I've read Deborah Simmons article; Tim Craig's WaPo article from Nov 29th; and the comments last week on our list. It's funny that there again has been so much concern directed at CM Barry for his strong position on this bill. Well, as the saying goes, "I rather stand up for something I believe in and fail, than do nothing and succeed."
Below is the WT article, Sun, 12/2/12 by Tom Howard Jr, "Barry: It is Wrong to Deny Ex-Cons Jobs" which yes is definitely wrong especially for those re-entry citizens who have the work skills or have the foundation to expand their skills or learn new skills to become productive citizens.
I testified on "B19-0017 Human Rights for Ex-Offenders Amendment Act of 2011" (on 3/11/11); and "B19-0486 the Unemployment Anti-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2011" (on 12/19/11). For both bills, re-entry citizens of all ages testified to their challenges in being hired in the workforce. One re-entry citizen stated he has been clean for over 20 years, yet, still finds it difficult to obtain steady, gainful employment, especially since the Homeland Security Act.
I've worked with re-entry citizens who were truly remorseful and wanted a 2nd chance to prove their worth and have productive lives. The vast majority do not have the outside connections which could lead to employment and that is a problem, for we find many do sign up to go through the DOES Project Empowerment program, but have to sometimes wait 7 mos or more for an appointment to fully enter the program and receive services. Then no matter the skills, even in construction jobs, they experience rejection after rejection because they have a criminal record. This leaves most re-entry citizens with no recourse except returning to a life of crime, which as we seen costs us more in the long run in so many ways. There are also our Youth offenders who now find themselves faced with the same challenges. For either category, I'm not talking about those who have chosen a life of crime.
More importantly, on Saturday, I watched the video from last week's Committee on Aging's meeting. God Bless CM Marion Barry for standing up for this/our special population which is in need for this protection. From my take on the matter, Mr. Barry only wants the bill to be discussed and voted on by the full Council.
W5 list comments were that CM Barry was disrespectful, but didn't say how and to whom. I didn't see or hear that. The Committee members were CM Barry, Chair; Vincent Orange; Yvette Alexander; Jim Graham (who shared he has a re-entry citizen on staff); Tommy Wells, who arrived late; and Chairman Phil who also entered after the meeting started. In my opinion, there was a respectful discussion on why each person made the decision to vote yea or nay.
CM Barry put on the record about the business community's concern about lawsuits; he had met with Barbara Lang, President, DC Chamber of Commerce and worked out some of the issues, but more importantly said they will have further discussions.
CM Yvette held her position against, wanting to vote on Chair Phil's bill. Yes, Barry tried to get Yvette to change her vote, but she didn't. Chairman Phil felt there were some problems with Barry's bill, and felt the full Council would be more comfortable with his bill. Barry agreed to and the Committee voted on the removal of some sections of his bill. After further discussion, when Marion Orange
That was legislative strategy. It is now up to the full Council to decide. I'm aware that they will have a long Legislative Meeting tomorrow since the Council is working to close out for the 2011-2012 session, but this is an important issue and should come to a conclusion one way or another to move forward. I'm sure there will be plenty discussions before tomorrow's the legislative session to limit the timeframe on this matter and other related proposed bill(s).
So, I disagree and correcting the record on any disrespect by CM Barry. If other States have successfully addressed this problem, why can't DC? Why is it that the defender of DC businesses would have another shielded, discriminatory approach to the matter of finding ways to insure a process for the hiring of our own residents who just happen to be re-entry citizens?
Strangely, you don't heard the same alleged comments from businesses or their advocate, especially related to the construction and home contracting industries when it come to their hiring of cheap labor where the majority includes undocumented individuals; who at times use stolen IDs to meet citizen requirements; don't have the skills before coming here or the training required by US Citizens; majority don't speak English; statistics have confirmed many are ex-offenders or are wanted criminals in their home countries, and possibly here in the US/Metro region. Why is this approach acceptable, with the hiring of DC re-entry citizens and law-abiding DC residents a problem?
Please note, I also was only one of the two DC residents who testified on the three (3) bills that would require DC residency to work for DC Government. You want to speak about disrespect, which was from the DC Fraternal Order of Police and the Union Leader who talked as if DC residents didn't have the skills necessary to do the work for DC Government. Only outsiders qualify. Hmmm…
Albrette "Gigi" Ransom
_________________________
Tom Howell Jr, Sunday, 12/2/12
Former D.C. Mayor Marion Barry has joined a chorus of lawmakers across the country pushing legislation that prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants with a criminal record unless there is a significant nexus between the crime and the job.
The issue is grabbing attention nationwide, spurred on by efforts at both the local and federal levels amid research that shows convicted felons will serve time in the court of popular opinion, and particularly among employers, long after they pay their debt to society in the prison yard.
Mr. Barry, who served as the city's mayor for 16 years but remains best known for his 1990 arrest on crack cocaine charges, is championing a bill that would prevent discrimination against ex-offenders by adding a clause to the city's Human Rights Act of 1977 prohibiting discrimination based on criminal history. The bill would establish those with criminal or arrest records as a protected class in the same manner that discrimination is prohibited based on race, religion and sexual preference.
"In America, it is wrong," Mr. Barry, a Democrat who now represents Ward 8 on the D.C. Council, said of denying ex-offenders a chance at employment. "And we know discrimination exists throughout America."
In general, the bill would prohibit questions about ex-offenders' arrests or criminal record during the hiring process or real estate transactions until a conditional offer has been extended, although there are exemptions to the proposed law that take into account violent offenses, the relation of the offense to the job being sought and blanket exemptions for certain positions.
"I don't expect a bank robber to be hired by a bank," he said. "That's craziness."
Limited hiring in the wake of the economic recession has also complicated job prospects for former criminals. And research shows that a reluctance to hire ex-offenders has an outsized impact on minorities. A 2010 study by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that incarceration decreased earnings for white males by 2 percent, Hispanic males by 6 percent and black males by 9 percent.
Bills to address the hiring prospects of former inmates have been considered across the country in recent years.
In New Jersey, a Democratic assemblywoman introduced a bill in February that is similar to Mr. Barry's bill in that it "prohibits public and private employers from automatically disqualifying ex-offenders from employment."
The city of Philadelphia broke ground in March 2011 when it passed a law to "ban the box," a reference to the spot on job applications that asks about a person's criminal history. Although more than 40 cities and counties have passed similar legislation, the city set a benchmark for the movement by becoming the first jurisdiction to ban up-front discrimination by public and private employers, according to the National Employment Law Project.
In April, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission urged employers to avoid practices that immediately exclude applicants based on a criminal record. Rather, it advises employers to limit their questions about an applicant's criminal past to how it may relate to the job at hand.
Often the bills are greeted with controversy.
When thousands of ex-offenders planned to demonstrate at the state capitol in St. Paul, Minn., in January in support of "ban the box" legislation, an attorney from the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce told Minnesota Public Radio that the law would be a burden on businesses and is not necessary in light of federal regulations that guide equal employment practices.
In the District, many laud the bills' goal — allowing ex-offenders to be productive members of society instead of backsliding into a life of crime.
But the proposal has produced infighting among city lawmakers wary of the concerns of the business community and decision-makers divided on the best way to give people with a criminal record a second chance in life without kick-starting lawsuits or putting law-abiding citizens at risk.
Members of the D.C. Chamber of Commerce have deemed the bill "unworkable" out of a fear that businesses will face discrimination lawsuits.
In urging support for his measure, Mr. Barry rattled off a list of cities and states that have passed similar legislation.
"Why should the District be on the back of the bus?" he said. "We should be in the forefront."
But business interests seem more inclined to support a separate bill by D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, a Democrat, that would decrease the number of years that ex-offenders must wait to apply to have their criminal records sealed for certain crimes. It also creates a "certificates of good standing" program to document ex-offenders' progress after their encounters with the criminal justice system and grants employers limited liability if they are sued for negligence after making a good effort to check out an ex-offender during the hiring process.
Mr. Mendelson tried to vote down Mr. Barry's bill at the committee level. Although he did not succeed, he may have the last laugh if he makes sure Mr. Barry's bill does not appear on the council's legislative agenda before the end of the year.
"The [Barry] bill, I think, runs the risk of generating an awful lot of litigation," he said.
© Copyright 2012 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
0 comments:
Post a Comment