Thursday 29 December 2011

People with criminal records unlikely to get jobs: shock.

From The Metro:

One-third of unemployed people 'have criminal record'

One in three of those claiming Jobseekers Allowance in Britain has a criminal record, according to new statistics. The figures show that 400,000 of the 1.2m people currently on unemployment benefits has been convicted of an offence.

Of those, 47 per cent are still claiming benefits more than two years after serving their sentence. And a quarter of claimants either have at least one conviction or have been cautioned by police for an offence in the past ten years. A further one in 20 of those have spent time behind bars... Other statistics revealed those who are out of work have far more likelihood of having a criminal record than those who have jobs - with just over half of those convicted or cautioned in the past year having claimed benefits the previous month...

‘Given that so many of these people are criminals, it makes you wonder how many are actually seeking work and available to work,’ said Tory MP Philip Davies, ‘It appears the taxpayer is paying twice. We are being attacked on the one hand as victims of crime and on the other we seem to be paying for them to go out and commit more crimes.’


Well duh, we could have guessed all this.

Putting morals aside, crime as a way of life is relatively more attractive for people with low or no earnings potential, and once you have a criminal record, it is far more difficult to get a job, so once you've started you then tend to stick to a life of crime/claiming benefits. So it would be interesting to know how many people with criminal records, ex-prisoners etc remain unemployed and how many of them manage to find a job, go straight etc.

But they twist the whole logic round and say that 'the unemployed are more likely to be criminals' rather than 'criminals are more likely to be unemployed', even though two-thirds of those on Jobseekers' Allowance have managed to resist temptation and have not turned to crime (or at least not been caught yet).

And I'm very disappointed to see Dick Puddlecote's favourite MP turn authoritarian and join in the populist frenzy.

14 comments:

The Travelling Toper said...

I didn't realise that disclosure of criminal convictions was a requirement of signing for Job Seekers Allowance. Also let us not forget that speeding and other motoring offences are classified as criminal convictions.

Mark Wadsworth said...

TT, the full article explains they did it by cross referencing with other records.

I take your point about motor offences, but the same applies, if you've been done for speeding or drink driving you might find it more difficult to get a job in future.

Bill Quango MP said...

In a firm I worked for it was not permitted to employ anyone with a criminal record for a proper crime.{Motoring offences were ignored.}

There was no deviation from the policy. Even non payment of council tax or licence fee was considered a no.

"Why take a chance? Find someone who doesn't have a criminal record."

Employment checks went back 5 years and applicants had to have an unbroken record. If they had been 'doing nothing, not signing on or working for a period of say 5 months,
they would be considered a risk.

very, very tough place.

Mark Wadsworth said...

BQ, I can understand perfectly well why employers do it, and if I were in charge of recruiting, I'd probably be the same, although I'd prefer working somebody who didn't pay council tax/TV licence to working with somebody who ignores speed limits or drink drives.

Woman on a Raft said...

If they had been 'doing nothing, not signing on or working for a period of say 5 months, they would be considered a risk.

Gotta watch out for those housewives, they are a dangerous lot.

formertory said...

In an age when you can get a criminal record for dropping a dog-end in the street, or an apple core out of a car window, perhaps we need to look at the astonishing variety of ways in which a record can be "earned" in comparison with the ways available 30 or 40 years ago.

It seems that a goodly proportion of the mental energies of that lot at the trough in Westminster (and Holyrood) is applied to putting more and more criminal offences on the Statute.

So, if offenders can't be clipped round the ear and dragged off home any more, and yet getting a criminal conviction makes them even more unemployable, one wonders whether that good old barbaric method of birching might find favour. Let's say no disclosable criminal record, reapplied as necessary up to three times, or age say 22, before hanging records round peoples' necks and blighting the rest of their lives.

I suspect birching would be rather harder to show off about than an ankle tag, too.

But it's at this stage that my missus usually rolls her eyes and does that "oh my gawd...." thing :-) .

Anonymous said...

I have a record for not-too-minor drug offences in the dim and distant past. Thankfully I narrowly evaded a custodial sentence although it has scuppered a number of job applications.

It's also worth considering the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 whereby all convictions up to 18 months custodial sentence are spent after a set period of time. For all but specific jobs and employers (1975 amendment to the Act) applicants don't need to disclose their records. Ergo a criminal record doesn't necessarily prevent employment although, of course, those with a propensity for petty criminality will also have a greater likelihood of being 'disengaged' from society. Ad nauseam.

SBC

Barnacle Bill said...

@ Bill Quango MP
You should have seen the set up at de Beers when I went to work for them.
Flew down to Cape Town for the final interview with the Bossman. Walked into his office to be greeted with the words:
"Well Captain all our searches show neither of your parents have a criminal record!!!"

Anonymous said...

Yes, fair point MW, between 6 months and 10 years.

http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/Road_Traffic_Law/Rehabiliation_of_Offenders_Act

Bill Quango MP said...

BB - I failed my selection interview with de Beers.Probably just as well. I had a caution at 16. I'm no longer bitter. It was 1983.

WOAR - Housewives had to provide tax records. There were very few ex housewives in the company even though there were some 1000 employees.

the only exception I can recall was a supervisor who personnel wanted dismissed before her 1 year employment was up. "gap in references:-2 week period.EU national."
The supervisor had worked there for 11 months, in the money centre, without incident.

The area manager threatened to physically fight the personnel manager if he didn't sign an approval form. Put him in a headlock.

That was the exception that proved the rule.

But when I worked for countless direct sales outfits many of the people were ex/current criminals and ex/current drug users. As long as they hit their targets and paid a cash deposit for their samples no one cared.

Army, council or direct sales is the way back into society.

Mark Wadsworth said...

BB, I can understand this degree of paranoia with De Beers, and in their position I'd do the same. Remittance Man worked for a mining company and he said that they were incredibly strict about drink and drugs, it was basically a sackable-on-the-spot offence to be inebriated at work, but I think that was mainly a safety thing.

Anon, ta for extra info.

BQ, "Army, council or direct sales is the way back into society" Fair points. The Armed Forces are also a useful place for children from orphanages etc, but there doesn't then seem to be any proper system for getting them back into mainstream jobs once they leave the army.

Interestingly, I once met a hard case who told me that he was in trouble when he was 18-ish (this must have been in the early 1980s), and the police/courts/powers that be told him he could go to a young offenders' institute or enlist for a couple of years, he ended up in Northern Ireland and everything. I'm not sure how widespread this modern kind of Press Ganging is or was, that's the only example I have to hand.

Barnacle Bill said...

Whilst I was in de Beers employment one of the geologists joking remarked wouldn't it be a laugh to rob the safe the diamonds were stored in.
Senior security officer overheard him, next morning a very unhappy geologist was on the first chopper into Alexanderbaai!

Anonymous said...

left by Tom

I am posting this from a different point of view i have a conviction and am claiming benifits so are you saying that no one derserves second chance in life to rebuild and their life and provide for their community? however I WANT TO WORK and am constantely looking for work. i made one bad mistake in my life which i will regret my whole life, but i have been empliyed ever since 16 (am now 25) And i am not one of these who want to sit at home claiming benifits i want to contribute to the state by way of paying taxes but there are always obsticles stopping me. And i dismiss the idea that people who get convictions are likely to offend again i ask you how many of the 400,00 unemplyed with convictions are carear criminals? i will never offend agin and i will stay ion my benifits until i get employment. it no wonder people return to crime because there are people in this countrywho dont beleive in second chances due to there bigoted mis guided views that they read in papers and on the news. contary to what i di i am a very intelligent guy with a good work ethic and know i would be an asset to any company. i just need to find the ones who are willing to give people second chances to rebuild their life and not return to crime

Mark Wadsworth said...

Tom, where did I say nobody deserves a second chance?

All I said was, I can understand why employers prefer somebody without a criminal record to somebody with one - but if we had full employment, then people like you at the back of the queue would have most to gain, so the key is getting back to full employment. Anyway, I wish you the best of luck with your endeavours.