As I shared in my last blog, one of my priorities is ensuring that the Civil Service is a role-model employer in the UK that welcomes and champions all kinds of diverse groups. I am committed to promoting equality and valuing inclusion…Yeah, yeah. *yawns*
That’s why I am proud that the Civil Service is championing the Ban the Box campaign that aims to provide fairer opportunities for offenders to compete for jobs by encouraging employers to remove the tick box asking about criminal convictions from application forms.Wait, what? You’re going to blind recruit?
As a senior leader in this organisation, I do recognise that we also have a duty of care to our staff and the members of the public that we serve. The Civil Service will still ask about criminal convictions during the recruitment process, but we will do this after the initial application form stage.So….you aren’t going to blind-recruit at all. You’re just going to ask them after you’ve done half the work? Does that make sense? I suppose it does if you’re dim.
Like this idiot:
sandra— 12/02/2016 But if someone has a minor conviction going back many years why shouldn't they be given a second chance? I have never had a single conviction, caution etc my entire life, and it was hard enough for me to get a job - so how demoralizing, disheartening and heartbreaking must it be for someone who has wiped the slate clean and wants to start over again?Oh, where’s my nano-violin. I suppose there’ll be hundreds of her colleaguies eagerly ‘me too-ing’ her to make sure they come across as good little civil service drones who…
Ken Fairbank— 12/02/2016
This motion to 'Ban the Box is totally mis-guided in my view, and an example of the warped sense of equality that seems ever more common in Government circles and elsewhere. When I grew up, you knew that getting a criminal conviction would have a serious affect on your job prospects - it was a deterrent, and one that worked. I agree that this is a dangerous and ill-conceived idea that sends out the worst of messages at a time when we need to be rebuilding a sense of social responsibility, not undermining it further.
Ian Smart— 12/02/2016
I have only just heard of this, there has been no consultation on this. I have been in the civil service 28 years and this is the worst idea I have ever heard of. It is vile. It is an insult to the staff and the public. What is the point of keeping your nose clean, resisting temptation often in difficult and adverse circumstances only to have someone say it does n't matter. I was proud to work in a service that had no one with a CRO number in it, in a contracting service we should be raising the standard not lowering it. And what of the public? Do you want to submit your benefit application or go to the Job Centre and it be a gaol bird examining your case. Do you want to work with these people who could have sold drugs, robbed houses and assaulted people? I don't. I feel both myself and my service has been degraded and I am very angry. What message does this send to kids - it does n't matter if your honest? We are in a recession and when things are difficult criminals should be at the bottom of the pile. Serve them right.
The proposal to "ban the box" is so palpably ill-conceived that one must seriously question the critical faculties of those who proposed it. The implication is that employers will ask job applicants for details about their previous convictions later on in the recruitment process. If the later revealed conviction(s) results in excluding the applicant from the job, as it would have done had it been revealed at the outset of the application, how can it possibly be argued with any degree of seriousness, that the later disclosure of the conviction benefits either the prospective employee or employer? The employee will suffer the disappointment (and possibly expense) of having their expectations dashed and the employer will have wasted their time processing that applicant; possibly at the expense of other worthwhile job applicants. Real inclusiveness can only be achieved by relaxing the law on previous convictions under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, under which, and subject to certain exemptions, there would be no requirement to declare previous spent convictions. If the government want to make a real difference to the lives of those who's career/life chances have been blighted because of previous convictions, then amend the legislation rather than proceed with a fudge which is clearly what this is.
Chris P— 12/02/2016
Sandra - both of my sons are law-abiding citizens. I don't see why they should be on a "level playing field" with someone who, as a matter of their own choice, is a thief or a thug. The former jailbirds have made their choice to put themselves above the law and others and there has to be some meaningful consequences for them. It's a about character not "mistakes". Once the general public and press get wind of this then the only outcome can be further reputational damage to the reputation of the service. Sure non-criminals can be disagreeable, and, fact is, I have worked with one or two who have been. But this looks like dogmatic nonsense.
I am perusing this blog with a mixture of bewildered astonishment and pure anger. The whole principle and dialogue surrounding matters of equality has spiralled out of control to almost cosmic levels. I do not consider myself " equal " to a person with a criminal history. I consider myself to be far, far above them. If you want to contradict me in this I'd be delighted and interested to know why.Well, well, well. It seems that even the workforce can spot the flaws.
Why, then, can’t their oh-so-well-remunerated bosses?