From: Barking@The.Moon   
      
   > Lefty has a topic that seems to be a pet peeve of his - or at least I   
   assume   
   > it is since he has brought it to the table several times - that has to do   
   > with the difficulties an ex-con has when it comes to securing gainful   
   > employment - post incarceration.   
      
      
   In reality, I have an issue with a problem which is affecting vast tracts of   
   our entire society, promoting poverty directly, and also promoting other   
   nasties like crime and hate which affect everyone - including me. I am   
   affected by the difficulty of finding work, but also the difficulty of   
   having to live among hundreds of thousands of others just like myself. This   
   leads to all kinds of problems which can be traced immediately to the   
   process of employment denial and blacklisting.   
      
      
   > Let me say right up front that this is an entirely legitimate issue.  He   
   > makes extremely valid points.  How is a guy supposed to keep on the right   
   > path if he can't even put food on the table for his family?   
   >   
   > Let me also say that I think Lefty tends to exaggerate things just a   
   little.   
   > Lets face it, no one here probably thinks you are going to walk out of   
   > prison and get the Head Teller job, or Loan Officer position at the bank.   
   > You probably aren't going to get the job as Salesman at a reputable car   
   > dealership.  No one is going to hand you your Journeyman Machinist card   
   down   
   > at the local union.  And I honestly believe Lefty's invisible wall is   
   > basically keeping him from these types of positions.   
      
      
   Thank you - and I am certainly not the only one.   
      
      
   > But that does not mean there aren't menial positions that involve very   
   > little trust on the part of the employer that he could do for 6 months to   
   a   
   > year that would establish for him a track record that allowed the employer   
   > to overlook his past conviction - and might very likely lead to gainful   
   > employment later on.  One of the things ADOC contracts with is a company   
   > named Hickman's Eggs.  Billy Hickman produces 2% of this Nation's eggs.   
   The   
   > guy who runs his entire production is one of my ex-cons, and the guy makes   
   > about double what I make.  Guess where he got his start?  Shoveling Bird   
   > Shit off the ground in hen barns that house over 300,000 birds each.  This   
   > young man is a total success story.  There is absolutely nothing about his   
   > demeanor or character that would lead anyone to believe he is anything but   
   a   
   > dedicated employee (and that includes those give-away stupid ass tattoos   
   > that were so god-damned important to get while you were in - like they   
   were   
   > cub scout badges or some shit).   
      
      
   The above is where Ron's argument starts to unravel. In the past, ex-cons   
   were typically used by illegitimate employers to "do the dirty work", back   
   when the Mafia and other forms of organized crime had lots of influence.   
   Today, nobody wants to create any type of appearance even remotely similar   
   to that situation for fear of the Feds.   
      
   I will concede that there ARE employers who seem to have struck a deal   
   locally to hire ex-cons almost exclusively, but these industries are few and   
   far between. The examlpe which he cited regarding the Hickman's Eggs sounds   
   like a success story. Thats great - but it's only one employee. There are   
   millions of ex-cons in this country, more than 2 million behind bars at this   
   time.   
      
   There are NOT millions of "Hickman's Eggs". In fact, most employers are the   
   exact opposite of Hickman's Eggs. They wont even consider an ex-convict   
   regardless of any other factor, they dont give a damn if you've got the   
   Nobel prize of the Medal of Honor. Many dont even want people with "marginal   
   credit" - so they claim, which in reality is probably just an excuse to deny   
   based on some other parameter such as health or past unemployment   
   compensation.   
      
      
   > I do have one other concern though, and it is not just directed at Lefty -   
   > even though he is the one that keeps getting the question posed to him.   
   > Rather than complain and carry on about being unlawfully discriminated   
   > against - rather than essentially demanding that employers be forced to   
   hire   
   > ex-cons - rather than make preposterous claims like, "we can wipe out   
   > ghettos if we just hired all the crimms" - I have one simple question that   
   > remains to be answered:   
      
      
   The claim is not preposterous when you consider the inverse. Suppose you   
   wanted to create a ghetto. How would you go about doing this ? Probably the   
   best method to create a ghetto would be to simply deny employment to anyone   
   from that geographic region. It is quite simple Ron - despite the limited   
   capabilities of your feeble mind.   
      
   There are geographies where felons and ex-convicts are concentrated, and   
   other areas where crimes are simply not prosecuted with the same vigor.   
   Therefore you have regions where poverty and crime are spiraling out of   
   control, and other regions where people can live with relatively few   
   problems in their lives. This is the dark underbelly of our economy, the   
   side of our economy which is bitter and ruthless. Lets not lie to ourselves   
   Ron.   
      
      
   > If you knew what you were doing was illegal.  If you knew that you might   
   get   
   > caught.  If you knew this would lead to a crimm record.  If you knew that   
   a   
   > crimm record was going to be a real handicap when it came to securing   
   > legitimate employment.....   
   > AND YOU WENT OUT AND DID THE DEED ANYWAY!   
      
      
   I'll answer your question completely - but first you must answer mine,   
   because I have been asking it longer, and you have been evading it since   
   before I began evading yours.   
      
   And that question is simply - WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE CRIMES, AND   
   ADMINISTER PUNISHMENTS ??? Is it the government, or is it just a   
   free-for-all ?   
      
   If I think that my neighbor is a thief then under the current system I can   
   go out and shoot him in the head, because the administration of punishment   
   is just a free-for-all ??? Employers and government are 2 different   
   entities. Employers are private. I am also private. Therefore, since   
   employers are allowed to punish so can you and I. The law becomes moot. Do   
   you see the problem here ??   
      
   PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION, WAITING FOR AN ANSWER FOR OVER 2 YEARS NOW.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)