Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am trying to understand, for a business that works with kids (after care, Adventure Theatre, Little Gym, even at a Bounce U or Pump it Up), or handles finances (bank, cashier, wealth advisor), and I am sure there are others - those just spring to mind, I don't want a criminal in any of those positions. What is the point in wasting my time interviewing someone I will never hire?

I, as a parent, am very concerned about this.

Even with ban the box, there are still background checks, especially for jobs dealing with kids. Seriously folks?

+1 Unless the law bans background checks I'm not sure what the concern is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am trying to understand, for a business that works with kids (after care, Adventure Theatre, Little Gym, even at a Bounce U or Pump it Up), or handles finances (bank, cashier, wealth advisor), and I am sure there are others - those just spring to mind, I don't want a criminal in any of those positions. What is the point in wasting my time interviewing someone I will never hire?

I, as a parent, am very concerned about this.

Even with ban the box, there are still background checks, especially for jobs dealing with kids. Seriously folks?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am trying to understand, for a business that works with kids (after care, Adventure Theatre, Little Gym, even at a Bounce U or Pump it Up), or handles finances (bank, cashier, wealth advisor), and I am sure there are others - those just spring to mind, I don't want a criminal in any of those positions. What is the point in wasting my time interviewing someone I will never hire?

I, as a parent, am very concerned about this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am trying to understand, for a business that works with kids (after care, Adventure Theatre, Little Gym, even at a Bounce U or Pump it Up), or handles finances (bank, cashier, wealth advisor), and I am sure there are others - those just spring to mind, I don't want a criminal in any of those positions. What is the point in wasting my time interviewing someone I will never hire?

OP here. First of all, it's already law for businesses with more than 15 employees, so all those businesses already do this. This amendment expands the criminal conviction question ban to businesses under 15 empoyees.

It is meant to give individuals with a criminal background a fair shot at employment. And I wouldn't characterize a person as a "criminal" because they've had a prior record. People, especially those under 25, do stupid things, but that doesn't mean they always continue to do stupid things. If they've paid their debt to society, they should be judged on the totality of their circumstances, not just checking a box showing they have a criminal record.

However, apparently some employers are just skipping over individuals they think "might" have a criminal record. Rather than go through the interview process like you state. And that could end up hurting applicants of color since many white people assume black people have records.

This is not based on data, just my own feeling as a former small business owner, that expanding this bill to include very small businesses will actually be harmful. I think small businesses are actually more likely to give an applicant a shot at a job despite criminal records. It's on a more personal level. Which is why I'd like the Council to put its money where its mouth is and do the racial equity analyses they keep talking about. But never do.

This bill seems well-intentioned, but without data, seems largely based on emotion. Show me how this will specifically help applicants of color in Montgomery County. What has happened to minority employment rates since the original Ban the Box law was passed? Is that data controlled for fluctuations in the economy? Are there studies where this law applies to other very-small businesses? What has happened there?

It's to their advantage to do this type of study, because it may actually alleviate some business owners' concerns about the potential overreach.

There are actually studies on this. There is a study by Peter Blair “Job market signaling through occupational licensing” that shows that black men benefit from licenses that signal non-felony status. This study was done by looking at hiring in states who implemented “ban the box” policies compared with those that did not. In states with ban the box policies employers seemed to assume that black men were felons, and they were disproportionately discriminated against.

I don’t know how MoCo could “do” a study on this, but they could commission a study by a well-respected scholar to study the probable impacts.

Their Office of Legislative Oversight could do it. Or the new Racial Equity Office. That's why it exists, right?

They could do it if they are staffed by PhDs with relevant backgrounds. This is PP here — frankly the number of people who have the right expertise is fairly small. I’m also not sure if the data even exists to do this analysis. At least that part could be done by a non-PhD who knows about datasets relevant to this area.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am trying to understand, for a business that works with kids (after care, Adventure Theatre, Little Gym, even at a Bounce U or Pump it Up), or handles finances (bank, cashier, wealth advisor), and I am sure there are others - those just spring to mind, I don't want a criminal in any of those positions. What is the point in wasting my time interviewing someone I will never hire?

OP here. First of all, it's already law for businesses with more than 15 employees, so all those businesses already do this. This amendment expands the criminal conviction question ban to businesses under 15 empoyees.

It is meant to give individuals with a criminal background a fair shot at employment. And I wouldn't characterize a person as a "criminal" because they've had a prior record. People, especially those under 25, do stupid things, but that doesn't mean they always continue to do stupid things. If they've paid their debt to society, they should be judged on the totality of their circumstances, not just checking a box showing they have a criminal record.

However, apparently some employers are just skipping over individuals they think "might" have a criminal record. Rather than go through the interview process like you state. And that could end up hurting applicants of color since many white people assume black people have records.

This is not based on data, just my own feeling as a former small business owner, that expanding this bill to include very small businesses will actually be harmful. I think small businesses are actually more likely to give an applicant a shot at a job despite criminal records. It's on a more personal level. Which is why I'd like the Council to put its money where its mouth is and do the racial equity analyses they keep talking about. But never do.

This bill seems well-intentioned, but without data, seems largely based on emotion. Show me how this will specifically help applicants of color in Montgomery County. What has happened to minority employment rates since the original Ban the Box law was passed? Is that data controlled for fluctuations in the economy? Are there studies where this law applies to other very-small businesses? What has happened there?

It's to their advantage to do this type of study, because it may actually alleviate some business owners' concerns about the potential overreach.

There are actually studies on this. There is a study by Peter Blair “Job market signaling through occupational licensing” that shows that black men benefit from licenses that signal non-felony status. This study was done by looking at hiring in states who implemented “ban the box” policies compared with those that did not. In states with ban the box policies employers seemed to assume that black men were felons, and they were disproportionately discriminated against.

I don’t know how MoCo could “do” a study on this, but they could commission a study by a well-respected scholar to study the probable impacts.

Their Office of Legislative Oversight could do it. Or the new Racial Equity Office. That's why it exists, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am trying to understand, for a business that works with kids (after care, Adventure Theatre, Little Gym, even at a Bounce U or Pump it Up), or handles finances (bank, cashier, wealth advisor), and I am sure there are others - those just spring to mind, I don't want a criminal in any of those positions. What is the point in wasting my time interviewing someone I will never hire?

OP here. First of all, it's already law for businesses with more than 15 employees, so all those businesses already do this. This amendment expands the criminal conviction question ban to businesses under 15 empoyees.

It is meant to give individuals with a criminal background a fair shot at employment. And I wouldn't characterize a person as a "criminal" because they've had a prior record. People, especially those under 25, do stupid things, but that doesn't mean they always continue to do stupid things. If they've paid their debt to society, they should be judged on the totality of their circumstances, not just checking a box showing they have a criminal record.

However, apparently some employers are just skipping over individuals they think "might" have a criminal record. Rather than go through the interview process like you state. And that could end up hurting applicants of color since many white people assume black people have records.

This is not based on data, just my own feeling as a former small business owner, that expanding this bill to include very small businesses will actually be harmful. I think small businesses are actually more likely to give an applicant a shot at a job despite criminal records. It's on a more personal level. Which is why I'd like the Council to put its money where its mouth is and do the racial equity analyses they keep talking about. But never do.

This bill seems well-intentioned, but without data, seems largely based on emotion. Show me how this will specifically help applicants of color in Montgomery County. What has happened to minority employment rates since the original Ban the Box law was passed? Is that data controlled for fluctuations in the economy? Are there studies where this law applies to other very-small businesses? What has happened there?

It's to their advantage to do this type of study, because it may actually alleviate some business owners' concerns about the potential overreach.

There are actually studies on this. There is a study by Peter Blair “Job market signaling through occupational licensing” that shows that black men benefit from licenses that signal non-felony status. This study was done by looking at hiring in states who implemented “ban the box” policies compared with those that did not. In states with ban the box policies employers seemed to assume that black men were felons, and they were disproportionately discriminated against.

I don’t know how MoCo could “do” a study on this, but they could commission a study by a well-respected scholar to study the probable impacts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am trying to understand, for a business that works with kids (after care, Adventure Theatre, Little Gym, even at a Bounce U or Pump it Up), or handles finances (bank, cashier, wealth advisor), and I am sure there are others - those just spring to mind, I don't want a criminal in any of those positions. What is the point in wasting my time interviewing someone I will never hire?

OP here. First of all, it's already law for businesses with more than 15 employees, so all those businesses already do this. This amendment expands the criminal conviction question ban to businesses under 15 empoyees.

It is meant to give individuals with a criminal background a fair shot at employment. And I wouldn't characterize a person as a "criminal" because they've had a prior record. People, especially those under 25, do stupid things, but that doesn't mean they always continue to do stupid things. If they've paid their debt to society, they should be judged on the totality of their circumstances, not just checking a box showing they have a criminal record.

However, apparently some employers are just skipping over individuals they think "might" have a criminal record. Rather than go through the interview process like you state. And that could end up hurting applicants of color since many white people assume black people have records.

This is not based on data, just my own feeling as a former small business owner, that expanding this bill to include very small businesses will actually be harmful. I think small businesses are actually more likely to give an applicant a shot at a job despite criminal records. It's on a more personal level. Which is why I'd like the Council to put its money where its mouth is and do the racial equity analyses they keep talking about. But never do.

This bill seems well-intentioned, but without data, seems largely based on emotion. Show me how this will specifically help applicants of color in Montgomery County. What has happened to minority employment rates since the original Ban the Box law was passed? Is that data controlled for fluctuations in the economy? Are there studies where this law applies to other very-small businesses? What has happened there?

It's to their advantage to do this type of study, because it may actually alleviate some business owners' concerns about the potential overreach.

Anonymous wrote:Am trying to understand, for a business that works with kids (after care, Adventure Theatre, Little Gym, even at a Bounce U or Pump it Up), or handles finances (bank, cashier, wealth advisor), and I am sure there are others - those just spring to mind, I don't want a criminal in any of those positions. What is the point in wasting my time interviewing someone I will never hire?

Anonymous wrote:Am trying to understand, for a business that works with kids (after care, Adventure Theatre, Little Gym, even at a Bounce U or Pump it Up), or handles finances (bank, cashier, wealth advisor), and I am sure there are others - those just spring to mind, I don't want a criminal in any of those positions. What is the point in wasting my time interviewing someone I will never hire?

Anonymous wrote:Council member Jawando has put forth an amendment to the county’s ban the box law that forbids employers from asking about criminal records until after they interview the candidate for a job.

His amendment extends it to small businesses with fewer than 15 employees.

This is a concept that’s well-intended. But there is no real data to support effectiveness; and some studies that show actual harm to job candidates of color.

Since the county is doing racial equity impact analyses of bills and budgets, this should get an analysis to see if it’s truly effective in montgomery county, or whether it disproportionately hurts prospective job candidates of color. Make them put their data where their mouth is. Please write in to demand a racial equity impact analysis.

County.council@montgomerycountymd.gov
Marc.elrich@montgomerycountymd.gov
Tiffany.ward@montgomerycountymd.gov