[michaelochurch]

If you hide it you risk being discharged a month, a year, or five years from now when your employer finds out

Long-term job security no longer exists. When you take a job, you are always at risk that it ends. For sure, this risk is real. He might get fired for hiding that detail. On the other hand, that likely means he wouldn't have gotten the job in the first place. Which is worse: getting a job for a couple years, building up savings, and then getting fired... or not getting any jobs and being long-term unemployed?

There are no easy answers here. We're comparing bads here. There are risks either way.

and then they aren't referenceable.

At 1 month, you just omit it.

At a year or 5 years, there are two cases. One is where the boss likes you but has (or feels he has) no choice. He probably didn't find you out or make the decision and he may want to help you out. You can discuss the reference issue and he'll probably be your ally.

If he's genuinely mad and won't give a good reference, then make him retreat to name and dates. Have lawyers on it if needed.

In the very-rare case that you need an affirmative good reference (default name-and-dates won't be enough) and he won't give it, then you have to go to extortion. That's an uncommon and ugly topic that I don't want to get into, but at 1-5 years, you have enough important knowledge to make that happen, unless he really hates you.

[acjohnson55]

Extortion? You're just full of great advice, now aren't you?

Lying on your application and extorting people risks torching an already damaged reputation, not to mention potentially huge civil and even criminal liabilities.

To the OP, I recommend ditching the Machiavellian stuff. The best bet in my opinion is to network and contribute to projects where possible (such as through OSS, freelance, etc.). If people actually know you and your story and you have a track record with them, the chances of them putting enough trust in you are much greater. I don't think you should leave the CS world. You're going to find the same issues in any line of work, so you might as well stay in the field where your skills lie.

[michaelochurch]

We're talking about what to do in rare but extremely bad situations where there are literally no good avenues... not what people should do in normal circumstances.

"Extortion" was too strong a word. I meant it in the sense of "aggressive negotiation". Demanding a positive reference not to blow something humiliating is not extortion. If you demand money not to blow something, you're breaking the law, because there's no connection between the payoff and the threat (exposure). However, with a reference, it's "we're going to part ways, but it's best for both of us that we tell the same story, so let's get straight about what just happened". That's how you present it. Not really extortion.

Your advice to OP has a lot of value and on the whole I agree with what you are telling him to do. OSS contributions are a really good idea for him.

However, I still contend that an "odds and evens" mixed strategy will perform better than full disclosure.

[tptacek]

Demanding, using "strong negotiation", a positive reference from somebody to whom you lied about your criminal status seems like a good way to get a billboard erected with your face and a URL to your LinkedIn profile on 101.

This isn't the first HN comment you've left where you suggested playing hardball to get positive references from employers. You have an idiosyncratic view of the dynamics of employee references. I find it disquieting, but that obviously doesn't make it intrinsically wrong. I do feel safe saying that it is out of step with the way most employers view the same dynamics.

(https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5007550 - "For me, it's really about references. I don't need a severance, but if you don't agree on a good reference I will do everything in my power to fuck up your reputation.")

[michaelochurch]

If there's no severance, then I'd expect a solid-gold reference, yes. With appropriate severance, the neutral name-and-dates is fine.

A bad reference is an existential battle. You do everything you can to fight that. However, pushing neutral to good is generally a waste of time. Dust yourself off, get clean, and move on.

[tptacek]

I am no kind of authority, so please don't take this comment any further than the actual words in the comment box. In particular, I have never worked with you, or anyone who has worked with you; I don't even know what you do (I'm sure it's something interesting and challenging). You're an abstraction to me. I cannot possibly have any opinion about the advisability of employing you and am only sharing my opinion about the ideas you are expressing.

What I have to say about your perspective on references is that I will never, under any circumstances, work with, for, or over someone who believes what I think you're saying you believe about references. "Bad reference => war", to me, is essentially an endorsement of professional dishonesty.

Negotiating over the quality of your reference is to me a bit squicky, but it's on the right side of the line, just a couple steps past coaching your references (which is also white-lie dishonest]). Using aggressive negotiation tactics to ensure good references from people who don't believe your work merits a good reference is on the wrong side of the line. You think it's a concession you're extracting from your former employer, but it is really a concession you are surreptitiously taking from your future employer.

[michaelochurch]

"Bad reference => war", to me, is essentially an endorsement of professional dishonesty.

This whole subthread is about 3-sigma outlier cases that (may) require dishonesty.

I am not ashamed to say that, in a 3-sigma bad situation, I would rather lie (especially, being an immensely capable person who would be a good hire, which means the lied-to party would benefit) than starve.

Honestly is a luxury of the 99% of us (including you and me) who aren't "cosmetically challenged" in some severe, career-damaging way.

[tptacek]

You seem to be working under the delusion that the worst thing that can happen if you lie to your employer is that you might lose your job. No.

[oijaf888]

In some high profile cases, people haven't even lost their jobs (e.g. http://readwrite.com/2012/05/03/10-executives-who-lied-on-th...) and the damage was limited to their reputation and bonuses. I'm surprised there weren't more shareholder lawsuits or similar in the case of CEOs. Obviously if your employer is a government lying can result in jail time but other than that it seems the worst that happens is you get fired or lose your bonus. What else have you seen?

[phaus]

I can't believe that Warren Cook didn't make the list. His story is far more outlandish than any of these. He was one of the highest paid employees at the company my father worked at, the Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor, ME.

He claimed to have a Master's degree from a prestigious university, that he was awarded the Navy Cross(1 step below the Medal of Honor) and that he played for the 1968 U.S. Olympic hockey team. No one fact checked a single qualification that he listed on his resume, they just hired him.

The sad part is, after they discovered that he was a fraud, they still wanted him to stick around. From what I hear, he did a pretty good job.

http://archive.bangordailynews.com/2003/09/30/jackson-lab-of...

[michaelochurch]

For reasons of self-interest, most employers are not going to fuck with their exes' reputations after parting ways.

There are exceptions-- sometimes you have to hire legal professionals and very occasionally one might have to hire illegal professionals to make someone do the right thing-- but those are way outside of the norm.

If he does good work and still gets fired, it's probably by a boss who had little choice in the decision and doesn't want to fuck him over, not someone who's going to be vengeful and make a bigger mess than what already exists.

[tptacek]

You seem very certain about this. I don't know if I'm as certain as you are about this issue, but my thoughts about this issue have opposite valence.

[michaelochurch]

Unfortunately, we're talking about situations of depravity over which there are practical and ethical reasons why data collection is not possible. One falls into them very rarely, and hopefully never.

I've never done most of this extremely chaotic shit that I endorse, but I think it's important to have the ethical conversations to shine some light on to things that actually go on.

Societies like to see themselves as existential struggles between lawful good and chaotic evil, but neither of those are major players. (Lawful good is too restrained; chaotic evil is too maladjusted to have a chance unless the world's already fucked.) The real battle is between chaotic good and lawful evil. So excuse my chaos. :)

[tptacek]

Then add to the problems I have with the very bad advice you're giving on this thread that this is a game or an intellectual exercise for you, and a lasting painful career-threatening injury to anyone who takes that advice.

Don't deliberately lie to employers who ask about your criminal record. The only ones who won't go absolutely apeshit on you when they find out are the ones who would hire you anyways if you just told them in the first place.

Like you, I have a lot of sympathy for people stuck with criminal convictions. We agree there. We'd both like to find advice to help people get excellent jobs despite stupid criminal convictions. My problem with your advice isn't with its intentions, but rather that I'm pretty sure it's dumb.

[michaelochurch]

Don't deliberately lie to employers who ask about your criminal record. The only ones who won't go absolutely apeshit on you when they find out are the ones who would hire you anyways if you just told them in the first place.

What does "go absolutely apeshit" mean? I contend that there's risk of termination, likely without severance. Anything more would expose the individual in a way that most people would avoid.

Also, "employer" isn't a monolithic concept. The players all have different motivations. Maybe HR dings everyone with a conviction. He hides it, gets through the HR wall. His boss likes him. He gets in, does great work for 9 months. Then HR finds out. His boss has to fire him. His boss isn't mad at him (maybe at the situation, but not at him). In that very plausible scenario, yes he's fired, but he gets a decent reference.

If it's between the risk of getting fired later and not being able to get a job at all, then you take the former.

I proposed "odds and evens" because I don't think either of us know which is the better strategy (lie vs. disclose) and I think mixing is the way to go.

[0x00_]

Bravo. +1

[rms]

Criminal prosecution for fraud? Does that really happen with any regularity? I think by far the most common consequence of being caught lying about a felony is firing with cause.

[tptacek]

I'm not a lawyer but I think a fraud prosecution is very unlikely. However, there are a bunch of torts involved.

The real consequence I'm referring to here though is a firing for cause. Real for-cause firings are rare in our business, so I think we tend to forget that they are a big deal.

[michaelochurch]

The major consequence of "termination for cause" is that you don't get severance, and the company will probably fight unemployment claims.

I grant you that if he gets fired over this, he shouldn't expect a package. His life is already in a state of fucked-up-ness that is beyond worrying about that he might get fired without severance. He needs to get a job, first and foremost. Severance is almost a Maserati problem, where he is.

Right now, severance is nice to have but not a huge deal. Fifteen years from now when he's getting large (~1 year) contractual severances due to being in highly strategic roles-- he can be cut for reasons that aren't his fault, and job searches take years at his level-- he will want to start coming clean about the felony. By that time, he'll have a track record and can come clean because no one will care about a 15-20+ year old felony conviction.

[tptacek]

You are providing what I believe to be --- pragmatically --- terrible advice in this thread. It is not impossible to find employment in tech with a felony conviction; in fact, by all outward appearances, the opposite is true; people with CFAA convictions are employed at a rate higher than that of the overall population; they are, as a general rule, employed.

What you're saying is that you think the job market is so inhospitable to people with criminal convictions that they should endanger their career to weasel their way into jobs. We could debate how unwise that advice was if you were right about the employment market. But you're wrong about the employment market, which makes the risk/reward on what you're suggesting so far out of whack that your suggestion isn't worth entertaining.

I don't have strong opinions about what you do with a prospective employer who at no point asks you about your criminal record. But if you're asked about it, you're crazy if you lie.

Again, let me (tediously) repeat that I don't know you personally; you happen to spend a decent number of words on HN articulating ideas that I find worth disputing, but on the street I wouldn't know you from Adam and I have no issue with you personally.

[michaelochurch]

It is not impossible to find employment in tech with a felony conviction; in fact, by all outward appearances, the opposite is true; people with CFAA convictions are employed at a rate higher than that of the overall population; they are, as a general rule, employed.

This may be. That's why I suggested the "odds and evens" (full disclosure with half, full omission with half) strategy. Not only is it hedged but it will also give him data-- which we don't have.

It's obviously better if he can disclose and still get a job. Then he has nothing to worry about.

To be honest, I feel like we're both suburban kids arguing about inner-city gang life. :) We both think we're tough, and we both are tougher than most people in our neighborhood, but we haven't actually been in the slums. We don't have the data. I guess that's a good thing, given the nature of what we're arguing about.

I'm glad that you're arguing the other side of this, though, because we're talking about Serious Shit and OP needs to hear all sides.

[yep_throwaway]

> It is not impossible to find employment in tech with a felony conviction

Perhaps not in the Valley, but I don't believe the OP provided his location.

I'm not in the Valley and I speak from experience when I say that it is extremely difficult to find employment in any industry w/ a felony conviction.

Due to the nature of the information we sometimes have access to, it is (in many cases) more difficult to find a job in the tech industry.