‘Ban-the-box’ extension, other Minn. laws take effect this week

  • Article by: Abby Simons , Star Tribune
  • Updated: December 30, 2013 - 5:49 AM

From health care for the poor to scrap-yard surveillance, new state laws set to take effect in 2014 didn’t grab headlines like the 2013 legalization of same-sex marriage did, but they could still affect swaths of Minnesotans.

  • 22
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
minn12Dec. 29, 1310:32 PM

The 'ban the box' law will not work. Most employers won't hire felons, or those with serious criminal records. All this does is delay the rejection, and cause a lot of wasted time and resources for employers. It's just another ineffective 'feel good' law.

88
51
shuckDec. 30, 13 1:25 AM

"All qualified candidates are welcome to apply, but please note that XYZ company policy is to drug test all candidates if and when a contingent job offer is extended and to not employ felons." Solution to pointless law.

39
31
zkat5zugDec. 30, 13 2:06 AM

minn12: Would like to see data supporting your claim. Can you provide a link? I have hired a number of people with criminal records, and all were good, reliable workers. Not everyone convicted of a crime is a stone cold killer. The law helps people who might have made a single mistake and otherwise find themselves in an endless circle of rejection. If it turns out an employer spends time on a hire only to reject him/her later on in the process, well that's the cost of doing business. I've wasted a lot of time interviewing and hiring people without criminal records only to find out they're deadwood. Try to have a heart; life isn't black and white for most people.

78
19
Dunbar1963Dec. 30, 13 5:12 AM

I happen to disagree. Though there are instances where I have been barred from a particular job, but I have been gainfully employed for the better part of forty years. Some employers insist on going through my criminal history and attempt to use it against me, when that is the case I simply move on. My current employer went back forty years to find something and they managed to keep me out for four years. I stuck with it and I have worked there for three years, I dislike the job and will be leaving in a few weeks to take a better position. Just because I broke a law in the past does not mean I will do so in the future. Give these people a chance and you might be pleasantly surprised.

64
13
tgcloughDec. 30, 13 5:34 AM

@minn12...Not all felonies are equal in their effect on doing a job. If an employer sees a candidate who looks good for a position they may rethink the exclusion of all felons if the felony has no effect on their ability to do the job. The "One Size Fits All" mentality has to go when it comes to the lives of human beings.

56
11
johnnycgoodDec. 30, 13 7:10 AM

Why no mention of the new law that requires random drug tests for state welfare recipients?

31
8
berrymomDec. 30, 13 7:18 AM

Can't believe someone would make blanket negative statements about ex-felons in today's world. Are these the same people that want to cut unemployment benefits? So what are an ex-felon's options, then? Also, it was interesting to note Target Corp's role in Ban the Box. Wish they had included some of Target's initiatives in all the bad press about the security breach to paint a complete picture of the company.

24
9
dorkeemnDec. 30, 13 7:43 AM

I'm puzzled as to why an estate sale vendor would have to "guarantee" 20,000 in sales. That makes no sense at all and will either eleminate estate sales or drive up already inflated prices at them.

29
5
ericgus55Dec. 30, 13 7:43 AM

berrymom makes a great point. If felons can be rejected from work without even getting an interview, and there are 'too many people freeloading and not working,' then what are we (as a society) supposed to do? Either we need to make it easier to get a job, be more willing to help support those who cannot, or spend more and more on prisons (security systems, criminal justice system, etc.) when those who have no legitimate options continue to commit crimes.

27
3
optionDec. 30, 13 8:34 AM

Radon testing should be mandated for the sale of any home. If radon levels exceed established standards, the seller must be held responsible for remediation. Radon causes lung cancer, and because it is found at such high rates in Minnesota homes, it should be taken most seriously.

6
16

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

question of the day

Poll: Who will win the Wild-Colorado playoff series?

Weekly Question

ADVERTISEMENT