Hacker News Reader

Comment by BillinghamJ | Hacker News Reader

> Every company is enthusiastic to hire me. But at the background check phase they all retract their offer.

This kinda suggests you weren't honest, or at least up-front, about your conviction. If it gets to the background check phase and they don't already know, you're doing it wrong.

If an employer finds out about that from anyone but you, the answer is _definitely_ going to be no. If they find out from you directly, it's probably still a no, but not definitely.

> We've ran out of unemployment

Grammatical error - may seem like a small thing, but when you're appealing to people in this way, the small things matter a lot. Change to "We've run out of unemployment".

To be honest though, I'm not sure this part of the story is helping your case - it doesn't paint a positive picture, only inspires pity. Maybe I'm wrong about that though - just what I'd be thinking about.

View on HN

For the first 4 of the past 6 months, I've tried disclosing early (first or second phone call), half-way through, or near the job offer phase. Every single time, without fail, they email back (not even a phone call) with either a generic or very brief message retracting their offer or declining to proceed with the interview process. Smaller companies will simply stop returning my calls and emails, and completely cut off contact regardless of when I tell them. I only started waiting until the background check until I disclose for the past 2 months because I'm getting very nervous about not actually getting a job.

And when you told them when meeting in person? So after initial screening, but before final background check?

If a company will decline to hire you based on finding out, then there isn't really anything you can do - they will find out one way or another.

If you're being pragmatic about it, you might as well save your time and get rejected from these kinds of companies earlier on in the process, rather than get all the way to the end before having to move on.

The end result is the same.

If a company is rejecting you based on policy, yes. If it's a personal decision based on prejudice against felons (he can't possibly be competent and non-violent), the result is not the same, you have the chance to disprove those prejudices and sell yourself. Since such prejudice is rampant, it may be your best overall chance.

I believe that, aside from specialized fields like bank tellers or people working with children, access to conviction history should be severely restricted - the only point of such info is to facilitate discrimination.

In theory, the debt to society is repaid when the individual exits the penitentiary. In practice, the punishment continues on an ad-hoc, deregulated fashion from private individuals against the most vulnerable segment of the ex-felonry: those with meager material means and education, limited family support and in most desperate need to secure lawful employment. This extended and unequal punishment is a clear violation of the equality before law all citizens should enjoy, that should punish similar acts to the same degree.

Why do you make the distinction for bank tellers and people working with kids?

It could be argued that social consequences of recidivism are so great in some cases (ex. sexual offenses) that it's reasonable to prevent them at all costs, provided the freedom of ex-felons to choose a wide array of other occupations is not impacted significantly.

It would be a great progress from the current status quo, that basically denies them most jobs, even those where the higher than average recidivism risk of ex-felons is immaterial. I would see it as a practical political compromise.

When you apply for banking jobs, there is a question that asks if you were related in any financial-style crime. I think it's mandated by regulation, and the scope is limited to crimes having to do with the profession itself.

The amount of political capital required to undo that law and make criminal histories effectively private would probably be too much, so you do the political compromise and exempt some categories.

Anyone want to bet that future offers will be retracted for the same reason (felony conviction), despite the word in the URL/email address where the recruiter/headhunter/whoever found the contact info, and presumably knowing about it up front?

I beg to differ. Although I have no data or experience to suggest one way or another.

I can see how you would want to first be judged on the merit of your skills and then an employer might be willing to make a judgement call in your case, after they have judged your value.

As opposed to your resume being thrown out without even as much as a second thought if you are a convicted felon.

I have plenty of experience here, so I can comment.

I've never had a problem finding a gig even though I'm a felon, but I don't work with BigCorp because that's not my scene (and it's probably harder to market myself as a felon to anyway):

At the end of the initial phone call / screening, I tell them, transparently: "there's no way I can pass a background check by the way"

It has always been well received, even to recruiters and head hunters.

I also have experience with this.

I'd say the industry type and company size matter a great deal. Felons are legally barred from working at any FDIC insured company. So forget banking/finance. Also healthcare will also have stringent background checks. Giant corporations may have policies that immediately skip over you regardless.

I'm not sure how I've made it really. Luck mostly. I'm ten years removed from my arrest and it still comes back to haunt me.

The worst part for me has been finding a place to live. I've even offered to pay annually and up-front.

This is the best advice that I've read here. I can only upvote you once, but I think it would be amazing if OP could read this.

Danish person here.

How does it work? Will the background check reveal what crime was committed, or just that you are a felon? I could imagine knowing the specific crime could influence the final decision on hiring or not, no?

Arrests, prosecutions, and convictions are a matter of public record. So the specific offense and sentence will turn up in any criminal history background check, unless you are able to get your record sealed or expunged which I think only happens in cases where you were a minor offender and went through the juvenile system, or when a conviction is overturned on appeal or other extenuating circumstances that are fairly unusual.

For my company, as with many, we need to know about this stuff up-front. If we make an agreement on the basis of not knowing, then we later find out, there is absolutely no way whatsoever we will _ever_ hire you.

We are a finally regulated company though, so the requirements are perhaps a bit more strict.

If you explain all of this ahead of time - much like this website does - then we can take it into account and there won't be any surprises. For a serious offence, it's probably still going to be a no. For anything fraud or white-collar related, it's going to be a no. But for less serious offences not related to our business, I think we'd be reasonably comfortable.

Seems to me like he was trying that as a strategy at first, realized it was ineffective, and did a perfect 180 by publishing a website with the URL "reformedfelonforhire.com" on which he lists the details of his crime alongside his resume.

There's no good way and/or time to ask the question "Do you guys do background checks that would include my sex offenses?"

I'll go a step further and say the number of companies that will willingly hire someone with a felony sex offense involving minors is essentially 0. Especially when it happened 2 years ago in someone's late 20s/early 30s (guessing based on work experience).

Well shit.

Don't mean to kick you while your down. I figure honest feedback will be helpful.

Now that I've Googled your name and read the articles there's no way. You committed the same crime 4 years apart. The nature of your crime is relatively benign as far as sex offenses go. However, it's such a shocking departure from societal norms it makes me wonder what other inappropriate things you've done without getting caught. As a hiring manager, there's no way I would risk it.

This post was an excellent hail mary attempt and probably your best option for employment.

Your other realistic options are freelancing for people who won't do a background check or develop something you can sell.

Edit to add:

Again, not trying to be mean, but when your picture came up I said "Yep, that looks like a guy who'd expose himself to minors". Grow your hair out, ditch the goatee, find more mainstream outfit, and, most importantly, take the picture inside. In your photo you're squinting and furrowing your brow which makes you look a bit threatening.

Agreed (as a photographer) on the photo points. Ditch the all-black, and take it inside or shortly after sunset.

Good luck OP.

Thanks for the tips.

dude, much better pic!

Thanks, it's from a few months ago and we dug it up after your suggestions :)

"Again, not trying to be mean, but when your picture came up I said "Yep, that looks like a guy who'd expose himself to minors"."

You mean, after knowing about it? That's textbook confirmation bias. Would you have thought he looked like a felon before knowing about his criminal record?

More so now than in the past.

As much as I wish the guy all the best, this is a valid point. From an employer point of view, if I'd find out about conviction (of any kind) from the background check (and not during the hiring process), I'd feel cheated.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com