Most businesses in unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County would be barred from excluding job applicants with past criminal records during the hiring process under a proposal backed unanimously on Tuesday, Feb. 28, by the Board of Supervisors.
The board voted unanimously to direct its staff to draft a comprehensive Fair Chance ordinance, which would codify and enhance a similar state law that was enacted in 2018. County staff were directed to return to the board with a draft ordinance in 90 days for further consideration.
Supervisor Holly Mitchell, who co-authored the motion with Supervisor Hilda Solis, noted that many employers already adhere to regulations that prevent them from inquiring about applicants’ criminal history or considering it in the hiring process, but “we still have a long way to go making it real for every job seeker.” Mitchell noted that “more than a quarter of formerly incarcerated individuals are unemployed on average.” Those people “are more likely to experience homelessness, live in poverty or deal with health issues,” she said.
Their motion recognized the existence of the state’s 2018 Fair Chance Act, but said there have been shortcomings in its implementation and enforcement. It noted that some other jurisdictions have enacted their own local requirements to provide protections for job-seekers with arrests or convictions on their records.
The board’s vote Tuesday directed county staff to return in 90 days with a draft ordinance with similar protections that would apply to all employers with five or more employees in unincorporated areas, or for employers with five or more employees with county contracts or leases. Specifically, the county’s proposal would require employers to make it clear in job solicitations and advertisements that qualified applicants with arrest or conviction records will be considered. It would also bar employers from asking applicants to voluntarily disclose information about their criminal history. Employers would also be barred from considering in hiring decisions an arrest that did not lead to a conviction, participation in a diversion program, convictions that have been dismissed or expunged, motor vehicle offenses, juvenile justice adjudications or convictions more than seven years old.
The proposal would include various other requirements for employers and would establish penalties of $500 for a first violation, $1,000 for a second violation and $2,000 for a third and subsequent violations. At least half of those fines would be awarded to the affected job applicant.
Supervisor Janice Hahn also asked that the ordinance apply specifically to the county’s own hiring processes.
“I think this is a good first step as we really try to be so much more inclusive and less discriminatory in how we allow people to apply for good paying jobs,” Hahn said.
Supervisor Kathryn Barger introduced a “friendly amendment” to the proposal calling on county staff to also consult with local business organizations, nonprofits and other stakeholder groups when drafting the ordinance, while also calling for reports every two years on the impact of the policy and its effect on recidivism.
–
Willing to Look says
Right. The same people who disagree with this proposal are generally the same people who complain about and vote against spending money on welfare and other benefits for people can’t get a job because of their past. And, as Tim says, complain when they resort to crime to support themselves.
It’s like voting against and protesting abortion rights and then voting against and refusing to do anything that helps mothers and children AFTER the babies are born.
Isn’t it always the way with a lot of people? They vote against anything that benefits people in any way because it contradicts their religious beliefs. They’ll spend money, time and effort fighting things but will put no money or time or effort into helping those less fortunate than themselves – like their religion says to do. All the while bemoaning the fact that church attendance continues to decline unaware that their actions turn people off from their religion.
If people are going to vote against and complain about proposals like this then I suggest they come up with alternate ways to solve the problems – instead of just sitting on their butts complaining.
I really wish people would be more compassionate, caring and empathetic to others instead of only caring about their religion and the almighty dollar. It’s sad.
I also wish that people would stop for a minute and analyze their beliefs and be willing to look at the “other side” to see if there is any merit to their beliefs. If you don’t understand what the other side believes or why, how can you be so sure you are on the “right side?” TBH, that’s what I did. When I really looked at and listened to the other side and researched things I came to the awful conclusion that I was on the wrong side. In fact, I came to the awful realization that all religion is just based on superstition and mythology and is just a fairy tale created to control people. That is why religions don’t want you to be educated about or to look, listen or care about the other side. You might realize it’s all bogus and you’ve been bamboozled. You might realize there is no god and no satan. People love religion because it gives them a perceived sense of moral superiority and absolves them of actually taking any actions to help others or change the world for the better. All the while they are completely ignorant of the fact that they are being controlled. They are just puppets on a string. I speak from experience. I am humble enough to admit I was wrong but proud to admit I was open minded enough to really investigate my beliefs.
Everybody has a back story that you know nothing about. Most people are just doing their best to try and get by. It’s is not up to us to judge other people or their actions. Even if some people are gaming the system, is it worth it to not help people in need because someone might get help they don’t need? Personally, I think it’s worth the risk. I’d rather err on the side of love and compassion than the side of stinginess and moral superiority.
ACE says
THE SILLINESS OF THESE WOMEN HAS ONLY JUST BEGUN…
SIGH…
***
Tim Scott says
What’s your complaint here Ace? You think we should prevent people who have a criminal history from getting a job, so then we can wonder why they return to crime?
Frank Rizzo says
I wouldn’t hire a crook, are you crazy? Oh wait.