw up, and it's your fault for hiring anyone with a record. Don't give anyone a second chance, and having a criminal record becomes a ticket to lifelong unemployment.
There's a cycle here where once you have a conviction record, you're very unemployable. That didn't used to be the case in the US...back in the 80's and prior, only really big employers could do thorough background checks, more undocumented jobs/work, etc. It's also not the case in other countries where the government just gives employers a yes/no of a candidate/job pairing based on the offense. Chronic unemployment is underrated as a one of the underlying problems.
My experience of UK government and government contractor jobs is that they follow a recruitment standard where they are much more likely to check convictions. Many need some low level security clearance too which would be a problem.
On the other hand for more generic startup jobs in the UK, you might not even be asked about criminal history except "so what is this period on your CV", and they are much less likely to care as long as you tell a good story about why it won't happen again.
I'd lean towards smaller companies as far from government and finance as possible...
The problem with this is they ask you up front on your application for most jobs whether you have been convicted of a crime. If the answer is yes, generally your application is thrown in the trash. If you lie and they catch you, they have grounds to reject you.
There was a recent discussion[1] on Reddit, about how a guy with a criminal record could get a job and what-not. It was a somewhat different situation, but I expect some of the discussion there might be applicable here as well.
My own comment included the sentiment that having a criminal background doesn't mean you'll never get a job (even a good job), but that it definitely makes it harder, so you have to find ways to compensate for that. I mean, for at least certain classes of crimes, I'd hire someone with a criminal record, and I know there are other people out there who feel the same way.
Having a criminal record might not even get me a job. Gross misdemeanor and a felony both look bad on background checks at least trial I have a chance to beat it all.
The issue is risk. Hiring someone with a criminal record is riskier than hiring someone with a clean record. There is no upside to mitigate that risk either. So it shouldn't be surprising that hiring managers discriminate on anything they can legally get away with.
And if you want to not hire ex convicts, you simply ask for his criminal record. Is that not a possibility in the US?
Yes, it's possible to get criminal records in the US. Almost all major employers do so.
But is it right? I have mixed feelings. If the crime might reasonably impact the job, sure. White collar criminal probably shouldn't ever be CFO or CPA or whatever. But, if somebody got in a bar fight in college, is that grounds to never hire them? By policy, many companies will not hire somebody with ANY criminal record, no matter how serious or how old.
Obviously this depends on the job and what someone did that landed them in prison, but that shouldn't be an automatic dealbreaker. If they are applying for a job after being released from prison, then they're trying to reintegrate and should be given a fair shake.
If a criminal record is an insurmountable hurdle for a specific role, then it would come up in a background check (which would almost certainly be a requirement for such a job), and the job posting should be explicit about the required clean criminal history. A gap in someone's resume is a pretty worthless signal for whether they've ever been incarcerated.
I'm sure you've started figuring out the tricks to finding positions that are friendly to people with criminal backgrounds, but if you're checking for positions on places like LinkedIn, they have a flag for people posting jobs that shows they are open to candidates with criminal backgrounds. You'll see the postings show "People with a criminal record are encouraged to apply" which I think is placed on the job description if an employer selects the "Fair chance" flag.
So you could narrow your searches down using "Fair chance"
Others like Glassdoor just use "People with a criminal record are encouraged to apply"
Now, whether those employers really mean it, or if it's a legal requirement they check that box, I'm not sure.
Although, I cannot comment personally on what employment chances are after serving in prison, I can state with confidence that having a single, felony drug conviction [0] doesn't automatically result in a denial of employment all of the time.
The largest, single reason which I could see as an automatic rejection for chances of employment is the prior criminal history [1]. It's much easier to explain (and look past) a single offense, versus multiple offenses - especially if they're all in the same vein.
My most recent major job search a few years ago (Texas and Florida, ~8 years post-conviction) was basically 50/50, in terms of offers of employment after criminal history was disclosed. The irony is that the majority of potential employers who asked for details were the ones that sent the job offers.
I know that no two situations are exactly the same (I'll provide details if you want them), but hopefully this is proof that there is light at the end of the tunnel.
No that's false. Every single job I've ever applied to has asked about a criminal record.
There is, however, a "ban the box" movement in a plurality of states, banning employers from asking potential employees about a criminal record.
With the internet documenting all public information, however, it's normally trivial for an employer to do a little research and find the employee's record.
It certainly would influence my hiring decision. Not a show stopper, but certainly a minor negative. Probably the damage done by lost opportunities for experience would be worse than having a record, though. That even functions as an excuse of sorts--I suspect I'd actually like someone who was in prison for five years and got a degree over someone who lived off a trust fund for five years and did nothing.
All depends on the person, though, and what exactly I'm hiring for. And someone coming out of prison after 20 years? The fact that they committed a crime is long past, but it's hard to overstate how damaging decades in prison is. People have a really hard time adjusting, and any hire of someone like that I did would be out of charity, not out of expecting to get any value out of the person. If they manage to do well, I'd take that as an unexpected plus.
I don't disagree, but I am skeptical that they received the same chance as someone without a criminal record. Whether intentional or not there is probably some bias in the hiring process when you know they committed a felony or whatever it may be.
These laws exist. You’re not allowed to discriminate based on criminal or arrest record unless it’s relevant to the job (e.g. someone applying to be a delivery driver with 3 DUIs).
The problem is that between two equally qualified candidates, if one has a record and the other is clean, it can be pretty easy to justify just throwing the first one out. And pretty hard to prove that that’s why you were rejected.
I suspect the nature of your offense would make it harder or impossible, but the public sector is a weird place- they often have very specific scoring criteria that they must follow for hiring decisions and if criminal record is not part of it they really will not consider it (at least that is my interpretation of what one of my friends said.)
reply