Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The case for uniform ban-the-box laws

The case for uniform ban-the-box laws PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to assess the public policy benefits of ban-the-box laws, the administrative burden for employers created by disparate approaches to these laws among various states and cities and the value of adopting a federal ban-the-box law with a preemptive effect.Design/methodology/approachThe paper uses a descriptive research method that examines statistical data regarding the recidivism and sustained employment and examples of states’ laws regarding restrictions or requirements of when criminal history inquiries can be made during the hiring process, notice requirements related to use of criminal history information and limitations on employment decisions based on criminal history information.FindingsThe paper finds that, given the public policy interests at stake and the relationship observed between recidivism and sustained employment, it is difficult to argue that states and local ban-the-box requirements are not rational and well-intentioned. However, a federal ban-the-box law with preemptive effect is likely the only viable solution for employers overburdened by this disparate approach to ban-the-box.Originality/valueThis paper provides an examination of why a federal ban-the-box law with preemptive effect is an attractive alternative to the current disparate approach to regulating criminal history inquiries by different states and local governments. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Strategic HR Review Emerald Publishing

The case for uniform ban-the-box laws

Strategic HR Review , Volume 16 (6): 6 – Nov 13, 2017

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/the-case-for-uniform-ban-the-box-laws-ce2hhsNB7u

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
ISSN
1475-4398
DOI
10.1108/SHR-08-2017-0058
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to assess the public policy benefits of ban-the-box laws, the administrative burden for employers created by disparate approaches to these laws among various states and cities and the value of adopting a federal ban-the-box law with a preemptive effect.Design/methodology/approachThe paper uses a descriptive research method that examines statistical data regarding the recidivism and sustained employment and examples of states’ laws regarding restrictions or requirements of when criminal history inquiries can be made during the hiring process, notice requirements related to use of criminal history information and limitations on employment decisions based on criminal history information.FindingsThe paper finds that, given the public policy interests at stake and the relationship observed between recidivism and sustained employment, it is difficult to argue that states and local ban-the-box requirements are not rational and well-intentioned. However, a federal ban-the-box law with preemptive effect is likely the only viable solution for employers overburdened by this disparate approach to ban-the-box.Originality/valueThis paper provides an examination of why a federal ban-the-box law with preemptive effect is an attractive alternative to the current disparate approach to regulating criminal history inquiries by different states and local governments.

Journal

Strategic HR ReviewEmerald Publishing

Published: Nov 13, 2017

There are no references for this article.