« Could Proposition 66 turn the California Supreme Court into a specialty death penalty appeals court? | Main | How many prior sentenced federal prisoners might now have "Dean claims" (assuming Dean is retroactive)? »
April 4, 2017
"Criminal Employment Law"
The title of this post is the title of this new article authored by Benjamin Levin available via SSRN. Here is the abstract:
This Article diagnoses a phenomenon, “criminal employment law,” which exists at the nexus of employment law and the criminal justice system. Courts and legislatures discourage employers from hiring workers with criminal records and encourage employers to discipline workers for non-work-related criminal misconduct. In analyzing this phenomenon, my goals are threefold: (1) to examine how criminal employment law works; (2) to hypothesize why criminal employment law has proliferated; and (3) to assess what is wrong with criminal employment law.
This Article examines the ways in which the laws that govern the workplace create incentives for employers not to hire individuals with criminal records and to discharge employees based on non-workplace criminal misconduct. In this way, private employers effectively operate as a branch of the criminal justice system. But private employers act without constitutional or significant structural checks. Therefore, I argue that the criminal justice system has altered the nature of employment, while employment law doctrines have altered the nature of criminal punishment. Employment law scholars should be concerned about the role of criminal records in restricting entry into the formal labor market. And criminal law scholars should be concerned about how employment restrictions extend criminal punishment, shifting punitive authority and decision-making power to unaccountable private employers.
April 4, 2017 at 11:52 AM | Permalink
Comments
"And criminal law scholars should be concerned about how employment restrictions extend criminal punishment, shifting punitive authority and decision-making power to unaccountable private employers."
Hey, Harvard asshole, Benjamin Levin, "unaccountable private employers?"
How can you write an article about felon employment and not mention the tort bar, suing for negligent hiring, totally irrelevant to an employee truck crash?
Does he mention, that a person convicted of downloading child porn loses his electrician license from the state, and cannot work again? What about licensing boards violating state laws by pulling licenses not related to the convicted crime?
Lawyers are the stupidest group of people in our besieged country. They are stupider than Life Skills class students. Appoint a Life Skills class graduate to the Supreme Court, for an immediate upgrade in common sense in their decisions, and in the clarity of their writing. Among lawyers, Harvard affiliated lawyers are the stupidest of all. That is why I oppose the Gorsuch nomination, and propose holding out for the nomination of a graduate of a Life Skills class.
Dismissed.
Posted by: David Behar | Apr 4, 2017 12:55:12 PM
I demand that Harvard Law School hire convicted felons. They should work in the Accounts Receivable office, close to good looking, young female employees.
Put Amy Nostrand in charge of that program, especially hiring people who have been in prison for 10 years, for sex crimes. They have a low recidivism rate according the geniuses commenting on this blog.
http://evp.harvard.edu/central-administration-and-finance
Posted by: David Behar | Apr 4, 2017 1:05:44 PM
I did not read the article but there is nothing shocking here. NM just changed it state's workers compensations law so that if a worker is injured on the job, returns to work, and is later fired for violating workplace rules he become categorically ineligible for workers compensation in the future. It has been called the "good employee" rule with the idea that workers compensations is a program that is designed to help workers who the employer considers to be morally fit and not help workers who are "troublemakers".
So if it is OK for employers to hold a civil benefit over the heads of their workers to enforce compliance with the employer's whims, how is it in any way shocking that employers would want the same liberty with criminal violations?
Posted by: Daniel | Apr 4, 2017 1:25:35 PM
@Doug
A completely off-topic comment related to your blog administration. Given the realities off mass surveillance and given the fact that Trump recently signed into law a rollback of the Obama's administrations rules regarding ISP privacy I feel compelled to point out that your blog, hosted on Typepad, is one of the few remaining parts of the web that is not using encrypted connections i.e.,(HTTPS) by default. In the past, I have overlooked that privacy loss because I consider your blog a worthwhile resource. But I find myself with a new urgency recently on the privacy front to such an extent that I plan on making it a habit to not visit sites which are not HTTPS enabled. I, of course, recognize that I am only one visitor among many. But if I do disappear permanently I thought you should be aware of the reason.
Posted by: Daniel | Apr 4, 2017 1:35:32 PM
Daniel. Forget encryption.
Scroll down, all the way down, from this comment. On the left is StatCounter. It lists all IP addresses making visits here. With the one corresponding to your visit, I can find you where ever you are, even if not at home, and bring over donuts and coffee for a friendly discussion.
There is no privacy, no anonymity, no hiding, thanks to the incompetent, pro-tyranny, failed lawyer profession.
Posted by: David Behar | Apr 4, 2017 4:12:08 PM
