How do you feel about now being on equal footing with federal job applicants who now don't have to report having a criminal record?

CPO Andy Carrillo, MS — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 19:38:49 -0500

President Obama on Monday announced a new executive order that prevents federal agencies from making job-applicants reveal they have a criminal record as part of his overall criminal justice reform effort. The so-called “drop the box” initiative would allow prospective employees not to check a box on some federal applications that acknowledges a criminal record. “It is relevant to find out if somebody has a criminal record,” Obama said at an event in Newark, N.J. “I’m not suggesting ignore it. I’m suggesting that when it comes to applications, give folks a chance to get through the door.”
The president said 19 states and major U.S. companies such as Koch Industries, Target and Walmart have already removed the question from applications, and he urged Congress to pass legislation to expand the effort.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/02/obama-issues-executive-order-that-keeps-notice-criminal-record-off-federal-job/

Obama issues executive order that keeps notice of criminal record off federal job applications

President Obama on Monday announced a new executive order that prevents federal agencies from making job-applicants reveal they have a criminal record, part of his overall criminal justice reform effort.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 2 at 2015 7:40 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 19:40:04 -0500

What good could possibly come from not reporting if someone that might be your co-worker has a criminal record.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Nov 2 at 2015 8:19 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 20:19:43 -0500

Every civilian position in our organization was required to be security clearance eligible. That would come out anyways. We'd have a few decline to fill out the background check paperwork every year so were immediately let go. So I'd expect the DoD to be more of a barrier than Ag.

Response by SGT David T. made Nov 2 at 2015 8:27 PM

SGT David T. — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 20:27:03 -0500

I have never seen the question on the federal application anyway. They do background checks and that will still prevent them from obtaining employment so this is pretty much a meaningless gesture. Note the wording....remove the question about self identification...makes no mention of how a background check plays into that.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 3 at 2015 7:49 AM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Nov 2015 07:49:31 -0500

I think it is needed but you are depending on them being honest, hopefully a background check is still performed. I would hope they would take the crime and time into consideration as in the applicant is 40 years old and did stupid crap when he was 20 vs went to jail for fraud or espionage. or maybe they were clean for 20 years because they were incarcerated lol

Response by SGT Charles Bunch made Nov 3 at 2015 8:12 AM

SGT Charles Bunch — Tue, 03 Nov 2015 08:12:27 -0500

Even if they don't check the box they will find out when they do their background check. So sounds to me like that was a waste of ink.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Nov 3 at 2015 9:38 AM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Tue, 03 Nov 2015 09:38:08 -0500

CPO Andy Carrillo, MS - I think this is very short-sighted, especially for positions that require clearances. This would require putting applicants who would have automatically been excluded through the background check process before excluding them. Waste of time and money.

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Nov 3 at 2015 10:20 AM

MSgt James Mullis — Tue, 03 Nov 2015 10:20:07 -0500

That's all we need, more criminals working for the US Government! Why do I get the feeling that its 455 AD Rome and the Vandals are already in the city.

Response by SFC Dr. Joseph Finck, BS, MA, DSS made Nov 3 at 2015 11:21 AM

SFC Dr. Joseph Finck, BS, MA, DSS — Tue, 03 Nov 2015 11:21:39 -0500

CPO Andy Carrillo, MS And the hits just keep on playing........Now we can't ask if they have a criminal background, but what about clearance and suitability investigations? We are still doing those right? So, convicted criminals are now suitable for Federal employment and also eligible for a Secret or Top Secret Security Clearance? SMDH

How can felons or other convicted criminals be as eligible as someone who does not have the same history but equal education and experience or even greater experience? Effectively, the social programs are overshadowing values, ethics, integrity, and the ability to screen persons who are convicted criminals.

I am not against second chances, but I am against disqualifying persons who do not have a conviction to hire someone who does.

Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Nov 3 at 2015 12:03 PM

MSgt Curtis Ellis — Tue, 03 Nov 2015 12:03:59 -0500

There really is no "equal footing" for a person convicted of a felony, and I really don't think it is that big of a deal as most positions/occupations, like ours, will still be required to pass a security check (round 2), at which time, they will be disqualified for the position/occupation anyway. This just adds an extra step in the application process, provides a little more job security for someone, makes a good tracking tool for number of applicants (tracks felonious applicants as well), and is a good way to increase the numbers of personnel applying for job "x" knowing that, with a felony, they won't get job "x" anyway, but? At least the numbers look good... I really wouldn't worry too much about it...

But the good thing is, it will force certain "companies" to do a background check, or be held liable... Which I think is the hidden agenda here anyway when you think about it...

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Nov 3 at 2015 1:13 PM

Cpl Jeff N. — Tue, 03 Nov 2015 13:13:38 -0500

This is the idiocy that is Obama... He says, “I’m not suggesting ignore it. I’m suggesting that when it comes to applications, give folks a chance to get through the door.” So we are not going to ask them but the background check will reveal it, then we disqualify them"....What?

One of the advantages is keeping your nose clean, being a good citizen and playing by the rules a civilized society sets up should be to have better opportunities/access than those that refuse to do so. I think the reason a lot of companies don't ask is that they know it will be lied about and they are all doing background checks anyway so they will catch it there anyway.

Response by PO1 Glenn Boucher made Nov 3 at 2015 2:39 PM

PO1 Glenn Boucher — Tue, 03 Nov 2015 14:39:58 -0500

This is very short sighted because Veterans are already having a hard enough time getting our foot in the door and now an Executive Order to not have to disclose any previous criminal record.
I do understand people make a mistake and it's for themost part a one time screw up, anyone can recover from that, it takes time but you can recover if you are willing to do so.
So what jobs are going to be excluded from the criminal background check? Where is the line being drawn on the severity of the crime? Misdemeanors only? Or will it include non-violent felonies? This is going to really suck because it's another hurdle blocking a veterans path to employment by throwing previously unqualified applicants into the mix.
Great job Mr. President.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 3 at 2015 8:04 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Nov 2015 20:04:32 -0500

I can't imagine that all federal jobs require a security clearance. One of my best friends is a convicted felon who spent 7 years behind bars. He earned all of them too. I can tell you it's pert near impossible to get a clean start on the outside. He had family and friends to help him. God help those who don't, because no one else will.

Might be the first time, but I agree with Obama on this one.

Response by SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 3 at 2015 8:08 PM

SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Nov 2015 20:08:09 -0500

The only thing that concerns me with this is seeing the words "Obama" and "Executive Order" in the same sentence yet again. It would be nice to see legislation come from the legislative branch again... That being said, I am perfectly fine with the drop the box initiative. Not only for federal employment.

My brother-in-law being an ex-felon really opened my eyes to the situation because I personally took him under my wing to help him get on his feet and get his life on track after he got out. I had connections with businesses all over town, and thought that getting him a job would be no trouble. We had two houses at the time, and let him live in one of them while I helped him find a job. I drove him around and helped him put applications all over town and pulled all the connections that I had. There are incentives to hire out there, however, this worked against him, because the temp agency that the one employer used for all hiring refused to send him to the company because he would not sign over the one time grant for hiring felons to the temp agency because it was intended for offering full time employment. It took almost 3 months before we got him a job working part-time for minimum wage, where he quickly became one of the businesses favorite employees because he showed up to work, busted his ass, and never complained. I was still supplementing his income, while he took out loans to pay to go to school where he got a welding certificate, and later was able to get into a manufacturing job. Long story short, he's now married with a kid making $70,000 a year because he's been promoted 5 times in 2 years at that manufacturing job and is working above people who have been there for 15 years because of his work ethic.

To get to the point, he has told me a thousand times that if not for my wife and I taking him in, and helping him through he would have without a doubt been back in prison because of the problems he had getting employment after getting out would have definitely led him to "find some pot to sell to pay the bills". Now, he was someone who wanted to change his life and get clean, and we helped him tremendously, but these are the reasons that 60% of felons are back in prison within 6 months. If we are going to let these people out after serving the sentence for the crime they committed, then we need to give them the opportunity to succeed in building a new life, not toss them on the street, tell them they are unemployable, and say good luck.

Rant over.

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Nov 4 at 2015 2:01 AM

Sgt Kelli Mays — Wed, 04 Nov 2015 02:01:26 -0500

This....to me....is just crazy...not checking for a criminal background is asking for trouble...for certain positions that require high security clearance...i think checking background for federal employees is important...

Response by SrA Art Siatkowsky made Nov 4 at 2015 2:24 AM

SrA Art Siatkowsky — Wed, 04 Nov 2015 02:24:13 -0500

Breaking the law looks better everyday! Thanks Obama....

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 4 at 2015 10:28 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Nov 2015 10:28:55 -0500

crazy concept ....

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 4 at 2015 11:07 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Nov 2015 11:07:46 -0500

Disagree with all survey answers.

It really comes down to your view of our criminal justice system - punishment or rehabilitation.
If, as we like to say, the goal is rehabilitation, then we need to put policies in place to support re-entry into society.
If we want to punish, and continue punishing, the current system works well and is a huge factor in recidivism. Your chance at a decent life post-prison (especially in terms of job) is very slim.

Response by SrA Matthew Knight made Nov 5 at 2015 11:12 AM

SrA Matthew Knight — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 11:12:32 -0500

I can't really pick any of those options as I don't think any of them apply to my views on it. Basically I think it's good that businesses such as Wal Mart/Target and others are dropping it as I do believe people should be given a second chance to try and prove they're reformed. Federal jobs though make me think government jobs and that is sketchy. I'm okay with them hiring people to an extent but I still feel like a background check and knowing what the person did is a must. You wouldn't want someone who was charged with espionage to be working around sensitive information again. Find them a fit by all means but still request that info so you have an idea where the person will fit.

Response by SA Harold Hansmann made Nov 5 at 2015 2:24 PM

SA Harold Hansmann — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 14:24:52 -0500

If you had to show wether or not you had a criminal background we would lose all of congress and the House of Representatives.

Response by SPC Christopher Perrien made Nov 5 at 2015 2:26 PM

SPC Christopher Perrien — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 14:26:47 -0500

Still can't get a clearance, so many jobs will remain safe from this at least.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Nov 5 at 2015 5:01 PM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 17:01:05 -0500

This disgusts me, if you are a felon, you're a felon.

Response by MSgt Brian Williams made Jul 17 at 2017 11:50 AM

MSgt Brian Williams — Mon, 17 Jul 2017 11:50:56 -0400

Can you cite which EO that is? I tried to find it in the EOs from 2014, 2015, and 2016 and didn't see it. Maybe I overlooked it.