Ban the box with education, not regulation

“Ban the box” is a movement spearheaded by civil rights groups that is aimed at persuading employers to remove from their applications the check box that asks if applicants have a criminal record.

In some municipalities, it is more than a suggestion – it’s regulation. Buffalo, Rochester, and New York City, for example, all have laws on the books prohibiting that line of questioning.

Some unsuspecting firms that have multiple locations across the country have run afoul of these laws. For them, it’s a difficult law for human resources offices to manage with only 150 cities and counties having such laws in place. There’s inconsistency in its mandated use and if corporate HR is not up on local laws, there are problems to be had.  

Case in point: In 2016, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman penalized two retailers mightily for breaking the city of Buffalo’s two-year-old bam. Big Lots paid a $100,000 fine while Marshall’s was on the hook for $95,000.

It’s rather unfortunate that these laws are in place. Interviewing and/or hiring individuals with criminal backgrounds should be at the sole discretion of the employer.

Many businesses want to minimize risk and eliminate wasteful hiring practices. You certainly can’t fault retailers for not wanting a repeat thief managing their inventories or operating their cash registers. And why make social service organizations and non-profits not be able to initially set aside unqualified candidates who put their clients at risk (such as job applicants who might be registered sex offenders or those who have been arrested for DWI) before delving into the initial interviews and subsequent criminal background checks?

On the other hand, there are employers who don’t use the box. I’ve written here before about the value in hiring those with criminal records and specifically former convicts. When they are given that chance to work, they succeed. Ex-cons have been some of my best coworkers. The determination they possess to become new men, to stay clean and better themselves (and their families) furnishes an incredible work ethic. At one point just a few years ago, over a quarter of my workplace had criminal records and about a third of that group had considerable time in prison under their belt.  

While I see the value in society’s investment in ex-cons (the US prison system costs taxpayers $228 billion per year) and cherish the redemption and reformation of men when given steady, gainful employment (and hope), I also see that their employment could pose a risk in certain workplaces because not everyone reforms. Within five years of release, about three-quarters of released prisoners are rearrested (I would argue, though, that it may be attributed to the stigma employers have placed upon them -- here in New York, more than 60% of ex-cons remain unemployed 1 year after their release because of their records).

But to each their own when it comes to hiring. I don’t mind assuming the risk and can’t fault those who won’t.

That’s why I have enjoyed the approach Governor Cuomo’s office has taken with this issue. He could easily force legislation or institute executive decree that would mandate the banning of the box statewide. But, he hasn’t. Instead, he’s focused his team’s efforts on things like the community reentry council and ongoing employer outreach.

Last month, Cuomo and his team shared their message yet again, reminding employers of these endeavors while discussing the value of hiring ex-convicts in regard to business operations and public safety. He also officially launched the Work for Success Pledge and which aims to help pair job candidates who have criminal convictions with companies in need of labor.

That’s the best way to ban the box…with education, not regulation.

It’s simple: 1 in 3 American adults has a criminal record. Who are we to judge? And, at the same time, who are we to judge those who do judge?

Let employers make the decisions that best fit their corporate and personal cultures. They know their workplaces -- and themselves -- far better than any lawmaker ever could.  

From the 07 August 2017 Greater Niagara Newspapers

A world without Boy Scouts

Last week’s appearance by President Trump at the Boy Scouts of America’s National Jamboree and his trademark non-scripted remarks caused Scouting’s boo-birds to come out in full strength on social media. You could find on Twitter and Facebook countless souls using his remarks to paint the Jamboree as a “Hitler Youth Rally.”

Never mind that Presidents have long been invited to speak at Jamborees and Trump is known to meander off message, no matter the audience or guidelines before him. The biggest naysayers chose to ignore that because they already had a vendetta against the organization, one that saw them over the past few years paint the BSA as being too traditional in their ways or not being inclusive enough.

It’s a topsy-turvy world when you see how many people would love Scouting to go the way of the dinosaur. I really can’t understand how some people could feel threatened by a youth organization that transforms boys into excellent husbands, fathers, citizens, and leaders. God knows this world needs more men to be better at those responsibilities.

The Scouting program is an excellent supplement to good parenting and good schooling and when either of those is lacking, Scouting fills the void and becomes something greater.

It gives boys the male guidance that might be missing from a broken home, it develops the confidence they need to overcome their perceived weaknesses and fears, and it shows them the paths of careers and service they may not have been exposed to in the home or classroom.

That’s a pretty spectacular impact.

What if the naysayers’ wishes came true?

What if there never was a Boy Scouts of America as we know it?

Here’s how our world might be different:    

There might not have been artificial hearts: Doctor William DeVries was instrumental in developing artificial hearts and it was with his skilled surgical hands that the new technology was first tested on animals and then put into a human. He paved the way for saved lives and longer lives. It just so happens DeVries is an Eagle Scout. Scouting gave him the drive needed to work through high school to help his mother and grandmother raise his sixteen siblings and then tackle some of the most rigorous medical theories in universities.  

Hank Aaron might not have broken Babe Ruth’s record: Hank Aaron’s assault on the most sacred of sports records – the all-time home run record – would never have happened were a weaker man (physically or mentally) in his baseball cleats. Aaron received thousands of racist, hateful letters as he approached Babe Ruth’s total, and many of them were death threats against him and his family. He weathered that incredible stress and disgusting hatred by rising above it thanks to the life lessons and confidence he gleaned from being a Boy Scout.

There might not have been an Indiana Jones, Jaws or ET: Some of the most iconic films of all time were developed by Steven Spielberg who was an Eagle Scout. He likely would have gone on to an entirely different career path without the BSA’s impact. In a 2010 interview with Scouting magazine he said: “When I went for a Photography merit badge, I made a little 8mm movie. And the Boy Scouts in my troop liked the movie, made a lot of noise, laughed, clapped, and all that. I got that great virus of ‘I’ve got to do this the rest of my life.’”

There might not be a Wal-Mart: Sam Walton founded the world’s largest and most impactful department store chain in 1962 after years in sales and retail. His loyalty to the customer, emphasis on thrift and value, focus on sound business practices and tireless work ethic allowed the business to grow dramatically and he became one of America’s great entrepreneurial stories of the twentieth century. Those life skills and business traits were ideologies honed in the Boy Scout program. Walton was a Life Scout – almost an Eagle.

There might not be a Microsoft: Another Life Scout, Bill Gates, become a multi-billionaire by founding Microsoft, a company that is part of our everyday lives, one that has made work and computation so easy. He then devoted his earnings and life to philanthropy through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which impacts millions of lives the world over. That attention to community service was developed in his Boy Scout career, as was his interest in computing. One of his former scout leaders liked to recount the tale of one event where all the boys focused on outdoor skills while Bill gave a presentation on computers which were only in their embryonic stage at that time.

Other scouts you might be familiar with are Eagles like Neil Armstrong, Gerald Ford, Ross Perot, Mike Rowe, and William Sessions.

That’s an impeccable list of men who accomplished much…men who changed the world because they were changed by Scouting.

It’s pretty tough to imagine where we would be without Boy Scouts.

  

From the 31 July 2017 Greater Niagara Newspapers

Health care could use a dose of responsibility

A report was issued last December by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) noting that the average life expectancy for Americans dropped for first time since 1993. For those born in 2015 it was estimated that a woman could live to 81.2 while a man could live to 76.3 years of age. The previous report showed expectations of 81.3 and 76.5.

While the changes might seem small (we’re talking a couple of months or less), it’s an entirely unwelcome and unexpected situation. Unwelcome in that everyone wants to live as long as they can and unexpected given that Americans spent a mind-numbing $3.2 trillion on health care in 2015, which was 6% more than 2014.    

The reason behind outcomes not matching expectations is a marked increase in death rate not attributed to old age. Eight of the top ten leading causes of death saw increases in 2015, some of them reversing years-long trends. The usual culprits were front and center: heart disease, stroke, diabetes, respiratory diseases, etc. 

How could this happen? After all, shouldn’t all that money we’re pumping into the health care system through insurance, Medicaid, Medicare and more lead to longer, healthier lives?

Not necessarily. Expenditures continue to grow because we are managing those afflictions rather than preventing or inhibiting them. Americans make themselves sick rather than healthy.

That’s the reason why we rank a pitiful 26^th in the world in life expectancy.

The nations that lead us in that regard (such as Japan which comes in at just under 84 years of good living) eat less fat and processed sugars and consume much healthier foods. The standard American diet has become calorie-rich and junk-heavy (just look at how ubiquitous the deadly high-fructose corn syrup has become).

That bad dietary behavior, coupled with a growing disinterest in physical activity, has caused two-thirds of all American adults to be considered overweight and staggering third of our population to be labeled as obese.

Their kids are following their lead as approximately one-third of children and adolescents ages 6 to 19 are considered to be overweight or obese. That’s frightening, given that many of us have fond memories of energetic childhoods with time spent outdoors or playing sports.

Despite society’s deep knowledge of the cause of our problems we continue to pursue excess with food and drink and pass on the gym or getting out into nature. This is because we have a healthcare system that rewards bad behavior and causes individuals to always think and act in the short-term.

There’s always a quick fix to health problems, be it through medications, surgeries, or equipment. It’s so much easier for people to rely on a crutch rather than make the minimal personal sacrifices necessary to maintain a health way of life.

Since all the education levied upon this problem – be it through schooling of our youth, public service announcements, or scolding from doctors - has done nothing to suppress this behavior the most efficient way to address this dire trend would be to attack the thing that people value more than their health…their pocketbooks.

To do so, we need a wholesale reform: Health insurance must truly become health insurance. By any definition of the word, it is anything but "insurance". It is more appropriately designated as "health coverage" since all individuals investing in it pay the same rates, regardless of their situation. It is quite unlike the real insurances of the world (automobile, liability, life) that require higher-risk individuals to pay much higher fees than low-risk individuals.

If the industry and laws were they applied a risk assessment to each individuals’ investment in their health care, then and only then, can we limit poor choices and promote good behavior.

The current way of doing things is counter-productive since a relatively healthy and safe person is not rewarded for his or her approach to life, paying just as much as people who smoke, have been arrested for questionable actions (DWI, hard drugs, gang activities), get infected via unprotected sex, don’t exercise, and eat grease or sugars.

If a high-risk individual had to pay 10 to 30 percent more than a health nut (which would amount to thousands of dollars per year), then chances are very good that they would change their ways and pinch pennies by pinching the fat (or ditching their vices). This would set off a welcomed domino-effect that would lessen our nation’s pervasive need for expensive medical services and pharmaceuticals.

Money drives the American economy and, sadly, our personal and societal cultures. Leveraged properly, it could also drive heath care. Were it taken away from those who want good health care but not good health then we could change the overall healthiness of our nation, righting our sinking ship and preventing further reckless and unwarranted investment in a system that is currently buoyed by stubbornness, disinterest, and, in many case, a lack of personal responsibility.

Health insurance must become insurance by action -- and not just by name.

From the 24 July 2017 Greater Niagara Newspapers