|
|
|
|
|
by relaunched
4764 days ago
|
|
This is a really hard question to answer, personally. I really love the problem you are solving and wish you the best of luck, but I'm embarrassed to say that all things being equal, I don't think I'd make the hire. I was going to put in a list of reasons why and examples, but it reduces down to one thing (and I realize that it's incredibly close-minded). In startups, every move you make has incredible risk and consequences. Given two people of equal qualifications, and one with an incarceration, I'd have to de-risk where possible. Despite being altruistic, there is no real upside for the startup, with the potential for a severe downside. |
|
I probably should've given a little more context in my initial question.
The US Dept of Labor offers the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC), a tax credit of up to $9600 for every "at-risk" person an employer hires. http://www.doleta.gov/business/incentives/opptax/
There's also something called Fidelity Bonding, which is basically free insurance to protect against employee theft up to $25,000. An employer becomes eligible for fidelity bonding by hiring an ex-offender. http://www.bonds4jobs.com/
So not only does the federal government offer a financial incentive to hire felons, they've almost completely mitigated the potential financial risk in doing so.
Going back to your example: Let's say you're offering a $40k salary for this position. With all things being equal between the two candidates, would the potential to hire a quality employee at a savings of nearly 25% be offset by the fact they're a felon?