HN Explorer

Ask HN: Would You Hire a Convicted Felon to Work for your Startup?

6 points by carlyle4545 ↗ HN
Startup companies are known for having progressive, forward-thinking, free-wheeling office cultures. The rejection of societal norms to “hack” or “disrupt” the world is a common attribute among the startup community. But how does this disruptive mindset fare when faced with the sticky issue of hiring someone with a felony conviction?

I’m co-founder of a startup called Comeback, (www.comebackasap.com). We’re the first to offer custodial insurance--an insurance policy that covers an arrestee’s expenses in the event they get taken into custody, (i.e. jail/prison).

Comeback’s business model relies on keeping our policyholders out of jail, whereby reducing the likelihood they’ll ever file a claim. Given that 90% of people currently in prison were unemployed at the time of their arrest, the key is to offer career training and job placement.

As such, we’re partnering with a variety of mid to large-sized companies to offer entry-level employment opportunities to our clients. With moderate success thus far, we’d like to expand our biz-dev efforts to include startups.

Startups encourage their employees to break social conventions and shatter societal norms. Is an aversion to hiring felons a norm that startups choose not to “disrupt”?

So let’s say you have an applicant that has a felony conviction, (nothing violent or sexual in nature), has spent time in prison, yet has the qualifications necessary for an entry-level position with your company. Would you hire her?

Much has been made on HN about the importance, (or lack thereof) of hiring someone that’s a good “cultural fit”. Is there an underlying fear that hiring a felon inherently disrupts a startup’s culture?

14 comments

[ 5.6 ms ] story [ 38.6 ms ] thread
relaunched
This is a really hard question to answer, personally. I really love the problem you are solving and wish you the best of luck, but I'm embarrassed to say that all things being equal, I don't think I'd make the hire.

I was going to put in a list of reasons why and examples, but it reduces down to one thing (and I realize that it's incredibly close-minded). In startups, every move you make has incredible risk and consequences. Given two people of equal qualifications, and one with an incarceration, I'd have to de-risk where possible. Despite being altruistic, there is no real upside for the startup, with the potential for a severe downside.

carlyle4545
Interesting. What you're saying makes sense. Given the choice between the two in your example, I'd honestly make the same decision.

I probably should've given a little more context in my initial question.

The US Dept of Labor offers the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC), a tax credit of up to $9600 for every "at-risk" person an employer hires. http://www.doleta.gov/business/incentives/opptax/

There's also something called Fidelity Bonding, which is basically free insurance to protect against employee theft up to $25,000. An employer becomes eligible for fidelity bonding by hiring an ex-offender. http://www.bonds4jobs.com/

So not only does the federal government offer a financial incentive to hire felons, they've almost completely mitigated the potential financial risk in doing so.

Going back to your example: Let's say you're offering a $40k salary for this position. With all things being equal between the two candidates, would the potential to hire a quality employee at a savings of nearly 25% be offset by the fact they're a felon?

relaunched
Most startups, venture-backed or otherwise, don't have the same standard financial incentives traditional / small businesses do; they use different economics. 10k isn't life-raft money. So, it's not like they'll get 3 more months of runway out of it. It's still not worth the risk.

I think there might be opportunities with companies that hire relatively low-skill, or unskilled labor. But, in tech startups, where in most metropolitan areas everyone makes 75k-125k, 10k doesn't really move the needle given the risk.

orangethirty
Yes, I would, I have, and will do it again. Being a felon is not a standard definition. People can go to jail for very different things. Of course, I won't work with anyone who committed a violent crime, but I will consider people who have committed small stuff. You can't measure everyone with the same ruler.
JimWillTri
Having represented these people for 15 years, no. Non-sexual and non violent. Whats left. Some form of theft - worse for a company than violence. Multiple DWIs? Drunk. Drug offenses? No.
carlyle4545
I see. However I'm not sure that theft in the workplace is worse than violence in the workplace. Maybe you can help me understand.
JimWillTri
Sure, violence isn't usually directed at co-workers. I don't think I've ever seen that happen (it does happen of course but is fairly rare). I did have a couple that attacked a customer or two but that was after being provoked. In those cases, they didn't have any prior offenses so weren't convicted felons.

You can't stop thieves though. You never want to insure against that - you will always lose.

suyash
Never ever, felony is a serious crime. Misdemeanor or some lesser degree charges maybe, but only in exceptional cases.
carlyle4545
I'm just curious, what would be your concerns? Again, we're assuming they have the exact attributes you're looking for in a candidate. Do you think they'd be disruptive around the office by virtue of their past? Are you afraid they'd rape and pillage the workplace? I'd love to understand your rationale here.

Keep in mind, felonies include: DUI, Terrorist threats against a girlfriend or boyfriend, Driving without the owner's consent, Embezzlement, etc. There are varying degrees of "seriousness" when it comes to crimes considered felonious.

nayefc
Completely agree. One must understand that many of the laws are purely absurd and many crimes exaggerated.
bdunbar
I'm not a hiring manager but as a peer I'd be very uncomfortable sitting next to a felon.

Now, a guy convicted of a non-violent misdemeanor, that's another story. Depends on circumstances.

I myself was guilty, in the Marines, for offenses that would be classified by a civilian court as misdemeanors. I was young, and stupid. After the second office hours hearing I got with the program. Too late to have a career in the Marines, but I finished my enlistment, honorable discharge, and got on with life.

And I'm a pretty good employee.

gyardley
Personally? Depends on the offense, but in general, hell no. Many non-violent offenses are worse than the violent ones - I could care less about a weapons possession charge, but theft or fraud is an absolute non-starter.
nayefc
Maybe. Depends on the felony and the nature of the crime. I'd probably say no to sexual and violent crimes and some non-violent crimes (fraud, theft). Not to be judgemental, but some people really do have physiological issues. Not everyone, but it's hard to pinpoint from a few job interviews. I'd consider it though if I can get some guarantees (but lawyers struggle with this all the time, no?).

In the US I've noticed, some felonies are really nonsense and it's just an over-law'ed system all together. For those, I would probably hire.