The presentation on solar today got me thinking about the idea of helping convicted felons find jobs. Looking more into this concept in general, I found this article about possible advantages of hiring ex-convicts for a startup team. If you’re dealing with someone that doesn’t have serious mental health problems or violent tendencies, they could actually be a better team member than someone who has several other opportunities that they could leave for instead.
Hey, I like this idea and hiring people who wouldn’t otherwise have the chance is great! I think the letter Cheri Garcia wrote is kind of weird though. Like the third and forth bullet points, being humble and loyal. The author writes that, “Our Software Engineer, who spent 7 years in prison will take out the trash, run errands, mop floors, or any other tedious task in between programming software for our startup.” I think the attitude Garcia mentions of individuals saying “that’s not my job,” is actually a good and healthy boundary. Even at a startup, where people aren’t always operating in their traditional roles, it’s best to have clearly defined limits and I think this is leaning into the territory of, “well, they are a felon and can’t leave, so it’s great for our business!” This is further exemplified in point four, where it seems like the boss can take advantage of their worker’s unwillingness to leave, Garcia says, “You won’t have to worry about them quitting. They know they have a good opportunity to work with a company that has already forgiven their past mistakes.” Altogether, there are great reasons to hire people who have criminal backgrounds, but these are kind of weird ones that indicate a not so great work environment.
Giving ex convicts a second chance is a great way to give back to the community and benefit your business. But, I agree with Katelyn. The idea that they’re more beneficial than the average worker, because they don’t have other opportunities isn’t putting the program in the most positive light. Could they fact that they won’t leave due to lack of opportunities potentially influence how they are treated? It leaves a lot of room for misinterpretations of the practice!