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.”
Right on.
Thanks for the warning.
Personally, I prefer to do my shopping in a felons-free environment.
The "flash mob" gang doesn't care.
Good luck to Target!
You are welcome. Target lost my business too.
How long until companies are required to hire child rapists for day care workers?
Quotas are coming.
And the section of the population with the highest criminal rate? You guessed it...
Laz, the article says the box was to be checked if the applicant had ever served time in prison. That’s definitely different than being asked if one had ever been arrested. I haven’t seen Target’s form myself. I’m just going by what the article said.
Regardless, I don’t see why business owners have to give up their private property and freedom of association rights as a price of doing business. I know why those rights were surrendered in the civil rights era in order to eliminate discrimination against blacks, but I think the government went too far.
It is one thing for the government to treat all citizens the same regardless of their skin color. That’s called equal treatment under the law, and it’s truly fair to all citizens (as opposed to the Democrat’s fairness, which picks winners and losers). It’s a completely different matter to force non-government, private entities to give up their rights in order to do business in the marketplace.
I should add that this area of the law is open to all sorts of malfeasance nowadays. It’s going to be used, for example, to force people to give up the freedom of religion by requiring them to do business with and even hire homosexuals. It won’t matter if you don’t want a flaming homosexual to represent your business. You will comply, or you’ll be driven from the marketplace.
It’s reaching the point of absurdity when I’m not even permitted to ask a job applicant if they’re a convicted felon. How that squares with the First Amendment, I don’t know, but we’re in bizarro world these days.
So what’s the price of doing business in the USA today? You must surrender private property rights, freedom of association, religious liberty, and even the right of free speech in the interest of fairness. Even worse, the left will never be and cannot be satisfied, because there’s always some new injustice somewhere.
I happen to agree with this decision. A person should not automatically be disqualified for a job because of a criminal conviction. The type of crime committed, the length of time that has passed, and whether it is relevent to the job all need to be considered along with experience, performance, etc. I do support doing background checks once a job candidate has been selected. This is the point at which a final decision can be made.
Who said anything about automatic disqualification?
A lot of companies will automatically disqualify candidates based on all kinds of criteria. Candidates are also selected based on word sets in resumes, etc. This used to be done by humans, now applications/resumes can be prescreened by computer programs. Having worked in HR for many years, the process isn’t as fair as some would like it to be.
It seems to me that this law is “unfair” to potential employers, their staffs and customers. I don’t care to do business with a company who may have unidentified convicted felons on its payroll, especially if they are in customer contact positions. On the other hand, a multi-year gap in somebody’s resume’ might raise some logical questions.....
If Target’s sales are weak, it’s because Wally World is perceived as undercutting them in prices. Their electronics and sporting goods lines are lousy, too, by the way. Nothing to do with whether or not they ask for arrests or convictions for their new hires.
It’s bad, but I agree with you 100%. A lot of their “lines” leave much to be desired. I don’t know who does their buying ...but they need to get in touch. There is a lot they do right. I think they have been infiltrated with the PC crowd ...and it’s not going to turn out well.
They may not be asking the question but most all companies do a background check and the criminal record will come up there.
They are not a French owned company.
Once a person has paid for their crimes they should get a reprieve for good behavior.
We have to design laws so that they give some credit for good behavior. Use expungement of a criminal record as an incentive for good behavior.
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.