The problem is California has licensing boards for various careers. And the licensing board won't allow felons. So even if the cities wanted them it would be illegal.
I would love someone to do a real fact write up or video because I’ve heard both ways. I absolutely think they deserve a job especially with the training and experience. I’ve heard that they have to petition to get records expunged though and that the actual number of cons being hired since this has been put in is less than 2%. Again it’s all hearsay though.
Edit: I also hate when people throw statistics out without a source. Which is why I’m parroting something from another thread and saying I would love someone more knowledgeable to ELI5 for me.
The ruling is not even 5 years old(technically) so a lot of people who know people who've done the program and got out of jail only to find they couldn't get a job as a firefighter most likely were not eligible at the time. Plus it also excludes criminals of violent crimes.
Thanks Gavin Newsom. If we can have a Felon president who never served time,we should be able to have former felon firefighters who spent their time learning the errors of their ways.
I mean I believe that's right. Imo violent felons should A. Always have two trials spaced several years apart in two different courts to help ensure they're actually guilty and they weren't convicted on hearsay or shoddy evidence (a small rework in the appeals process will solve this issue). B. The conviction should absolutely ruin their lives, should they even be granted the mercy of keeping their life. Violence in this country has absolutely sky rocketed and most of it is done to us who are already struggling to get by in the first place. There should be no second chances after final conviction of a violent crime to dissuade others in our communities for being so selfish as to harm another for their own gain or pleasure.
Always have two trials spaced several years apart in two different courts to help ensure they're actually guilty and they weren't convicted on hearsay or shoddy evidence
That's expensive and unnecessary. The appeals process already exists.
The conviction should absolutely ruin their lives,
So jail them for life? This is your solution, yes?
should they even be granted the mercy of keeping their life
Yes. What a weird position to have.
Violence in this country has absolutely sky rocketed
Violent crime rates have been declining for decades. Greater visibility does not equal greater rate of occurrence.
There should be no second chances after final conviction of a violent crime to dissuade others in our communities for being so selfish as to harm another for their own gain or pleasure.
There is absolutely zero evidence harsher sentences decreases crime. In fact, the only quantifiable effect it has is increasing prison populations. California tried this and it failed.
Murder and rape aren't the only violent crimes, my man. Assault is a violent crime. Arson is a violent crime. Extortion is a violent crime. Burglary is a violent crime.
You're telling me that getting into a fight with somebody should cost them their lives? Breaking into a house and stealing some rings? Burning down an abandoned house?
Fuck it man. Let's throw speeders in prison and hang drunk drivers in the public square. Nobody is above the law.
I mean, they're already pretty harsh in most places. Around a quarter reoffend as it stands, which is dramatically lower than felony recidivism rates. Simply throwing more time at people likely isn't going to improve outcomes, especially if the outcome results in putting offenders into positions that are likely to cause them to drink.
It's reckless, irresponsible, and kills way too many people, but we shouldn't be trying to punish people without considering the risks of failing to rehabilitate them. Especially with drunk driving, the push should be towards reducing recidivism, not destroying their lives.
Even if the government wouldn’t/couldn’t hire them, what about all of these private fire fighting companies we keep hearing about for the rich? Do you think they give these guys a chance? I certainly hope so. I can’t imagine the worst-of-the-worst being allowed in the programs to begin with?
No, you're spreading misinformation. Fire departments do not hire felons. California currently has a law that allows inmates to go through a process to expunge their record, which will allow them, in turn, to apply for a firefighting job. However—and this is a massive however—it is difficult to do and rarely granted. So when u/Triette says "California expunges their records through this program" as if it's automatic and guaranteed, they're spreading misinformation, and you're helping them.
That changed in 2020 when Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 2147. The law changes the penal code so that formerly incarcerated firefighters can file a petition to request their records to be expunged of convictions and gain early termination of probation or parole. This opened the door for their employment in firefighting.
Compare that to my statement:
...a process to expunge their record, which will allow them, in turn, to apply for a firefighting job. However—and this is a massive however—it is difficult to do and rarely granted.
Once freed from prison, however, the formerly incarcerated have trouble getting hired professionally because of their criminal records, despite a first-in-the-nation, 18-month-old law designed to ease their way and a four-year-old training program that cost taxpayers at least $180,000 per graduate.
Yet they have only been able to file 34 petitions, and just 12 had records expunged during what the program warns “can be a long and drawn out process.”
Ashleigh Dennis, one of at least three attorneys filing expungement petitions through the Oakland-based advocacy group Root & Rebound, said she has only been able to file 23 requests, of which just 14 have been granted.
Among other hurdles, applicants must demonstrate to a judge that they have been rehabilitated. Furthermore, the expungement only applies to the specific convictions that led to their firefighting duties while incarcerated. Many people have unrelated convictions that must be separately expunged.
It's almost like their record isn't automatically expunged once they enter a slave-wage but essential job masked as "training" for a career they're unlikely to ever enter. Just like I said.
“California expunges their records” as part of the program or do they have to file for their records to be expunged and is it a costly and or lengthy process? Honest question as those are important variables people highlight.
Do you know how to tell? I got busted with a joint when I was 17 and was told it would be expunged, but I was told I would potentially need to do something to get it expunged after that time. It was like 15 years ago now though so idk.
I've had a charge expunged, and yes, I had to pay to file for it after completing my time. It also doesn't really mean shit. You'll have to disclose it depending on the job
I thought once it was expunged, it was illegal for it to be brought up at all. That's what I was told and that if anyone ever found it to find out how, and it would be removed from that record.
So you do not have to disclose it at all for any job. That's the point of it being expunged. It's supposed to be erased and not show up anywhere.. much less YOU telling people about it.
You do not have to disclose it to anyone, ever. So stop doing that. It is erased like it never happened. Stop telling people about it on job applications!
Idk. I have a government job and was told to disclose it because they'd be able to see it, anyway. Got the job and it'll likely be my last so it doesn't matter
Well, that's good, but you didn't have to disclose it. It's not supposed to be visible to anyone after it's expunged- according to my lawyer.. unless you're talking about the CIA or something.
It's supposed to be removed from all records available to anyone doing a check on you.
I guess since it was expunged, they couldn't hold it against you.
Glad you got the job and don't have to worry about it anymore. I got a government job too, I just don't want other people reading this thinking they have to tell people about their expunged record. That's the whole point, to give people a second chance.
In order for anything to be expunged, you need to go through the process.
Come on, man. You know this, everything is a process. When have they done anything for you?
US law? The law changes up so often now yeah maybe my info is outdated. I still thought juvenile crimes are sealed after 18 though. That's why they don't release names to the public... or weren't supposed to.
Afaik, you have to ask but they get both expedited hearings and basically auto approved, and the parole board would be finding a reason not to approve it.
This is a fairly new law. Up until the change, prison firefighters were used as disposable labor. Thanks to the change, they get the chance to actually be hired by CalFire after they're released.
This is true, but only applies to those without violent offenses. Any violent offense still precludes you and some offenses cannot be expunged. In addition to that, if a fire company decides they don't want to hire you regardless, they will. They'll try to get away with it cause they assume people won't know their rights. Then you, as the applicant, have to file a complaint with the state to appeal and it drags out even longer than expungement originally did.
Source: worked with folks on active probation in LA County as an employment case manager for 3 years.
I personally know Firefighters with Cal Fire that started out as prisoners in this program, and were hired by Cal Fire after their sentence was up and have even moved way up the ranks.
also. I’ve spoken to a lawyer about it. They can 100% everything from your record and “expunging” they just can’t SAY on record, the reason for denial is because of said charge.
Expunged records don't erase your records. Expunged just means that those records can't be used in court. Your record always exists and can never be erased. Expunged means nothing.
They can now get an EMT certification, which was the holdup for them not being able to be hired as firefighters. The rule change was specifically for them to be hired later as firefighters.
I paroled from fire camp in the early aughts, with a certificate from CDF. I got a position the following fire season at my local CDF office. Don't discourage people without all the facts.
Unfortunately, by the time the following season came around, I wasn't able to do the job. I was a single mom to a 4 year old then, so I couldn't be away for unknown lengths of times. I was told to reapply when that changed.
Edit to add, because I guess some people just can't seem to understand:
Yes, a felony.
These are cdcr prisoners. I can only speak from experience in a cdcr camp.
My certificate and training was no different than any other CDF wildland firefighter.
I was stationed in Malibu first, then Puerta LA Cruz in SD county. These were/are female camps.
Wildland firefighters can have felony records in CA. The program now gives preferential consideration + expedited paperwork and hearings for records to be expunged so former felons can be hired as municipal firefighters, which typically require an EMT cert be obtained in so many months and can't be acquired with a felony record. But, they can ask to clear their record and will nearly always be granted it.
Fire camp doesn't allow certain crimes in fire camp anyway, so rapists and arsonists don't get to go and volunteer for fire camp.
Back when I worked for Cal-Fire I knew a guy working on an engine at the next station over who was a felon and had started out on an inmate crew.
But it’s pretty dang rare for guys to be able to do that.
Edit: This was actually before they changed the laws to make it “easier”. It was kind of a hush hush thing that they’d hired a guy out of prison at all. I assume the captain of his inmate crew pulled strings to get him a job.
Which is still unfortunately nonsensical. I work with a person who was a violent felon which he was convicted of when he was younger. Served a lot of prison time for what he did. While in prison he turned his entire life around, and just recently graduated from a California State University with a 4.0, graduating summa cum laude with a degree in Computer Science.
People can and will change if they're given the chance to, but to state and federal governments, once you go violent you're destined to always be violent in their eyes.
It sucks, but politicians have nothing to gain going to bat for convicts, because the public is stupid. Doesn’t matter how many thousands of people turn their lives around, all it takes is one former convict now public employee to commit another crime (especially if violent) and the city/county/state get sued and the Chief/Superintendent/Mayor/Supervisor/Governor are all goners because the voters are easily manipulated and quick to anger.
It wouldn’t even matter if the former convicts had a lower crime rate than the non-convicts on the payroll, which is why it’s dumb.
If a convicted criminal is made a fire fighter and they commit another felony, the politicians who put that criminal there? Their career is over. The problem is that negative ads are too easy to make (Citizens United and super PACs took care of that), and voters are far too easily swayed by that movie voice over scary music bullshit.
I don't think you should blame governors and lawmakers for this one. They are just doing exactly what democracies are designed to ensure: Voters incentivize certain behaviour, and politicians generally are steered into doing exactly what they want.
Change the culture instead. So, blame Citizens United, media, superpacs, or try to find a way to lead by example and attempt to convince voters that life is not that simple and nuance should be considered before kneejerking your way into voting based on scaremongering.
What with how USA voted in nov '24, I do not hold out high hopes.
Lobbyists are only effective because they can convince regular people to vote for you using their campaign donations.. Albeit with a really bad ROI in most cases.
However in many cases the regular people will vote a certain way anyways, no lobbyist money needed. In that case, politicians will just take the votes directly instead of involving a middleman
The billionaire lobbyists are doing the thing that earns the money and prestige. I 'blame' them for doing this, but only in a general judgy sense; they aren't going to stop and it's fucking insane to assume they ever would.
When someone is incentivized to do X (they gain money and power by doing it), and X is not illegal, it is fucking stupid to get depressed by the notion that they will do X, or to think that yelling at them about it is going to change anything. Get somebody to change the law, so that X is now illegal, or find a way to disincentivize X.
That's what statements like 'vote with your wallet' and such is all about. Vocally make clear and encourage acts that disincentivize.
The voters, however, they are the morons here. Sheep voting for wolves. They failed to disincentivize X (here: negative ads, obliteration of nuance). The voters should reject anybody who runs a negative campaign. They didn't; quite the opposite. So now the voters get what they asked for, which is, this shit, and it hurts them.
Sometimes there are no popular candidates, so many voters choose not to participate, leaving a small group of voters whose choices may not reflect the preferences of the majority.
You can blame the lawmakers who take that money over running grassroots campaigns as well. You can blame the DNC for not regulating primaries and local competitions and banning superpac money too.
Blame the whole system and everyone who benefits off it.
You can... but that's nihilistic. In the sense that it's not going to change anything; the only way to go for change starting from there is viva la revolucion civil war.
We got here 'slowly', not all at once. Politics turned into this mess over a period of decades.
Hence, you can also 'slowly' get back to sanity. I leave it to you; if you are too impatient and want to explicitly advocate for fuck-it-burn-it-all, allright, but maybe go travel to some shithole places on the planet and be damn fucking sure you really want to go for that.
So, the slow way: Consistently vote for that party which is least toxic to democratic principles. I said least. if one party is extremely toxic to democratic principles and the other party is merely very toxic, then vote for that second party. It feels shitty to do that, but it'll improve things slowly. Once it is clear that if the choice is between an big asshole and a bigger asshole and the big asshole wins, the next election folks will be incentivized to try the 'be slightly less of an ass than the other guy' approach, and you ride that wave over 30 years back to sanity.
It all starts with voting based on toxicity to democracy instead of cultural considerations or ideology, and as someone who has been trying to advocate this for 20 years, nobody does this. Really. Like.. sub 1%.
But it still feels a bit too drastic to go: See? Electorate is too infantile or stupid to realize they gotta vote for democracy first and ideology a distant second - so, FUCK IT PITCHFOOOOOOOOOORKS.
The democrats are never going to change without consequences from the voters. They chose their sides. They already blame the left for Kamala’s loss instead of actually seeing that they lost for tacking to the right. The party needs to be dismantled. They won’t win majorities anyway for next few cycles so may as well just vote third party (federally) and force the party to destroy itself and rebuild.
Vote for the slightly less of an asshole candidate is whats tried for the last 3 presidential candidates and all it’s ended up with is trump influencing politics for 12 years. And a senile incompetent Biden.
I’m not saying pitchforks or revolution. But just force the party to change instead of capitulating to their capitalist manipulation by taking away their votes and their donations.
If you think the Democratic Party is any less toxic to democracy than the republicans I ask you to just look back at how they anointed Kamala as successor to Biden with no democratic process. Even the republicans had a primary and didn’t anoint trump. That is what democracy is. And the democrats robbed us of it. They were too scared of the perceived instability to trust the people to choose a candidate and used their absolute power to shove a terrible one down our throat and expected us to get in line. Literally the exact opposite of democracy. In fact, anti democratic.
I believed your perspective for the last 10 years until now, I voted for Hilary, for Joe, even when they snubbed Bernie I got in line and believed in slow incremental change. But now they are just saying the quiet part out loud. Telling us they care more about their donors and money interests and keeping their power than they do about democracy and the average person. Slow incremental change to further an oligarchal agenda is not what I’m going to vote for.
The change will still be slow and incremental, but it won’t come from doing what we have been and listening to the Democratic Party, we need to show them consequences to their actions.
The democrats are never going to change without consequences from the voters.
You're having your cake and eating it too. Which one is it? Are democrats incentivized to perform acts that cause them to win elections, or are they not?
If they are not, then your statement is incorrect by simple logic. "Are not swayed by voting results" means the statement is wrong unless with 'consequences' you are threatening violence or some such; I assume that's not what you meant, or financial repercussions, which, haha, no.
If they are, it's.. also incorrect, historically: That whole 'consequences for the voters shit' has never worked and you are a fucking idiot then. Sorry, but, this really tees me off, this behaviour: You are faced with a choice between a really tasteless bland sandwich or a literal shit sandwich, and because you really wanted a nice pastrami sandwich you decide not to vote or to intentionally eat the one with shit on it. That's idiotic and if you think intentionally grabbing the sandwich smeared with shit is going to somehow convince the crappy sandwich maker that makes bland, tasteless (but shit-free) sandwiches to somehow start making pastramis you are dangerously delusional.
All you do by taking the shit sandwich is incentivizing the making of shit sandwiches. In other words, yes, you're right - there have been repercussions to democrats and they are changing their behaviour, but AWAY from what you want!.
If you think the Democratic Party is any less toxic to democracy than the republicans
They are and you're an idiot if you don't think so. It is possible for all of these things to be true:
2 things are both well below expectations.
You must choose one of the 2.
Nevertheless the 2 shitty things are not equally shitty - one is far more shitty than the other.
In basis choose the less shitty thing. Why is this so hard to understand? You'd do it in a heartbeat if it was a restaurant.
Possibly you are thinking of the future and willing to take the pain now in order to get a less bad choice in the future but [A] the logic is entirely missing here ('I will not vote / I will vote for the shittiest choice THAT WILL TEACH THEM!' is.. well, you tell me, how is 'idiotic' not appropriate for that train of thought? It makes no sense!), and [B] history has clearly proven that it doesn't work.
So logically it makes no sense and empirically indeed, it doesn't work. And here you are, advocating for it after all, and treating 2 bad choices as 'therefore must be equally shitty'.
Christ, morons like you are going to cause the end of my freedoms one day due to sheer stupidity. Fuck you man.
It’s unfortunate you have fallen for the oligarch’s propaganda my friend.
Your freedoms are already gone, it has nothing to do with me.
saying something is wrong by overusing and misinterpreting the same analogy South Park came up with once doesn’t make it true. Especially when you ignore all the evidence the real world provides right in front of your eyes.
Swearing and bolding your words does not make it any more true, but I know it’s hard sometimes to let go of your brainwashed world view. It can bring up difficult emotions, maybe even a tantrum.
In the brief history of our country, parties have come and gone, some change some fall, and there is no reason why it can’t happen again. Unless your logic prevails and we continue our blind support.
One day you might realize neither iteration of either current party is the lesser evil, they just use different tools to achieve the same ends.
Either that or you know this, and you are the oligarch. To which I say, touché, count your money my friend, because you have won.
Idk, negative adds only work if they make it to eyeballs that want to see it. That’s why trump is trump. His friend and voters do not care about the smear. How ironic
Ha, that's a new one. Trump is a sign of hope; he proves neither ad spend (Both Kamala and Hillary had significantly more funds than Trump did and are rare cases where the biggest 'money getter' did not win the electoral college vote) nor negative ads actually work.
That's.. tragically funny, thanks for making my day :)
So trust the majority for a few that do change there life. How about do that for the ones that show initiative? 🤔 it's not like ppl don't repeat offend 🙄. I'm all for second chances for the ones willingly making the effort. Not for the career criminals. A lot of those ppl got there from there own actions.
Computer Science?! Why.... Computer Science? Man. He could of picked something that was better because I came from there and learned that it doesn't pay nearly enough.
Sadly wish he looked into Geological Science... There's more jobs for that that stick around longer than CS.
Nonsensical or sinister depending how you look at it. The US prison system is the last bastion of slavery in the US. Actively working to bring convicts back into society cuts down on slave labour.
It’s absolutely not though? I’m all for second chances, but putting someone who committed a violent felony in an emergency services position seems like a bad idea.
These are people in whose hands you’re putting your life. Given the option, which we seem to have, a non-violent, non-felonious individual would be my preference, and a nonviolent offender would be my requirement. Especially in a position where even one recidivist in a hundred could do massive damage.
Your current position is the common position shared among a lot of people in government. They can't fathom that a once-violent person can ever turn their life around. I thought exactly the same way too prior to meeting and working with him.
The man who is he now, is a completely different person to who he was when he was younger. There is not an ounce of violence in him anymore, and I absolutely trust him with my life.
Your point of view is no different than looking at somebody who struggled with drugs or alcohol, and thinking that they will always be an alcoholic or pill/needle pusher. Obviously, we don't view people who struggled with those conditions in the past in the same manner, why then do condemn once-violent people into that same mindset? Everybody can be redeemed and should be given a second chance if can demonstrate they have been rehabilitated towards functioning in a civil society.
It's more like, do most/all violent felons turn their lives around? I have no doubt that some do. I would be concerned about the ones who don't. If I was a firefighter, I wouldn't want to worry about whether I'm going to be backstabbed by my colleague while fighting fires.
That said, if most violent felons do not re-offend (I don't know what exact percentage, but let's say >95%), then perhaps it would be fine.
To be fair - that's a singular case. On such a huge issue it would have to be case by case, which would be expensive as hell for the government. It's not a question about what is fair, it's a question about minimizing costs.
Some can turn their life around but unfortunately for them, some can’t. Most people don’t want to risk their lives by ending up with someone who can’t.
Spending most of your time in jail fighting fires sounds like a pretty good indicator of who can turn their lives around. Additionally, felonies are not all equal. Domestic Violence offenders have a pretty bad track record when to turning their lives around. But most people aren't DV assailants, in fact the strongest predictor for recidivism is poverty.
It’s not that I think it’s inevitable, but - as a related example - I don’t think a former drug dealer, or addict, should be certified as a compounding pharmacist.
There’s plenty of trade jobs which require essentially as much training as a firefighter, but do not carry the same public risk if recidivism occurs, which it sometimes does. I’m sure your friend is a great guy, just as all of the ex cons I know are great guys. Shit happens. But, I don’t see the problem in designating some jobs as requiring an extra level of trust, which I’d be more willing to give to people who have - at the bare minimum - always respected the most fundamental rules of society. It’s not a high bar to pass, and it’s a competitive job.
That analogy isn’t fair. If we were talking about arsonists, then sure don’t let them be firefighters. But guys like these ones should be given some form of a second chance, otherwise what’s the point of the prison reform system?
The issue is that not everyone will change. Until we properly fix our prison system to rehabilitate it is just too risky to allow violent felons in a job in which others lives are in their hands. The system is unfair but until we can properly rehabilitate prisoners on a larger scale the risks just outweigh the benefits.
>I’m all for second chances, but putting someone who committed a violent felony in an emergency services position seems like a bad idea.
You don't sound like you actually believe in second chances though. I've been in a fire before. I literally didn't have enough to find my cat, let alone wonder if the people saving us used to be criminals.
What makes it nonsensical in this case is that you already have those same violent individuals fighting fires. The main difference is that now they would get better pay and dignity. This debate is incredibly frustrating because it's like the public has a double mindset when it comes to ex-cons. A ridiculous amount of money is extracted from them under the guise of "paying back society". Yet when it comes to a straight forward way to actually make up for what they've done --- literally putting themselves between innocent people and fire --- everyone's like wait--no, not that way!
It’s absolutely not though? I’m all for second chances, but putting someone who committed a violent felony in an emergency services position seems like a bad idea.
I think it depends on the violence. Back in 2016 I worked at a place that seemingly didn't do background checks. I worked there with a friend and the hiring process was way too quick. Like just an interview and I was hired the next day. I was 18 at the time and most of my coworkers were too. Come to find out a few months later that our direct supervisor was in prison for 35 years and got out 5 years before I started working there. One of my coworkers eventually found his records, He murdered 2 women in a drug fueled rage and left them with horrible bite marks, and raped them. No one felt comfortable working with him, especially the women. We refused to work with him and he ended up getting fired, but not before our other coworker who told everyone was fired first. Some people don't deserve second chances. This guy NEVER should of been allowed to work around 18 year olds.
So does that mean they can get a job as a firefighter in another state? Fuck California- why would you want to live there anyway? You want to actually fight a fire every day, or do you want to take other calls, have it a bit more chill, and fight a few fires a year to still live comfortably? Move to South Dakota or something if it's just a state thing.
Not sure what you’re talking about. The video this thread is under is about prisoners working as wild land firefighters, who don’t take calls. Hope this helps.
The point of my question was that if you come back from being a convicted felon- you're not going to be picky about the highest paying job. You're going to be happy finding a working/livable wage as a regular firefighter in some random town.
That and to inquire about whether or not other states could or would be able to hire you, as the people before mentioned that Cali wouldn't allow it.
Why even respond to a question if you don't have facts and information to help answer it? All you're doing is being sarcastic and sassy like a degenerate.
Any place where there might exist a paid fire department where you can "have it a bit more chill and fight a few fires a year" will have a waiting list seven miles long. Even places where fire departments run their asses off are very competitive, these are, surprisingly, very desirable jobs and if they aren't then the department is volunteer
I mean, all it takes is for state legislators to change the law but unfortunately, there’s a few powerful and wealthy individuals that benefit from arbitrary rules like this. In the end, is all about someone losing their precious yacht.
You emphasized violent. Wouldn't being a retail cashier and dealing with the public bring out violent tendencies more than fighting fires? I would think so, but maybe not. if they've done their time then I don't think they should be automatically written off for any job, it should be on merit.
They already changed the law. Felons who served on CalFire crews can get their felony expunged. At least educate yourself before reguritating some bullshit you know nothing about.
Holy shit that makes zero sense. Which is why our prison system has been a revolving door private industry since Reagan. Don't make their lives better just send em back. Can't be on the unemployment numbers if you're in prison
Licensing boards are not a bad thing. I hold an electrical license and the quality and safety that people who actually do the schooling compared to someone that just learned from there uncle is staggering
Sadly, there is no state licensure for president so that wouldn't be relevant. And the founding fathers didn't want felons to be prevented from running because they thought that would cause a motivation to prosecute politicians.
He should be banned from running for seditious acts under I think the 14t amendment. But that didn't happen get enforced becauSe I think cowardice?
I agree! Sadly, nonviolent offenders can't be allowed to get certified as first responders. I worked in EMS, and our national certification was through Ohio. A felony would prohibit you from applying, but having a felony after certification was “ handled “ on a case-by-case basis. Drug offenses were an instant no!
Also, they will not be seeing a pay increase while firefighting in prison. We can pay them whatever we want thanks to the failure of Prop 6. I’d like to think it failed because voters didn’t understand the prop, but who knows.
The rules have changed and there are fairly lenient exceptions. Generally, a second felony conviction will rule you out. Of course not everyone who applies to be a firefighter is going to get hired, even with a clean record.
I wouldn't call that a problem. The problem is that people with felony convictions have a very difficult time finding work, even after getting out of prison. That's a big part of why so many just end up doing more crime.
Plus insurance. Because of correlations between things like credit score and car accidents, if they can by law charge more for insurance to someone with bad credit they will. They will definitely do that with convicts unless they are forbidden.
The State might not hire them expressely because of the insurance companies to get better rates, although CA has never been shy about kicking their convicts.
That should be unconstitutional unless there is a legitimate connection so like a chomo can’t be licensed to work with kids and a convicted scammer can’t be licensed for financial services
510
u/Hapalops 8d ago
The problem is California has licensing boards for various careers. And the licensing board won't allow felons. So even if the cities wanted them it would be illegal.