[BlueGh0st]

How? I read so many felon success stories but I'm a non-violent felon and I can't even get an entry-level interview in IT. I'm multiskilled with a huge focus on security but despite the demand, I've had so much trouble.

In fact, in one very sad case, I showed up to my first day of work as a sys admin and was walked out after 2 hours because the HR department neglected to go over my application and see the felony checkbox until that day, despite having been hired over a month before!

[antoncohen]

Move to San Francisco. Employers aren't allowed ask about arrests or conviction on a job application. They aren't allowed to do background checks until they have offered you the job. They can only consider convictions directly related to the job. And if they reject you because of a background check, they must notify you, allow you to respond, and reconsider based on the response.

https://sfgov.org/olse/fair-chance-ordinance-fco

https://sfgov.org/olse/sites/default/files/FCO%20poster2020....

[theoneanon42]

Ha - I had a few similar experiences. Shortly after I was released, I went to a temp agency. From the get-go I told them I was a felon. No problem, they said. Within a week I'm placed at a greeting card manufacturing plant.

During lunch, I pop my head in the manager's office, and let them know how thankful I am for the position. I'm excited to have the opportunity. Manager never had someone do that before.

Later on that afternoon I got a called in to that manager's office. Change of plans, no need to come in again. I could collect my things (what things? First day.) and go.

Getting a gig in a security context is going to be hard. While most places can't openly not hire you due only to you being a felon, that's how it's going to be. It's not great, but that's how it is.

[rabite]

If you have real technical skills in regards to security know that you can generally sell memory corruption exploits completely anonymously, without any presentation of ID much less people asking if you're a felon or your spotty work history.

Most of the real earners in security are making proof of concept code for vulns, and a huge swath of them are felons. Zerodium has generally the best payouts if you don't want to bother networking and building a client list. They do not care about any previous felonies. They only care that your code works. They will pay hundreds of thousands to a million dollars for PoC in some stuff. If you can find two exploits in mid-tier stuff a year, you can earn a six figure living.

There's also the crypto economy.

Another big tip is to move where cost of living in extremely low (Eastern Europe, Cambodia, etc) to make your freelance money last longer while you look for good bugs. I'm a former felon -- my felony conviction was vacated but nobody really seemed to care after I left prison by flipping the false charges on appeal that I wasn't technically a felon anymore. There were no real job opportunities and I had to make my own.

[oopsiforgot7]

> security

That might be your problem. From what I heard it's a more sensitive role so they will take a stricter stance.

[Aeolun]

So? They may take a stricter stance, but I just fail to see how anything but extortion or treason really applies to working in security.

Hell, even if you committed a murder that doesn’t make you any more likely to steal company secrets.

[nhumrich]

Statistically, it does.

[thaumasiotes]

> Statistically, it does.

If that mattered, all of antidiscrimination law would be struck down.

[berdario]

IANAL (and law differs around the globe) but...

discrimination is prohibited towards protected categories. i.e. gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation... on top of it, most of those aren't things that you choose yourself.

With the possible exception of religion (you're born into a certain culture, so "by default" you might feel affiliated to a certain religion, so asking people to renounce that would definitely be oppressive), and veteran status (which is not a protected category around the world, I think... though it is in the US)

If you self-select into a segment of the population that no one is born into[1], yet it's lawfully discriminated against (i.e. felons ITT) I'm afraid that you don't have a good case to protect yourself from such discrimination.

[1] Unfortunately, systemic racism and the plea/prosecutors/bail system make it so that people in certain segments of the population are more likely than others to end up involved in crimes.

[afiori]

In my personal opinion anti-discrimination laws are not born out of precise definition of fair/unfair discrimination but on a value judgement that some particular classes of discriminations are disproportionate and are causing too much harm.

If there never was any racism there would be no need for laws forbidding discrimination on race, conversely if we where deeply elitist based on height there could exist laws about height discrimination.

With regards to felonies the two question I consider focal are:

1) what is the long-term plan for convicted criminals, and

2) how much extra-judicial/social punishment should we tolerate on non-public figures for non-public crimes.

[rendall]

Statistically, it does? You have a citation, then. Would you share it, please?

[Tepix]

Found this: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/once-a-criminal-always-a-crimin...

1% of 988 murderers were arrested for a new crime (yet not another murder). Is that higher than average? It sounds like it is.

[InitialLastName]

Let's be clear that being arrested for a new crime is different than being convicted of a new crime. Given that none of the murderers in that overview went back to prison, I'm inclined to think that their conviction rate is low.

Keep in mind also that being an ex-con in a community likely puts you at the top of the PD's suspect list for new crimes, and that reintegration with society is difficult, so imprisonment (regardless of crime) makes recidivism more likely.

[afiori]

Ironically if this is true probably part of the reason would be that too many people already believe it.

[doopy1]

Only if you work for fortune 500 or a company that has government clients. Lots of boutique security companies probably don't care if you are otherwise qualified.

[ManBlanket]

Don't check the felony checkbox. Seriously.

[Broken_Hippo]

At best, that can get you fired. Easily. And that makes it even more difficult to find another job in the future.

[fragmede]

More so than being a felon in the first place? Most places won't let felons get a foot in the door in the first place. Unless not-checking that box is a criminal offense, lying about your qualifications hasn't stopped some of the highest offices in the US being filled, so while it's easy to say "don't check the box", it's just as easy to say (and just as unrealistic, unless you have a time machine), to say "don't be a felon", to somebody that already has the conviction. Which is to say, it isn't really helpful.

More realistically, the (un)likelyhood of a felony conviction going unnoticed on a background check means that whether or not you check the box, if the employer does a background check it will become known, but some places don't run the check and some don't actually care about the results but they're required to run the check.

[ManBlanket]

So a low chances of being fired is better than a zero chance of being hired? If it isn't immediately pertinent to the applicant's ability to do the job, for example if a convicted sex offender were applying for a position as a child caretaker, and the offender has paid their due to society then the employer has no right to ask. Everything but that type of conflict of interest should be treated as personal information. It's the justice system's job to serve justice, not the responsibility of HR.

[nhumrich]

I almost wonder if this has to do with the fact that you specialize in security. Because of the gray line a lot tech security specialist walk, its the de facto standard to run a background check and turn down an employee for even a sneeze or low credit score. For one, passing a SOC2 audit becomes increasingly difficult if there any type of criminal record on any IT staff.

[econcon]

My suggestion:

1. Go to a big city where software folks are paid a lot

2. Apply for roles at startups or small companies who find it hard to compete with big companies paying a lot.

3. Profit

[amelius]

And live in an RV to save on housing costs.

[yreg]

In what situations do US employers/clients ask about criminal history? Can't you freelance or start as a contractor?

[poulsbohemian]

When I was in consulting, it was part of our regular contact language that we had verified backgrounds and that we wouldn't place a felon on site with a client. A surprising number of clients even outside banking, finance, government, etc made a point of enforcing this language, even conducting their own background checks.

Freelancing was the approach I saw some people do successfully, but there were lots of projects we couldn't put them on.

We even saw clients that refused anyone who had even a misdemeanor, at which point I discovered how many of our consultants had misdemeanor DUIs or arrests for various non-violent reasons.

[shadowprofile77]

This is just puritanical, judgemental idiocy at its most pointlessly discriminatory. Even for felony offenses it often veers into the same territory but flatly refusing to hire people for fucking misdemeanors with absolutely no relevance to most of the work involved? What a closed, almost hatefully punitive mentality some employers have. I can't put myself into another's shoes or context of needs, but if I ran a firm that subcontracted employees to other companies, who then refused to accept them for some half-assed DUI from years back, I hope I'd have the decency to fire that client instead.

[rimliu]

Generealizing: if a person is dishonest, do you think his inclination to act dishonestly depends on the work they do or on their personality?

[shadowprofile77]

That's a loaded and extremely variable question. Furthermore, it has little relevance to the main thing I criticized above: that misdemeanors are usually irrelevant to most work and rejecting people because of them is grossly, punitively biased. I say irrelevant because in the context of your question, the value of some random public disorderliness citation or DUI is next to useless for judging how inherently or professionally honest a person is, and even more absurd for measuring how likely they are to commit outright criminal offenses against an employer.

It's very easy to get slapped with a misdemeanor in the U.S and even many other countries, often for absurd, bullshit reasons that had more to do with the mood of the authorities in a given context than a person being at all an abnormal danger to society.

[poulsbohemian]

I don't really disagree with you - but try arguing that with every lawyer in every Fortune 1000 company.

[sumosudo]

Every Saint has a past. Every Sinner has a future.

[johnisgood]

Everyone has a past and a future, but what kind?

[ganoushoreilly]

Anyone doing work that could be state, federal, finance, healthcare, related to children, etc. Will always have background checks, with many industries requiring them. That said, there aren't rules that say you can't hire someone with a felony, it's more up to the company, the crime, the disposition of the case, and what they'll be doing.

There are always waivers so to speak. I've hired people that have had bad pasts, as long as they've shown they're on the right path. If we're not going to give people opportunities after they've completed what we as a society have deemed as recourse for their actions, what's the point in it all.

You may not be able to get a clearance or work in some finance positions, but there are ways.

[Cthulhu_]

Honestly they should not be allowed to; you got convicted, you did the time. In the US's stupid penal system, you have paid your debt to society; in others, you (should) have rehabilitated. That's it, you do the time, clean slate, move on.

The stigma with former felons is why there's a lot of repeat offense, why people stay stuck on the social ladder, and of course why the US' attempt at democracy is laughable.

[meddlepal]

Background check process will uncover it. If you're not upfront with it early in the process it will come up in background check and usually disqualify you.

Edit: background checks are standard practice for employees and contractors usually.

[unishark]

Why would contractors care, unless it's a high profile customer-facing thing like Uber?

I've done a lot of consulting and small contracts on the side and have never been aware of any background checking. I don't even think most have my SSN, just the info for my bank account. And I have a pretty common name. There's convicts even in my state with the same name I can find on search. Often there's not even a formal contract, just a handshake.

Also you can make money this way all over the world.

[saxonww]

Every job application I have ever filled out asked whether I had been convicted of a felony. All the way back to my first job bagging groceries.

[billh]

My last job application asked not only about felony conviction but also wanted to know if I've ever been arrested before.

[ccktlmazeltov]

that literally never happened to me

[antoncohen]

Have you ever filled out an actual job application in the US? I'm pretty sure every job application I've filled out until San Francisco passed the Fair Chance Ordinance has asked if I have any convictions, and some have asked about arrests (which is crazy). And every job I can remember has done a background check.

[ccktlmazeltov]

wait what's a "job application"?

[Tostino]

Every single job, since my first dish-washing, has asked this question. The forms HR gives me now when I need to hire ask it too even if I disagree with asking it.

[Broken_Hippo]

I've never seen a basic job application without it. Fast food asked. Half the places do a drug test as well, some of them (call centers and commericial foodservice) did drug tests, including random hair follicle tests.

You either haven't worked bottom-of-the-barrel jobs or lived in areas where this sort of thing wasn't allowed.

[smolder]

As opposed to figuratively...?

[BlueGh0st]

Unfortunately I have a very unique name and despite my crime being committed in 2013 my name wasn't publicized widely until 2017.

So I have no ability or desire to try to hide from my past, at this point. I'm just trying to own up to my mistakes and do better.

[nate_meurer]

Indeed, I don't know anyone else named BlueGh0st.

Have you thought about changing your legal name? It's a bit of a chore, but it might allow to permanently shed a lot of baggage if you change to a common name.

[Broken_Hippo]

You still have to list your previous names in many cases and pretty much every background check form asks: Married women who have changed their name must do this all the time.

[x0x0]

If you sell to larger customers, soc2 or other type audits require background checks.

For our business, larger customer MSAs often have requirements about criminal convictions.

We additionally require -- per soc2 as well as MSAs -- to background check our contractors.

As the twitter author said, it's a thing that I could potentially work around, but there's only so many hours in the day. And I would probably have to be able to permanently guarantee that eg an employee with a felony conviction never had access to certain data.

[astura]

Most companies (and every company I've ever worked for) do a background check on hire (the offer is contingent on passing the background check).

If you know you're not going to pass the background check then you're probably better off working at a startup.

[loeg]

It's standard practice for basically all employers.

[abrookewood]

hey, look at the post from TheLastMile down below. No idea if you are close enough, but the job sounds like it would suit your skills.

[throwaway_45]

Are you white? I think Race has a big part of if you make it or not especially if you have committed a felony.

[pbronez]

Interestingly, some well-intentioned “ban the box” policies backfired in terms of racial justice in hiring. These campaigns managed to outlaw the “are you a felon?” question on job applications in an attempt to make it easier for felons, many of whom belong to racial minorities, to get a fair shot at employment based on their skills. Unfortunately this caused employers to hire even fewer members of those minority groups. Apparently without the box, employers see minority hires as an unacceptable risk.

The world is a disappointing place sometimes.

[waterhouse]

If you forbid direct measurement of something, then people will use proxies, which is generally harmful to everyone involved.

If you want to minimize the extent to which people use demographics as a proxy for qualities they want to select for, then make it as cheap and reliable as possible to measure those qualities directly.

[tripzilch]

That only ends when you make it easier to figure out whether someone is going to actually harm your business in the future, rather than finding out whether they have ever been a felon.

[3np]

Smaller companies (5-20 employees) will most likely be a lot more understanding.

[5thaccount]

Have you tried doing freelancer stuff? When no one will give you a chance, giving yourself one is probably your best bet.

I have no idea how well that would work, but it seems like the only variable you can control.

[BlueGh0st]

I have been able to do just a handful of freelance-gigs outside of my desired field but between bad experiences (payment was 6 months late once) and life kicking me while I'm down, I've just been seeking some stability.

[poulsbohemian]

>(payment was 6 months late once)

This never gets enough visibility among freelancers / contractors / consultants - it can be really hard to get paid and for smaller amounts of money it often would take too much in legal fees to actually get paid.

[Aeolun]

Don’t work until payment is made? Offer a discount for early payment? Charge interest on late payments?

[poulsbohemian]

>Charge interest on late payments?

This is an important one, as is a clause in your contract that will force them to pay legal fees in the event you have to sue to get them to pay.

>Don’t work until payment is made?

I'm a fan of arrangements where clients pay something up front, then receive work, then pay the rest. No client in their right mind is going to pay the whole amount up front and frankly nor should they. But, if they pay 50% up front, you do work, and then they decide to stiff you for the final payment, you'd better have a good lawyer and a tight contract.

[fakedang]

You can't exactly not work until payment is made, simply because the field is too crowded. So in the starting of a project, you desperately go to a bidding war against the competition where you either compromise on your time or your money or something else of yours. Whether you get paid or not becomes a backseat priority. Offering a discount for early payment is one sort of those things, and let's be honest, most clients value the optionality of not paying at all over paying a discount. Charging an interest on late payments needs to be explicitly mentioned during the bidding process, and that will draw the client away in an already crowded field.