[hmahncke]

"just tossing out all the ex-cons is an easy call" - it might be an easy call, but it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

[breckenedge]

Yea that’s what he says in the thread, it’s a negative example.

“Thinking about this while considering the challenges that @UnderdogDevs face in trying to help the previously incarcerated into software jobs.”

Here’s a link to the Underdog Devs organization: https://www.underdogdevs.org/

[hmahncke]

Thanks for pointing that out - great to see someone is working on this.

[throwaway9191aa]

It isn't that easy to do. Anyone advertising their ex-con status is sabotaging themselves. So what signal do they use for every inbound resume?

So the company can't just trash the resume. After the interview, if things are moving forward, the candidate can inform the hiring manager of the situation. But if the company doesn't do background checks, they don't ask so you don't tell.

[paulryanrogers]

> Anyone advertising their ex-con status is sabotaging themselves. ... But if the company doesn't do background checks, they don't ask so you don't tell.

Not telling could be a time bomb. Perhaps proactively informing companies from the start is a strategy to weed out tepid employers?

[kennywinker]

BG checks are pretty common in tech, in my limited experience.

[bitwize]

Given some of the shenanigans Carmack himself got up to back in the day (including B&E), I'm not sure he's saying it's the right thing to do, only an easy, commonly used and widely considered unobjectionable first-level filter.