Clearly Becks has a good point, that people who have served time are at a disadvantage because “most people hold discriminatory views”.

Also I think that people who have worked at say, McDonalds flipping burgers, should not be required to disclose that, because most people hold discriminatory views.

I also think that most people would not want to hire someone who had been fired repeatedly, so that should not be disclosed either.

In fact, until we change these views, I think getting rid of ALL questions on an application is only appropriate….

This is another instance of “The miracle that is Oakland”

1. I would absolutely support saying something like “you do not need to check the box for non-violent drug convictions,” as I do not view those as true crimes.

2. I would not characterize what I support as “discrimination,” which is typically a loaded term implying unfair prejudgment. Instead, I would characterize it as “full information.”

Incidentally, I work at an office with an employee who is a felon on parole. He was hired with full knowledge of this background, but he explained it clearly, and all was well.

I do believe employers should give ex-convicts a shot where it makes sense. I just also believe employers should operate with full information.

In past posts, you have stated your opposition to the war on drugs. So should people who have drug related felonies (like for selling marijuana) have to check a box and explain their crimes (which you don’t seem to think should be crimes at all)?

Also, I think it’s naive to think that these ex-felons would be on equal footing to someone who hadn’t served time. They have a huge built in disadvantage, since they all have a several year gap in their resume. As someone who’s reviewed hundreds of resumes, I know that that alone would raise red flags and could ultimately be a huge disadvantage, with or without having to mark a check box.

I could be misreading it, but between that line and “Developing temporary work projects,” it really seems like Dellums views the City as some kind of job creation program. Maybe some cities have enough money to function that way, but Oakland certainly doesn’t.