Ask HN: CS Degree, felony conviction, need not apply?
I am also a graduate of a 4 year university with a degree in computer science. I have worked gainfully since I graduated (roughly 5 years ago) as a software developer for a variety of start-ups, and as a "contractor" whom was eventually hired full-time at a mid-sized business. Well some of the start-up jobs were less than "highly paid" as my career has advanced, I've easily bested all my friends and most of my family in pay and benefits.
In the start-up world it's easy to avoid the question because most small start-ups lack the infrastructure to perform regular background checks on perspective employees, and new-hires often come on a "word of mouth basis" so my attitude has always been: honesty is the best policy, when asked I'm always totally upfront. However, most don't ask.
My question is: I've recently been contacted by recruiters at much larger corporations (some of which I would very much like to experience and work for, internet-tech top-fivers like: Facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Salesforce, etc.). I also feel that my skills have reached a level where my candidacy is viable. I would like to add a job at these company's to my resume and hopefully while there make connections in the start-up world.
That being said, if I submit myself to these rigorous interviews, what should I expect when I ultimately have to disclose my felony conviction and "explain" it to a recruiter / hiring manager?
At this time there is a remote possibility that I could apply to have my record sealed in another 2-3 years depending on adjustments in state law. Should I wait to apply to this companies until after I see how the law changes?
##ratelimit from HN will respond when I can
97 comments
[ 1.5 ms ] story [ 197 ms ] threadIf I were you, my long term goal would be to get myself set up with my own consulting company. It will help to separate your personal history from your work history. Companies don't have felony convictions.
Actually, it may. If someone runs a background check and sees a sealed record, it tells them that a record exists, but not the nature of the offense. They would probably therefore assume something worse than a marijuana conviction, which is what OP has.
This may vary by state based on what information remains available, but sealing the record MAY actually be worse than leaving it open.
Obligatory: IANAL.
Edited wording to clarify that this is a hypothetical employer, not what I myself would do personally.
...sigh. That just makes it worse for those of us that try to move on past our mistakes.
In the end, a big part of the interview is salesmanship and you'll need it for whatever way you tell your story. How about interview with a few other companies that are not on your big list. In fact, find something like an insurance company or a place you know will freak out. Use those experiences for your final test.
... it sounds like you're doing fine without working at Google/Apple. It's entirely possible you are already a success but don't think so? Maybe you see it as a way to prove something? Personally, I'd like to know what that feels like to introduce who I am based on an instantly recognizable company.
But even if I do end up in one of those companies someday, I like what Tyer Durden says: "you are not your job". That said, there's a ton of awesome companies to work for other than them.
I contacted the company's CEO directly for an explanation, going over the 3rd party recruiter. I have not heard back from him, though I don't expect to. I know he doesn't "owe" me an explanation. However, all I can do is work harder to better my skills and make myself an invaluable asset.
And yes - it's something of a "selfish" motivation, vanity as well. The same way I proved that I was capable of not only graduating from school after being expelled but getting a technical degree, and being a functional citizen despite of coming from a background that predisposed me to this (physical and mentally abusive childhood household, single parent home, suicide, etc.) It's easy to hold yourself to a "different standard" than the money.
Also sometimes I feel like "start-ups" have a tendency to clamor for engineers whom have a Google or a Facebook on their resume as they might not know about hiring, and assume these companies have 'vetted' this person for skills - it makes you stand out.
That being said, institutions have a certain degree of "notoriety" that perhaps appeals to me for whatever selfish reason. I just wanted to have this conversation before I went further down that road only to discover a dead end.
I'd say you were convicted for selling marijuana and not lead with the term "felony".
You made me curious and while googling I came across some information that seems to indicate that companies in California cannot go back further than seven years on a background check and cannot ask about convictions more than seven years ago.
You mention that it happened when you were a freshman and that you graduated roughly five years ago so I'm guessing you are past the seven year mark or, at the least, very close to it.
If that's the case, it sounds like you might be able to avoid the situation altogether.
I am closer to the 10-year mark. The state I am has some very poorly worded legislation that seems to indicate (based on the lawyers, DAs, law-makers, and advocates / lobbyists) that I've spoken too seem to think offers "some possibility" of getting it sealed. And yes, I have talked to all of the above, and none will give me a straight answer because the law is new, poorly written, and ambiguous, so at the end of the day I don't put any weight in it until I learn more.
I've testified before my states' judiciary about the lack of clarity in the law, and it's been acknowledged by law-makers that it's poorly written, but it's such a limited number of people whom these statues affect, it's not a high priority to reword them.
There is also the possibility of a "governors pardon" (another vague and untested opportunity) that is really a discretionary issue and holds a degree of "political motivation".
No business is going to reasonably follow this. They use all sorts of background check services so an arbitrary number means nothing to them.
Ever heard of conflicting information on reports between credit bureaus?
That's the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which is federal:
Except as authorized under subsection (b) of this section, no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing any of the following items of information: [...] Civil suits, civil judgments, and records of arrest that from date of entry, antedate the report by more than seven years or until the governing statute of limitations has expired, whichever is the longer period.
There is an exemption for salaries above $75,000 and underwriting/credit above $150,000, but most companies err on the safe side and never provide that information anyway.
See http://bantheboxcampaign.org/ and e.g. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/ban-the-box-minneso... , among others.
October 10, 2013 Jerry Brown signs bill to ban felony question on public job apps
Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a bill that bans government employers from asking job applicants about their criminal record until later in the hiring process, effectively extending the state's policy to some 6,000-plus local and regional government agencies in California.
http://blogs.sacbee.com/the_state_worker/2013/10/jerry-brown...
What is not clear, however, is within the specific firms (big, public, prestigueous) and specific jobs he may be applying to, if there is any such similar trajectory.
However, the primary focus is for a larger contingent of convicts whom are returning to society after being incarcerated.
I was never incarcerated, I am not a minority, and come from a middle-class socioeconomic background, and it's extremely difficult to argue discrimination in hiring for a job that very few people are technically capable of performing.
Unlike service work for example, being able bodied, not-addicted to drugs, etc. are not the only qualifications, and any employer can easily point to a lack of an abstract qualification as a perfectly legal and acceptable reason for rejection.
Long story short, I'm not also of a particular persuasion (politically and personally) that I should be afforded any special treatment. SO I thread a particularly thin line here.
I also try to take the attitude, that given the current hiring environment for engineers, it's not hard for me to "go somewhere else" if I need work, and that they should be happy to have another "warm body coding" rather than worrying about some legal obligation as a business owner that they've never had to deal with before and don't understand.
I am all for trying to convince employers that certain past crimes are not relevant for employment, if that is really the case. But I don't see why the government should be forcing employers to ignore past convictions, or why employers should have to prove that the information is relevant.
Of all the categories we might seek to protect, be it race, gender, religion, etc., past convictions strike me as the least worthy of protection.
If Person A has an engineering degree from Stanford and passes in-interview personality tests, and person B has the exact same degree and is just as likable/desirable as an employee, but person B has a one-time pot conviction record - then both people are still equally hirable in my mind. I just don't see the disconnect where that needs to be weighed at all in the hiring process.
My question is why are we seeking to protect a category of people who have been placed in that category by a particularly fair and rigorous process? And if a particular crime is not a big deal, then it shouldn't be a felony in the first place!
As a moral principle, I don't see why, if you are allowed to judge a person based on their personality or character, you cannot judge them based on acts which by their nature reveal a lot about that person's character.
From the perspective of society, it is against societies interest to hinder a convicted person from obtaining meaningful employment. Having legitimate access to income is one of the mains ways that a person can become and stay a productive member of society rather than a drain as a criminal. Society should do everything in its power to encourage this. Eliminating this barrier to reintegration is an obvious choice.
Lastly, the assumption that the process is fair and impartial has been shown repeatedly to be false. At least one can argue that an unfair or disproportionate conviction is not permanent, but it becomes that when people are subsequently barred from full reintegration in society through extra-judicial processes.
While the government should not punish a person who has served their sentence, convictions to become part of the public record. Since this is the case now, it is implicit that the consequences of this public record are also part of the "punishment".
On the social benefit of reintegration, there is also a social cost to giving people who have committed crimes special rights or privileges. Doing so removes some of the social stigma of crime that is part of the justice system.
On discrimination in the justices system, it would be good to provide some quantitative information on how much of the increased Black conviction rate is estimated to be a result of direct discrimination, and how much is a result of Black people committing more crime.
What is your argument for government intervention in the current class of protected groups? How would it not also apply to convicts?
Race, gender, religion etc. are categories that one the one hand don't have an inherent relationship to a person's ability to do their job, and on the other hand, are things that are either beyond a person's control, or we value a person being able to choose freely.
In comparison, convictions are within a person's control (except false convictions), and we certainly don't value protecting this "choice". There is the issue of discrimination in the justice system, I don't see how this could be addressed except for reforming the justice system especially in relation to drugs.
And there is a clear relationship between past convictions and whether a person is suitable for a job. It relates directly to that person's moral character and attitudes towards crime that could directly impact their behavior as an employee.
Certain types of convictions (especially drug-related) are more likely to affect Blacks and Hispanics[1], so at least in theory overlooking prior convictions would also eliminate a racial bias in hiring.
1. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2012/03/13/...
But if the effect is only via the conviction, I don't see how this qualifies as racial bias, any more than requiring a high school diploma would qualify as racial bias.
http://marijuana-arrests.com/graph5.html
Probably not embezzlement, insider trading, fraud, computer hacking, or other white collar crimes.
I don't see how this qualifies as racial bias, any more than requiring a high school diploma would qualify as racial bias
Because racial profiling means you judge people based on appearance before checking their educational background, it stands to reason that even Blacks or Hispanics with the same educational background as their White peers would still have higher conviction rates. Therefore a bias based on convictions would still favor Whites.
IMHO this approach strikes a very good compromise - it allows for reformed criminals to re-integrate into society, without allowing recidivists to hide their criminal past.
This seems reasonable to me too, since it allows a uniform way to control the public information on a person's background. A conviction, even a violent one, that happened 30 years ago, is not necessarily something that should be part of the public record.
This is in the US.
I think the judge has some leeway to decide the level of his decision.
Also, only some government organisations and such have access to the middle level records, but a regular employer can't get them. Or they can't after a number of years, or something like that. It's been a while since I haven't checked the details of the procedure.
Also, nobody can get them behind your back, the process is they ask you for them, give you a certificate that they are allowed to if they are asking for the higher level records, and you ask for the records yourself providing the certificate and some id, etc. It's a bit heavy and lengthy, but it means you always know who has access to your records, you also know exactly what they see, and the administration knows who asks for it so they can check if there's too much abuse.
I'm not sure about the details, but basically there are both different access levels and different keeping duration. I think it's a good system.
How do you know that people's decisions are highly irrational, and that forcing people to behave another way would be more rational?
And it seems like the bar for government intervention is pretty high in this case as the government intervention may not only cost people money, but interferes with people's ability to protect themselves from harm.
You're framing this as a laissez faire, libertarian, sort of view. "Keep your government off my hiring decisions!" But, in this case, it was the state that created that problem for this candidate in the first place. A significant percentage of felony convictions are for nonviolent drug offenses. In a world where the government stays out of free trade of goods between people, those convictions wouldn't have happened, at all.
And, as others have mentioned, selecting for criminal background is effectively racial profiling, when implemented on a large scale. Blacks are convicted at a rate several times that of whites for the same crimes; not because they commit more of those crimes, but because they are arrested more often, they are convicted more often, and they are imprisoned more often. Time in American prisons virtually guarantees re-offending (which is a whole discussion unto itself). So, white kids who get caught and don't end up being run through the prison system (getting off with community service or similar), get to escape the system before it escalates to felony charges, in a lot of cases.
The arguments that convictions can be used as a proxy for race is weak for two reasons. First, the crimes that are most prone to racial bias are also the least serious crimes and therefore the least likely to appear on a background test. Second, not much quantitative evidence has been given on how much the conviction rates for Blacks is distorted, relative to the true ratio of rates of crime.
I'm not sure what this means, but it sounds kinda like you're saying, "I've seen the research, but I think it's probably wrong, and black people are actually being treated fairly by the criminal justice system despite the huge swaths of evidence of dramatic imbalance in arrests and convictions and imprisonment...because of...um, distortions."
It's trivial to google examples of blacks being arrested at a much higher rate than whites, including for crimes that whites commit at similar or higher rates, for example, the first thing I found when googling for something relevant to this particular case.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/04/race-ma...
You seem to have ignored my point about the discrimination being greatest for less serious crimes (a point made in the article you linked). The article also claims that even these crimes can be a problem for job seekers, however I think the effect is smaller, in terms of how long it stays on a person's record, whether it appears on a background check, and how employers would react.
Umm no. You Google "Background check" and pay $30.
They ask on your application and if you lie they can fire you for it but since they don't check it's kind of a don't ask/don't tell.
I also (think) you can have many crimes expunged after a period of time and those then only show up on enhanced checks.
I got the job through craigslist although, looking to buy an iPhone and we just had a casual coffee discussion for an hour afterwards. Then I started working part time while in school on iOS apps.
I've been thru the training on the other side. Massive legal liability if I say anything to someone on the phone other than dates of employment. Company policy problems if I say anything other than talk to HR because of the legal liability problems listed above. So why even bother calling? In some states its safe to say if they're eligible for rehire but not in other states so big multistate employers just say never say anything to anyone ever. So whats the upside of saying anything? Well, nothing. And whats the downside? OMG legal attack dogs all over. So don't be an idiot, say nothing. And somehow this above paragraph is a one hour formal HR class.
When you're a kid you usually have no one worthwhile to list as a reference (maybe your landlord, some prof who can't remember you anyway, maybe your priest or equivalent, I've seen it all). And when you're more experienced and know people, your "references" are not a resume section but being able to rattle off the names of 4 of the 6 ex-coworkers who currently work at the new place. So I usually don't put down references or just pick random coworkers (after telling them first) and they never report back being called.
A reference section on a resume is an anachronism, like the old policy of attaching a photograph to your resume to prove you're the right race, stuff like that.
It's the same with my best friend. It's the same way with another close friend. We're all programmers, and we all work together at the same startup. We all did crazy things. We could all have criminal records, but don't, just due to chance.
The point is, please be sure you really want to work somewhere where you feel you have to explain yourself more than what you said in the pastebin. That's more than enough.
That is their choice and not required by either. I walked into secured data centers as a felon at PCI-compliant Linode. Rackspace does not hire felons due to their terms of service; their lawyers pointed me to the clauses regarding protecting customer information as the reason why.
I have a big interest in finance (always want you cant have right?) and so learning more about the specific "rules" even if they're not laws is a window into what doors may be open or closed.
The Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) generally (there are exceptions) limits pre-employment background checks to convictions within the past seven years. Although sentencing can bring this into scope. So for example if you were convicted 10 years ago, but were sentenced to 4 years probation that conviction could still be used against you. State laws can impose further limits on background checks. Depending on how recently this conviction occurred and your state of residence it may not even be an issue.
I would be interested in learning more about these laws. Do you have any particular documentation?
If you can show the reasons why you were doing what you were doing (in short, repercussions of a parental suicide), show you did receive a degree, have people who can vouch for you now (including the work you have done and the value you have provided their business), you might have a shot.
In other words, have you become a valued member of society worth erasing a felony conviction for? If it is erased, would your value to society increase or decrease? What has your character been like since? And most importantly, what potential political ramifications exist if your conviction were to be pardoned?
The only indication I have found any of these avenues is a single line statement on the governors website stating that I should "contact the governors office" if I have had at least 10 years since the date the conviction. Though I don't know if this is referring to the day I was arrested or the time of final disposition of court, or sentencing (either imposed or dismissed...due to my early dismissal)
As such I have tried to volunteer my time for legislators whom have advocated bills that flesh out these laws in hopes that they can point me in the right direction in the future.
I'd definitely retain a lawyer to pursue expungement, but I'd ask them about what new records seeking an expungement can create. For example, ten years ago when you were convicted, the records probably weren't as likely to be digitized and searchable. Now, practically every state uses e-filing, has public access tools, and sells filings to third parties who SEO it up, guaranteeing it to be more public than it is now (just like shady mugshot websites).
In reading your other comments, it sounds like you start a conversation with volunteer work, talking about your testimony about it in front of your legislative body... I think that's the right approach. Possibly you could broaden the topic of your legislative involvement to other areas beyond criminal expungement, though.
That said lighten the charge up a bit if asked say something like, yeah I got caught with a joint in college, don't say I have a felony conviction. Talk to your lawyer and he will probably come up with an even better sounding explanation.
Maybe something like using a friends prescription drugs, etc.
The fact that he got a felony conviction for a first offense suggests that it was more than just a joint (he says that the quantity in his possession would mean an 8 year minimum sentence). Looking at the federal sentencing guidelines (http://www.ussc.gov/Guidelines/2012_Guidelines/Manual_HTML/2...) and sentencing chart (http://www.ussc.gov/Guidelines/2011_Guidelines/Manual_PDF/Se...), it seems like he would have to have quite a large quantity of marijuana to get that much time for a first offense (e.g. 1 KG of marijuana on a first offense would only give you 6 months minimum).
The trade off was my lawyers could work as hard as they could to find legal loopholes, to attempt to get a judge or jury to convict on a lesser charge, however, simple possession isn't easy to create a reasonable doubt, and the jury and judge would not have any sentencing discretion so much so as I understand the way the law is written.
That being said, be honest and ask your recruiter if it's a problem, it's better to be upfront than to get screwed because of a background check.
If I were you, I wouldn't disclose until asked for, because this does not affect your work output, or your footprint on society. If you were a rapist or psycho then for society sake yes you should say something before you flip over and machine-gun half of Googleplex (but that's not your case). If asked for, I would be honest and straightforward (your pastebin story seems you were young and stupid, something we all go through (some caught and recorded in the system, most not)). Just be honest and explain them your situation and leave rest to them and God (if you believe in one).
[1] I sympathize with your story. The longer I live on US soil (I am sure this is not narrowed down to US), the more I become aware jails and prisons are filled in with innocent people (I'm serious) or otherwise we all should be jailed for this or another reason.
Good luck!
I was arrested for selling marijuana to a roommate in the dorms while a freshman at [Name of School] in 200?. This was an especially difficult period for me; my father/mother had committed suicide the year before and I was having a difficult time coping with his/her death and being on my own at college for the first time. This led to me making a very poor choice, one that I regretted then and continue to regret today.
I agreed to plead guilty, and was given N months of probation with no jail time. I successfully completed my probation in 200? without incident.
It was a well deserved wake up call, one that helped to set me back on course. I completed my degree at [Name of School] and have been working in IT ever since.
You don't need to explain that the roommate was working for the police. You don't need to offer information that you were regularly selling. You don't want to call it narcotics. You don't want to mention that you were facing 8 years in prison. You don't want to use the word habit (if you must "to support my use/consumption"). If they ask if you were selling lots, deflect (who knows what "lots" is... you weren't Scarface you were a troubled kid just trying to get by). If you also got community service you should also mention it (N months of probation and N hours of community service). If you did something special for your community service (eg. worked with disadvantaged kids) you could mention that (if you just picked up trash on the highway I wouldn't).
Practice saying the explanation and writing it. You want it to sound natural... especially as it's the truth. It's embarrassing but frankly even for a position requiring trust (eg. handling money) I don't see your conviction as a serious problem. Note that if you still smoke you should consider stopping (or getting a prescription) as some larger companies require drug tests.
And no I don't use illegal drugs - and am not a heavy drinker. I have coped with depression and anxiety with the help of psychotherapy and anti-depression drugs. Which have worked very well, and helped me lead a balanced and healthy life.
The EEOC advice is here.
http://www.eeoc.gov/employees/index.cfm
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/index.cfm
It's a weird cross section because once the door is open, someone can ask pretty much any question they may have been legally prohibited from asking in an interview because I disclosed it - I often feel it changes the dynamic of an interview in a very serious way.
I usually try to use it is an op. to ingratiate that person to my ability to cope with stress and perform under pressure.
One friend, however, has had a lot of years to deal with it (he was convicted of drug trafficking and spent several years incarcerated), and has started to come out the other side. When asked about his conviction, he's not cagey about it, or apologetic about it, but he also doesn't go overboard with explanations. He simply says what happened and that he hasn't had any trouble with the law, or with drugs, since.
Besides, this is for pot. Nobody in California cares about pot, so most of the companies he wants to work for aren't going to care that much about a pot conviction. Apple might (because I feel like they might be hypocritical enough to judge someone for being involved with a drug that one of the founders of the company was known to be very fond of), but I doubt Google would (but, maybe I'm wrong, I don't have any insight into the Google hiring process these days and don't have any inside people to ask).
But, I would definitely trim down the sad sack tale. Just state the facts of what the conviction was for (like "I sold a gram of pot to my roommate in college" or whatever), and that you've had no run-ins with the law since. And, I'd probably mention it if/when the company says they're going to do a background check.
If I were in a hiring position (and I have been in the past, and likely will in the future), I wouldn't consider this relevant, at all, to the decision. And, I'd probably even accept a lot "worse" kinds of felony than this. That may be because of my current experience with friends who have a felony in their past and with my level of knowledge of how the system works, and who the system targets (for example, white folks are far less likely to be convicted on felony charges than black folks for the same crimes, so black folks are far more likely to have a criminal record, even if they just did the same sorts of things me and all my white friends did growing up).
http://crosscut.com/2013/06/11/seattle-city-hall/114930/city...
i would add though that in most of the civilised world this is not an issue. the US law regarding drugs is almost universally viewed from the outside as being massively unjust.
(again i find myself saying 'except for the US' when discussing the 'civilised' world - this is tiresome)
the truth is that people are quite aware of right and wrong for the most part - but many areas of the law are not - your employer might make their own decision in this regard, even if they are a big company - unless they can afford to reject the best they need to consider drop outs and criminals. a quick look at the 'elite' of todays tech world shows a bunch of drop outs and criminals...
i know that here in the UK i was open every time i applied for a job about my conviction - even though it is spent it still comes up and becomes known. it never caused me a problem, and its an interesting conversation at worst... this included some pretty large companies, Virgin Media, Codemasters and J Sainsbury to name a few. it wouldn't surprise me if their official policy on such things is to not care - and I can imagine Google, MS, Amazon etc. will have similar properties - the fact that Bill Gates has a record is quite a popular piece of trivia for example, it would be hypocritical for MS to have employment strategy that would rule out hiring the next Gates... surely?
Had significant experience before incarceration, which helped me get a telecommute job within a month of release. Crappy pay (1/2 - 1/3 of industry standard). Kept getting additional gigs, all telecommute. Worked my way up to industry standard in short order. 4 1/2 years later I have all the work I can handle, and am limited by my own desire to work.
A few times background check concerns have popped up. I was 100% up front. I haven't seen it get in the way as a result - and my situation is far more serious than a drug conviction.
However, I have to be smart. I see a lot of juicy gigs that require clearance, or in other ways would be a concern. Just look the other way.
I can understand wanting the "high profile" employers, but I think the lower profile, the better. As has been mentioned, some companies simply cannot hire you. (In the same way that some apartment complexes can't offer leases to felons, as their particular liability insurance dictates)
tl;dr I have a serious felony and prison experience - I've built up a good development career working from home and laying low.
In 2009, I found work at Linode. The founder of Linode is an understanding guy and I was up front about my situation. It was also more unique because my career up to that point had been broadcast television and radio; when I was convicted, I was an on-air technical director at a Phoenix news/talk station. So I had no demonstrable work experience in computing. I was given a unique interview and passed, so I spent the next two years and change working at Linode. My situation was not a secret to anybody at Linode.
Once I had that experience on my resume, I translated that to Foursquare, where I worked for a year and a half. Again, same story: I was completely up front with everybody I spoke to about the situation, and my immediate manager only wanted to know the details out of curiosity. I do not keep my conviction a secret, even from my colleagues and those around me. It is a part of me and I am no longer embarrassed by it.
After Foursquare is where the tragedy begins, and the salient part of what you're asking about.
Earlier this year, I courted and finally accepted an offer to work at Google. I disclosed the conviction to Google right at the beginning of the process. The recruiter assured me it shouldn't be an issue[1], but they do something sneaky: they offer you employment then perform the background check, and write their offer so that the offer hinges upon the results of the background check. Everybody else I've worked at has had this reversed (including my current employer), so this was a first for me. They let you see the Google offer and get excited, then begin the background check.
The results of the background check arrived very soon. I want to say by the following Monday. I followed up with another e-mail, and Dan said the results go directly to company leadership. I heard nothing for two months, even after I began work. To reiterate that, I worked for two months at Google while Google had the results of the background check in hand. After two months, Google scheduled a meeting half an hour in the future on my calendar and terminated my employment. Ben Treynor and Ben Lutch, two higher-ups in the SRE organization, fired me having never met me. My immediate manager appealed but Ben Lutch refused to reconsider or even speak with me.
Considering I know of some very public felons that work at Google, I can't help but feel shafted, but it taught me a valuable lesson about how to negotiate during the offer process regarding a felony. From Google, I courted three companies:
- Facebook was honest and said with a felony it was unlikely. The recruiter did everything possible to basically talk me out of continuing the process once I disclosed it.
- LinkedIn suddenly filled the position once I disclosed it, even though the position remains open on the Web site and it is a general position.
- Apple resulted in a closed offer. I was up front with Apple as I was Google, and I requested that we put all the horses in order before we move forward. They were understanding of that, given my Google experience, and I am happy to report that I am far better off at Apple than I was Google. I'm not going anywhere; Google is an extraordinarily passive aggressive culture and I could tell I wasn't going to be happy there anyway. Apple also compensates me better than Google did. The side benefit of my long-term goal at Apple is that by the time I'm considering moving elsewhere (if I am at all) the felony will have long passed the seven-year mark. I'll probably have long since set it aside in Arizona (Arizona has no "sealed", just &quo...
If you're famous, felonies are just an inconvenience. If you're middle or upper class, felonies are a big roadblock to a career that require great perseverance and stress. If you're lower class, a felony is a death sentence unless you turn to crime. 83% of offenders who violate probation or parole were unemployed at the time, and only 13% of companies surveyed in one study said they'd even consider applications from felons. I'd wager if our attitudes about felony convictions changed, a lot of crime in the inner city would disappear in the long term.
What a lot of companies don't know is that under certain circumstances, employment of felons can be a tax benefit. UPS famously uses this.
Bitmessage: BM-NBeSoXNvHgqXKXVNykt51LayfXEJz1Yz
However you weren't asking about me :)
Firstly, lawyer up. Get a lawyer who specializes in this sort of thing and ask him or her what to do.
Secondly, try to see this from a risk management perspective, which is most likely how your prospective employers will approach it.
From their perspective, it's probably (but see 'lawyer up' above) immaterial to them on a daily basis if you're no longer dealing, and not going to turn up to work stoned or have a shootout with another dealer in the company carpark. But imagine the fallout if you did. Imagine being the guy or girl who signed off on your hiring.
That's what's going through their heads when considering your application, & that's what you need to mitigate.
And I don't have any illusions about the concerns a perspective employer might have about the "worst case", so better not to take the risk.
I'm not at all at odds with reality, the frustration emanates mostly for me from a personal sense of vanity, and the situations where I've been declined and not offered an explanation if it was a technical deficiency or personal preference against a perceived "risk"