Initially I worked in food service and on phpfreelancer. I spun that into consistent consulting work until a client offered a full time position (less than 15 people, no background checks).
As the years rolled by, I kept moving around. Eventually I tried at a large company(around 8 years ago) and nothing showed on the background check.
I do NOT recommend being upfront, unless there are no formal procedures in place and being honest actually helps. We are talking about your ability to feed and shelter yourself, so give up on the “honesty” thing. I have -never- been able to provide for myself after having been “honest”. [edit: after reading felonintexas let me update this. If someone point blank asks, tell them. Don’t volunteer this information. There is nothing to be gained]
Also, you are now an edge case. That means most advice doesn’t apply. This is both exciting and horribly anxiety driving at the same time. You will have to become comfortable blazing your own path and doing things others say is not possible.
Seriously, good luck. It is possible. It is amazing what you can do that everyone else thinks can’t be done.
A friend told me that the 2 important rules to surviving corporate environments is the following in no specific order.
1. Never lie to someone, and own what you did. Wordsmithing is a gray area but never lie, the reputation of not being truthful can follow you for decades.
2. Never volunteer information that isn't specifically asked for. This isn't a free pass to not provide critical info when your working on stuff like a project, but keep in mind that HR always can dig up info when they want to fire you or not offer you a job. Be honest and to the point, but don't volunteer info that can put you in a bad spot.
TLDR: if they don't ask, don't tell. But if they ask, be honest
My Fraternity's cook, when I was in college, was a former fellon. He worked for us for a few years before he told me about his background.
I don't remember the details, but we had a conversation where he mentioned he had experience in IT. Eventually he very briefly mentioned some high level details about his criminal record when the conversation drifted around "so if you were making big bucks, why are you now cooking for us?"
I personally appreciate that he warned me about the consequences of the super-illegal (but "grey morality") thing he did. But, I must agree, it's best to keep things like a record quiet as long as possible.
I don't know if other fraternity brothers knew about his background. It seems like the kind of thing that would be kept quiet until someone started veering into the super-illegal (but "grey morality") area that got our cook in trouble.
I'm curious to know what he did given your description.
I can think of examples of the reverse: quasi-illegal, but quite immoral.
so what are you going to do, tell them no? you won't get the job. tell the truth? you won't get the job. sue them? good luck. you'll need it and that does not get you the job and the settlement, if you were to win is years away, so there is no remedy. you start out combative, it's over.
there is frequently just no way to win since the ones paying are the ones not following the rules.
I hafta say, it seems like you’re the one with the ego.
Edit: if I had to guess, the cook probably said something like “I made a lot more money before I worked here.” And was then asked why.
First, the commenter could have been paraphrasing a longer conversation that led to that question.
Second, the "I used to be somebody" conversation is more common than you think. Asking "If you were somebody, what happened?" is usually the question that is being invited to be asked if someone brings up this topic.
I recently underwent an extensive background check with my longtime employer and the case still showed up. Of course I had allocuted to it in advance and it was not a problem.
If you think about it, we have tons of laws that don't fit into the mold of "hurting specific people" - which would definitely be "black morality" to me - but are more of either "preserving the system as it is" or even "we said it's illegal and so it is". I'm not saying none of those should exist, but I definitely would be willing to look onto some of it as a morally "gray area".
Most people like to think they are good, even when presented with hard evidence that they’re not.
Was part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chanology, got caught, went to jail. Yeah, super-illegal. But was it immoral?
If you don't know anything about the shady stuff that Scientology did, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QsCrFANMzc is a great video to start with.
No better advice has ever been given on HN, from minor things to major stuff. Never volunteer any information about yourself to anyone in the office beyond what is required to complete your job. Never say too much about previous roles and keep it very general.
I re-binged "Last Week Tonight" a month ago. There is an episode on the prison system in the USA and the obstacles people face upon release. I remember one case where the person wrote on his job application as employed by the "State of <insert state>" while he was in prison. (it must be this episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pz3syET3DY).
I haven't been convicted of any crimes, so I don't have own experience. From people I know, they continued working in tech as contractors/freelancers, but for small fry (as big banks will be very thorough on your background (criminal/credit scoring) checks).
Doing small gigs for small companies where you don't handle personal/sensitive data can give you enough time to (as the parent suggests) have this 'forgotten'.
Would you consider moving to another country?
On the other hand we definitely hired people without speeding tickets who were likely deep agents for foreign states.
I wouldn't trust a single human to be objective about the morality of their actions
I'm of the position it all drugs even medical drugs should be free to consume by anybody I should be able to walk in to CVS and get heart medication if I want or cocaine if I want if CVS is willing to sell it to me it's not for the government to decide nor government licensed agents AKA doctors to decide what I consume into my own body
My body my choice
If it’s just some mom and pop shop then I fully agree. Just tell them enough to fully and honestly answer their questions without opening additional causes for concern.
Addictive substances are well established as a hazard not just to the individual, but to society. So I think government has an interest in avoiding/preventing/restricting addiction.
FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) is the public face of the USA's "Securities and Exchange Commission". They write the rulebook on who gets to work in the industry (stockbrokers, investment bankers, and the like).
The citizens of communities ravaged by addiction all suffer, whether they individually consume the drug or not.
The idea that drug use is a victimless crime is patently false and all it takes is a few moments of thought to realize it.
No, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with adults smoking a joint after work or on the weekends if that’s what they choose to do, but it quickly devolves from there.
Sorry no... This is 3rd party Liability and that can not be the basis for a free society, as at that point everything becomes regulated
Want to go back to Alcohol Prohibition as well?
Further The Father is also free to choose a job where he makes less money that would impact the "little girl" in negative ways, or may choose to tell off his boss and get fired, will you now regulate speech "for the children"
>>The idea that drug use is a victimless crime is patently false and all it takes is a few moments of thought to realize it.
Victimless crime is defined for First Party victimization, to most people 3rd party liability is not a thing, Ford is not responsible if someone kills someones else in a F150, A Gun Manufacturer is not responsible when someone kills someone with a gun... The victims of those crimes are victim of the PERSON that victimized them, the driver or murder
Drug abuse can lead to other crimes, such as theft, and the victims of those crimes are victims of the drug user.
However you can not have a free society if you start shifting the liability upstream, at that point you get in a Pre Crime laws (which is what Drug laws are) and you end up with a whole negative effect and tyranny
I used to work in finance. Volunteering personal information about myself led to a close friendship with the CFO of the bank I worked for. I did good work, but so did many other people. The CFO and I got along so well only because we connected as people — mostly based on our personal lives and shared interests. My relationship with that person rocketed my career forward.
I don’t mean to take away from your experience. It sucks. But volunteering personal information can be beneficial.
Your risk tolerance should factor into the decision. The story above happened very early on in my career, shortly out of college. Taking those risks, to me, at the time, was totally worth it.
Guidance for New York City which is a locality with such a law:
> Job applications cannot have questions about criminal records and cannot ask you to authorize a background check. Employers cannot ask you questions about your criminal record. If you are asked about your record, your answer cannot be used against you. Employers cannot run a background check on you until after a conditional offer of employment.
> Once an employer offers you a job, they can ask about and consider your criminal record ...an employer can decide to not hire you for one of two reasons: 1. because a direct relationship exists between your conviction and the job you want; or 2. because your conviction history creates an unreasonable risk to people or property. The employer must send you its reasoning in writing, along with the background check it used.
https://www.nyc.gov/site/cchr/media/fair-chance-employees.pa...
Let's be real: This is basically impossible to enforce. This is exactly the same a gender and national heritiage (ethnicity) discrimination. It happens all the time -- there are so many mentions of it on this board. And very, very rarely is anything done about it. There are so many "weak sauce" excuses that companies can give to explain why they will not hire a candidate.
That said: I like your advice: Lie, then report when you are unfairly rejected. This is the way.
I wasn't thinking in that direction, but that totally makes sense.
Thanks.
He was talking about making good money in IT, so I asked why he didn't continue working in IT. (At least that's how I remember a conversation from over 20 years ago.)
He was originally talking about playing computer games on early computers, so I thought I'd get a story about why he left tech. (IE, laid off and had to change careers, couldn't keep up with changes, didn't like the stress.) I was quite surprised that he was a felon.
He really didn't tell me much about what he did, either. I don't want to repeat much here, other than to say he got greedy.
At a high level I don't think there's anything wrong with what he did. There's plenty of legal activities that are "grey" morally: Oil companies, tobacco companies, investments (stock, 401ks,) where ordinary people don't realize the nasty things the companies they own do...
It all depends on the framing of the situation. For myself, I frame it as a few of the following, context-depending on how it's asked:
* (on a webform) "not applicable" in writing * (do you have a felony?) I do, but it has absolutely nothing to do with my role (because it really doesn't). * (will the background check yield anything we should know?) you'll see something, but it has nothing to do with the job.
If they keep pressing, and seem simply hesitant, I refer them to a webpage that articulates the story for them. It's behind me, I've grown from it to where it doesn't define me, and I'm proud that it's behind me.
If they get weird for the rest of the interview, I simply say "thank you for your time, but I don't believe this will be a good fit, please let me know if you change your mind", and I walk out of there to avoid wasting another minute with their bigotry.
Once I hit the 7-year mark, that background check won't yank any database association to my legal fiction unless they wish to dig. At that point, I can simply say "nothing will show on my background check" and it's completely honest.
The reason this continues to be a problem in the USA is because people aren't confident in what they've come through. The stigma exists because employees fold over and continue letting employers feel they have the right to discriminate over what happened, irrespective of how that person changed from their experience. I see my opposing any condescension as an effort to resist a social structure that creates a second-class citizen.
In this case, it's a matter of social expectations driven by the timing of that honesty:
* If someone is a completely unfiltered person and says the information audaciously and openly, the interviewer may simply see they have nothing to hide.
* On the other hand, if the person looks anxious (which could literally be nothing more than PTSD), then awkwardly blurts out the information, they may be interpreted as having more to hide, making that honesty appear worse than it is. Ironically, that was probably the optics that got my felony in the first place.
While I don't have IT experience, I can tell you as someone that both worked as an electrician and a FiOs technician that I also assumed that honesty reflects well on people and would be careful not to discourage it. I started at Verizon at like age 20 with that attitude and had no record and seldom anything to hide.
I learned fast that the policy of managers in both companies was, "Encourage narratives that honesty will always result in a better outcome to all employees... And for those stupid enough to believe it, punish them severely because only when they're honest do we know with certainty they're guilty."
First time I was questioned by management at Verizon, I made sure I was ambiguous in a way that made them think I was guilty. They said I was fired immediately and I said, "I'm fired? For what? I wasn't even in the truck. I told you what happened and I told you I was up a pole. The bucket truck was 2 blocks away when I saw it all."
Their faces turned white as they realized that I can tell everyone it's a lie and they can't just dismiss me as disgruntled for getting fired.
Why did you do that?
Another thing to consider is that the outcome (which is the one I wanted) resulted in me having them by the balls. I could repeat it to them as retribution in front of other employees with records to back it up and even in front of higher management to demonstrate how grossly incompetent they are.
What about alcohol use then? Smoking? Buying high risk stocks, options and NFTs? Investing in high-risk startups? Working for a high-risk startups? Spending 100 hours per week on work and neglecting one's family? Any of these could potentially lead to very sad consequences for not only the individual involved but for the people close to them. But once you step on this road, it can lead you to a very weird places if you're not careful. Or you may throw the consistency out of the window and just say "but this is different!" - but then I'd welcome you to explain how exactly it's different.
> but it quickly devolves from there.
This is a so called "gateway" theory, and there are many indications it is false. For example: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB6010.html
I suspect that with further legalization and de-stigmatization of marijuana use, the link would become even weaker, because most users won't devolve anywhere - as most people who drink a can of beer on a weekend do not become raging alcoholics - and the cases where a person is driven to drug use by some problems not produced (though also not solved but frequently worsened) by drugs would be recognized as such instead of blaming the evil weed for everything. (NB: not a user myself, never did, never planning to)
That's generally disproven, and demonstrates ignorance on your part.
It doesn't matter what the addiction is: Cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, video games, TV, sex, work, money, religion: No government regulation can force a person to live a "good" life, and these kinds of addictions, legal or not, can have nasty negative consequences.
It just so happens that certain substances are illegal due to politics, bias, and ignorance. There's good reasons that these substances should be controlled, but how we (assuming you are in the US or country with similar laws) control them isn't working. (Banning them just creates dangerous black markets.)
When it comes to dangerous narcotics like opioids, cocaine, ect, the biggest obstacle to reform is misinformation like "a joint after work or on the weekends ... but it quickly devolves from there". That's not how addiction works; and continuing to believe and repeat misinformation like that perpetuates the problem. (IE, the misinformation makes it politically difficult in the US to to offer forms of treatment that are proven to work.)