Ban the Box is a campaign that was started in 2004 by a civil rights group in California. The idea of the campaign was to do away with the box on an application that asks if the individual if they have a criminal record. This group believes that many people have been discriminated against and cannot find jobs or even housing due to having a criminal record. With 1 in 4 adults having been in jail or prison at least once in their life, the Ban the Box campaign believes that it is wrong to judge a person based on their background. They believe that all employers need to focus on the skills and qualities of the applicant rather than their history. This is important to HR managers, as they are the ones making the hiring decisions. The original focus
…show more content…
The coalition consists of 24 community organizations. In Minnesota, banning the box as only simply reduced the discrimination and confusion with the initial application submitted. It does not keep companies from doing background checks or accessing an individual's record after they have been selected from other applicants. I think this idea is a wonderful thing to put in place in all states to help those who want a job, get a job. The company is still able to hire safe individuals but are not able to judge applicants strictly on their criminal records. Ban the Box has been successful in over 45 cities and counties which no longer ask about the applicant's conviction record on the initial application. Seven states have changed their hiring practices and have reduced discrimination against convicted individuals because of Ban the Box. Ban the Box hope to go further in depth and plans to eliminate the box on housing applications. New Jersey has already accepted this policy. …show more content…
It is meant to be fair, and to give second chances. Most times, a verbal, then written warning comes before suspension or even termination. (Noe, Hollenbeck, Genhart, Wright, 2018, pg. 328) However, I do think that some actions deserve an immediate termination. The first one being sexual harassment or using the internet, phone, or emails to send, watch, or receive inappropriate pictures, sites, or recordings. This type of behavior should not be tolerated even once in the workplace. Not only is it disturbing to co-workers and other staff, but it could ruin the entire company if this type of behavior is accepted. The reputation of the company known to both the employees, and customers will be ruined if a zero-tolerance policy is not in place. The second act that I believe if taken, that should result in immediate discharge is any kind of violence or threats to the organization or other employees. This includes verbal threats, bringing weapons to the workplace, bullying, or any physical abuse. If the defendant sued in either of these cases, I believe that the business could easily defend themselves as to why they terminated the employee. The reason is as simply as safety and protection against other
The coalition consists of 24 community organizations. In Minnesota, banning the box as only simply reduced the discrimination and confusion with the initial application submitted. It does not keep companies from doing background checks or accessing an individual's record after they have been selected from other applicants. I think this idea is a wonderful thing to put in place in all states to help those who want a job, get a job. The company is still able to hire safe individuals but are not able to judge applicants strictly on their criminal records. Ban the Box has been successful in over 45 cities and counties which no longer ask about the applicant's conviction record on the initial application. Seven states have changed their hiring practices and have reduced discrimination against convicted individuals because of Ban the Box. Ban the Box hope to go further in depth and plans to eliminate the box on housing applications. New Jersey has already accepted this policy. …show more content…
It is meant to be fair, and to give second chances. Most times, a verbal, then written warning comes before suspension or even termination. (Noe, Hollenbeck, Genhart, Wright, 2018, pg. 328) However, I do think that some actions deserve an immediate termination. The first one being sexual harassment or using the internet, phone, or emails to send, watch, or receive inappropriate pictures, sites, or recordings. This type of behavior should not be tolerated even once in the workplace. Not only is it disturbing to co-workers and other staff, but it could ruin the entire company if this type of behavior is accepted. The reputation of the company known to both the employees, and customers will be ruined if a zero-tolerance policy is not in place. The second act that I believe if taken, that should result in immediate discharge is any kind of violence or threats to the organization or other employees. This includes verbal threats, bringing weapons to the workplace, bullying, or any physical abuse. If the defendant sued in either of these cases, I believe that the business could easily defend themselves as to why they terminated the employee. The reason is as simply as safety and protection against other