Friday 17 June 2011

To Lie : Or Not to Lie?

A couple of recent contributions to the Prisoners Families Views blogsite about having to lie on CV's in order to get a job got me thinking. Of course this issue about whether to tell a potential employer the truth or not has been around for as long as I can remember. When I say truth, I don't just mean being a bit 'economical' by inflation, exaggeration or omission, I mean direct lies about criminal convictions or fictitious information to cover periods of imprisonment. I'm pretty sure I'm right in saying it is an offence in itself and certainly leaves the individual open to instant dismissal should the truth come out.

The argument seems to be that a person is left no choice because in an age of high unemployment, what employer is going to take the risk of taking on a person with a criminal record and possibly history of imprisonment? I have a degree of sympathy with this argument and would be the first to acknowledge that the whole employment landscape has changed beyond recognition over my lifetime. For instance, I can recall the halcyon days of full employment and seemingly endless opportunities for unskilled labour, apprenticeships, supernumerary posts and even dare I say, jobs paying 'cash-in-hand' only. A criminal record was certainly no bar to many of these positions and I well remember my father employing people straight from prison just on a phone call from the local probation officer.

But this was an age before managerialism and everything became bureaucratised. We didn't have CV's back then, just a simple application form that didn't even mention criminal convictions. Now we live in an environment of health and safety, CRB checks, litigation, employers liability insurance etc. The question will come up and therefore the issue cannot be avoided - to lie, or not to lie? It will be no great surprise to anyone that a Probation Officer's advice is almost certainly to tell the truth. Fortunately, as CV's have evolved, they have become much more about experiences, qualifications and expertise than just a list of dates and employment. The aim of a CV is to get to interview stage and have a strategy prepared in advance in order to discuss any offending history.

Now I can almost hear the cries of 'get real.' But before either giving up reading any further, or reaching for the comment box, bear a number of things in mind from a potential employers point of view. Firstly, there are many, many people out there in society who have criminal records and are now in settled employment. The person interviewing you may well have been in trouble with the law years before and minded to give someone a break, indeed just like the break they got. Secondly, there are many responsible and enlightened employers who realise that a person with a criminal history, but one who is well-motivated towards change, could well be just that loyal and hard-working employee they are looking for. Thirdly, potential employers will always be interested in candidates who give of themselves and demonstrate honesty. In the end an employer not only wants staff who do a good job, but also that are honest.

Over the years I've known many clients successfully gain employment, even including former prisoners subject to Life Licence. In my experience barriers to employment are much more likely to be because of issues such as illiteracy, attitude or presentation than criminal history. Serving long term prisoners gain employment all the time as part of resettlement plans through Open Prisons on day release. The scheme works because there is honesty between the individual and the local employer. Employers don't agree to take such people on out of a sense of civic responsibility or paternalism, although there may be elements of both. They do it because they know they are getting good, well motivated employees. 

It may surprise some people to know that there are companies that positively discriminate in favour of people with criminal histories and there are some that only employ ex-offenders. An example of the former is Timpson's, a well known high street chain of shoe repairers and photoshops and a new company Blue Sky is an example of the latter. Basically there are signs of a return to a much more enlightened attitude towards ex-offenders generally amongst employers. The fact is that they often make excellent employees. So, for all these reasons, I would say think very carefully before submitting that dodgy CV.  



   

5 comments:

  1. Jim,

    I came across your Blog the other week and have been following it since. I have a criminal record and have worked for UNLOCK, the National Association of Reformed Offenders for the last three years.

    Whilst I agree with what you say in this piece, I think this is only really true for a certain type of job - I find that 'professions' (i.e. in a lot of cases the more well-paided) are much more hard-lined towards convictions, and even cautions. Our online members forum is constantly served by people with minor convictions from 20 years ago and they are now having a problem as a Nurse, for example.

    Also, as for your last paragraph, indeed Timpsons and Blue Sky are good examples of positive recruitment practices. However, and in some ways this relates to my earlier point, in the most senior positions these are not people with a criminal record. Indeed, Blue Sky doesn't only employ ex-offenders, and I absolutely agree with that approach (any form of discrimination, positive or negative, is not good or sustainable) but it is wrong to see them as only employing ex-offenders.

    Keep up to good work.

    Chris

    ReplyDelete
  2. Chris,

    Thanks for that - the whole subject is complicated of course as you will know, but hopefully will improve when the government gets around to looking at the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act '74. You will appreciate I just wanted to put forward another viewpoint and challenge the notion that just lying is the best policy.

    Your blog looks very interesting indeed and I look forward to hunting through it over the weekend. Will put a link on to yours asap.

    Thanks again,

    Jim

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Jim. I am a current Probation Officer in the midlands area. Have found your blog recently and find your comments relevant and thought provoking. The current blog re disclosing convictions or not is spot on as to the real choices we advise our offenders on every day. Keep blogging!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hookers have "clients". The noun client means money has changed hands. Probation has "cases" "subjects" or informally "punters".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 09:30 Commenting on a post from 12 years ago is always intriguing not least because almost certainly it will never be read! Apart from the author of course. Solicitors have clients of course and this definition popped up - "a person or organization using the services of a lawyer or other professional person or company." The term has served us well for a very long time and is likely to remain. 'Punter' I find particularly derogatory.

      Delete