stevenchristopher

I have a job interview at 9:00 this morning. This is something of a minor miracle, because my efforts so far to find a job haven’t been what one would call fruitful. In a job market still suffering from the economic crisis and with unemployment rates still very high, law-abiding candidates with consistent work histories are struggling to find jobs. A candidate like me is another matter altogether. I’ve had one job in the past dozen years, which I held for just under six months. And I have a criminal record. Now, a lot of employers will overlook a youthful indiscretion or two, say a DUI or a simple assault. I have a serious record, though. A long one. With charges like bank robbery, armed robbery, possession of crack cocaine, assault and battery on a police officer, and common nightwalking. And those are just the highlights.

I’ve filled out a slew of applications since moving to Burlington, and I’m developing a pretty deep-rooted resentment of “the question“. It’s generally a variation of this: Have you ever been convicted of a felony? If yes, please explain in the space provided.

The space provided isn’t even enough for me to list all the felonies I’ve been convicted of, let alone explain them. That’s beside the point, though. The ex-offender employment specialist I’ve seen a couple of times at the Department of Labor here in town tells me that 10-15 candidates apply for every opening. Employers use “the question”, she says, as a means of eliminating one or two applicants right off the bat. I haven’t gotten a callback on a single application I’ve filled out. When I call to see if anyone has had the chance to review my application, the position has been filled, or someone will call me back.

Resumes are a similar minefield. My work history is truly historic–like precambrian or maybe mesozoic. I try to be creative with my resume. Past jobs are listed chronologically, sure, but I leave out the dates of employment. The Department of Labor lady supports that bit of smoke and mirrors. It’s either let the prospective employers know that I haven’t really worked since the 1990s, never in one position for more than a year–almost as sure to eliminate me from consideration as “the question”–or leave out the dates in hopes that I’ll get called in for an interview.

An interview is my only chance to present myself as a candidate and explain my past. Fortunately, I interview well. I don’t come off like someone who’s done nine years in prison. In fact, people often don’t believe me when they find out about the time I’ve done, just as my fellow prisoners used to bust my balls about still seeming fresh off the streets years into my bid.

The obstacles that men and women face in transitioning from prison back into society are daunting. This reality is starkly proven by the sad fact that 67% of people released from prison are back in on new charges within two years of their release. One of the most important elements of making a successful transition is securing employment and a steady source of income. Pretty much everything from shelter to clothing to food follows from that one basic requirement: a paycheck.

Given the uphill climb from ex-con to productive member of society, I think something should be done to even the playing field in terms of getting a job after release from prison.

It’s pretty simple, really. Employers most certainly have the right to know whether a prospective employee has a criminal record, but what if the employer were to have to decide to offer the position to a candidate before asking “the question”? This would eliminate many of the problems discussed above, and it would still enable employers to make informed decisions about who to hire. Instead of asking about convictions at the beginning of the screening process, which often denies felonious candidates an interview and the ability to explain his or her record, employers should be required to wait until a job offer is forthcoming to ask “the question”.

Massachusetts passed a law like this, with a little added protection. Once an employer decides to offer a job to a person and finds out the candidate has a record, the employer then has to prove that there is a direct conflict between the duties and responsibilities of the position and the candidate’s charges. For example, if someone is hired as a security guard at a retail store, shoplifting or larceny charges would constitute justifiable bars to employment; drug charges would not.

These kinds of practices give ex-prisoners a chance. I mean, let’s face it, most employers simply aren’t interested in hiring ex-prisoners regardless of the nature of the charges. With all the unavoidable hurdles newly-released men and women face, it seems fair to make the process of finding a job a bit more equitable.

I got this interview this morning because my godmother’s friend is married to the guy doing the hiring. He knows that I’m in recovery and did a lot of time in prison, and he’s interviewing me because his wife put the screws to him on behalf of my godmother. I had one other interview since my release in May, and that was because interviews were held just as the application was completed.

God willing, I’ll get this job this morning. I have faith that the Universe will provide the right opportunity for me at the right time, but I’m starting to get pretty anxious about money. My rent comes due again August 1, and I have credit card bills coming in. There’s $17 in my wallet, with no prospect of money coming in unless I get a job. It’s challenging to have faith in times like this.

Sort of like it’s tough to be spiritual when you’re having a tooth pulled.