Weariness–an emotion shared by some 62,000 unemployed Rhode Islanders.
This post tells the story of Trev Hedge, a Providence resident with a kind grin and a thoughtful, sunburned face.
Not too long ago, Trev resided in Connecticut, where he had a place to live and a car and a job repairing computers and photographic equipment. But in December of 2009, Trev was laid off. Hoping for a new beginning, he moved to Rhode Island to start over. Unfortunately, Trev did not find the opportunities he had been hoping to find in the Ocean State. “I didn’t know it when I made the move,” he says, “but it turned out I came here to be homeless and jobless.”
“I’ve never had a job problem before,” Trev continues. “I worked most of my life. But trying to find work in Rhode Island has been incredibly difficult.” Then, in September of last year, Trev’s unemployment benefits ran out. “They figured within 99 weeks you should easily be able to find a job. But it’s not true. At that point, things got urgent. I couldn’t pay the bills. I became frantic, and very depressed. When you’re stuck like that and facing eviction and…” he shakes his head. “Things can get pretty overwhelming.
Although Trev has high-level computer repair skills, the only work he has been able to find recently has been in landscaping. “I went to a worksite of this company based out of East Greenwich, and I told the boss, ‘I have landscaping experience. I don’t care what it is, I need something, anything.’ He told me to show up at seven the next morning with work boots on. So I did.”
But Trev’s landscaping job does not come close to providing for even his most basic needs. During his first week he was given just 15 hours of work. The next week he got 25, the next week five. “And these last two weeks I’ve gotten nothing. I call the boss up every morning before 7 o’clock. ‘Anything today?’ I ask. ‘No, no,’ he says. And I can do the work! I’m an older guy—I’m 43, and it’s hard physical work. But I can keep up. And still, it’s: ‘Anything today?’ ‘No, no.’ ”
Trev’s lack of work has forced him to adjust to a greatly reduced standard of living. “First of all, I live in a shelter. Having an apartment—even having your own room—is important. You don’t know how important it is until you lose it. You need a place to hang your clothes, where your wallet will be safe. Without that stability, everything’s tougher. A lot tougher.”Trev is at the point where even rudimentary expenses have to be given up. “You can’t buy shampoo and conditioner, you have to use soap for your hair. That might not seem like a big issue, having your hair all snarled from that, but it’s that kind of thing that really gets in the way. We’re not talking about luxury items, you can’t even get basic stuff. Things like haircuts, things like having decent clothes to go to an interview in—that gets almost impossible.”
There are a number of additional obstacles that Trev has to deal with on a daily basis. One is simply getting around. “When I came here, the Rhode Island roads ate my car piece by piece,” he says. “And with no work, I couldn’t replace it. So transportation is a huge issue. Now I ride my bike or I take a bus, but they keep cutting RIP TA service, scaling back hours. That makes it harder for people like me. I mean, those services affect people who need the bus to get to work. We depend on it.” These issues have a direct effect on his job search, Trev explains. “Jobs that I see posted in, say, Cumberland, sometimes I don’t even apply for anymore. You need to convince the employer that you can get to work dependably, and they don’t look at my bike as dependable, and the bus isn’t dependable nowadays. It’s like a Catch-22. I have a license, but I can’t afford to have a car. If you can’t have a car, you can’t get to work. If you can’t get to work, you can’t get a home. If you can’t get a home, you can’t stabilize yourself. It’s a vicious cycle.”
Trev also suffers from hiring discrimination. “Part of my problem in finding work is I have a criminal record, so I have to check that box on the job application. I mean, I’ve taken responsibility for what I did, it was years and years ago, but I still have to check that box. I’ll tell you, I’ve almost lost hope—you see an application with that box, and you just know they’re going to throw it out without even looking at it. I mean, we’re discriminated against, without ever getting a chance to get across any backstory.”
When he can, Trev takes day-trips out to Connecticut to do landscaping jobs, paying up to $75 from whatever he earns for the bus there and back. And that, he thinks, just about sums up the whole situation here in Rhode Island. “You have to leave the state just to get work so you can live in the state. Working in Connecticut to live in Rhode Island—that’s where we’re at right now.”
As a prefatory note, I don’t mean these comments as an attack on the subject of the article, but rather as article-generated discussion points, which I assume is the whole purpose of this series.
A few questions for the author, readers, or (rhetorically) for the article subject:
99 weeks is approximately two years. I’ve been in my current position for less than that amount of time, and to think about receiving unemployment checks for that entire period – that is a mind-boggling amount of time and taxpayer money. If two years is not enough time to become self-sufficient and begin working, which is the stated purpose of unemployment assistance, then how many years would be enough? We have to set some period or the incentives to stay out of work indefinitely would be too perverse. The cold, hard reality is that isn’t enough money to pay 8-12% of the population to not work indefinitely, nor would there be even through “soak the rich” tax policies, although we approach closer and closer every day with Social Security Disability Insurance participation skyrocketing in the recession for the flimsiest of medical justifications.
I’ve heard the argument from progressives, a number of times on this blog, that discrimination against convicted criminals should be banned by law. But discrimination, to some degree at least, against people who have commited illegal acts is completely logical. Somebody who has robbed a liquor store at gunpoint, for example, is far more likely to be a problem employee than somebody who has a clean criminal record. It raises the question: should employers be able to consider *any* previous factors or records in hiring? Should all hiring be a completely blind process by law? That would be grossly inefficient. Employers need to be able to discriminate, to some degree, in the hiring process to place their employment bets in the right places. I can’t think of any principled reason why something like dropping out of high school should be allowed to be considered by employers while stabbing another person to death should not be. In any case, there is no absolute bar against convicted criminals – write “will discuss” on the application. If you have a sympathetic story, many employers out there will at least be willing to listen.
RtW, the campaign that is most active on criminal record discrimination is trying to “Ban the Box,” or not allow that question on the application. Because the truth is–and copious research backs this up, as well as speaking with anyone with a record–it’s not true that “if you have a sympathetic story, many employers out there will at least be willing to listen.” They have a stack of applications, they see that box and they throw your application out. So at least getting past that first hurdle, so that folks get a chance to explain their story, would be a huge achievement.
As to the first point, I think the answer is we need to be doing more structurally to create jobs, because I can’t tell you how many people I’ve spoken with who are doing literally all they can and have been for years and still can’t find work.
Thank you, RtW for your insightful comments. You pose some mainstream arguments against some people not being allowed to work, versus others.
To me it boils down to a simple ethic: EVERY PERSON has the right to work. Essentially, what comes across in your post is the hurt, and pain of being unemployed; that generally some other (assumedly less-deserving person) would potentially take a job that you could do.
I don’t see this as a zero-sum thing. People who have convicted a crime, were sentenced, finished that sentence, and are now out on the streeets trying to make an honest living, should be allowed a chance to make an honest living. This is the meat-and-potatoes of the arguement: if someone is going through the difficulty, and hoops necessary to land an honest job, they should be considered honestly for that job.
True, there are types of employment that are directly related to the type of crime a person committed: i.e. someone who may have molested a child shouldn’t work as a teacher, et al. However, does the same logic hold that said ex-con be banned from working in a factory screen printing?
A related point is this: the reason why people committed a crime are numerous, and laws cover more than so-called “economic” crimes, e.g.: armed robbery. It may take longer for some than others, but invariably, with the proper guidance, and assistance, ANY (I dare say all) ex-cons willing to go through the hoops, and trouble, of looking for employment that requires one to fill-out applications, complete resumes and cover letters, on a consistent basis is one who is rehabilitatable, and can lead a constructive, productive, tax-paying life.
If a person has committed an criminal offense, are you saying that that person shouldn’t work at all, anywhere,,,and therefore should go back to a life of crime to support himself?
More to the point, the highest concentration of criminals is those who are convicted a simple possession. Should those individuals be barred from working anywhere?
Yes, 99 weeks is a long time, relative to work. One might think that within that time a person should and can find work. However, in the midst of what you say, you contradict yourself. Essentially, anyone can, and should find work, except for (ex-)criminals; they shouldn’t ever be allowed to work, anywhere. So, going by what I read here, 99 weeks isn’t enough time: 999 weeks still wouldn’t be enough.
Let’s keep something else in mind: that Unemployment Insurance is money that I paid into the system while I was working. That is my money I paid into the system, to support me as I was laid-off. In CT it likely would have been enough to support me while I was looking for work. It seems that people can work in other states. Working in Rhode Island is a whole different affair.
Trev – Thank you for the response and for serving as the subject of the article. I know it is not a decision made lightly, and the public discussion is better for it.
I absolutely believe that those who have been convicted of crimes can rehabilitate themselves, and I also believe that they should be provided an equal opportunity to apply for jobs and work. Perhaps we differ in how we define “equal opportunity” – by legally prohibiting employers from considering highly relevant pieces of information about a person’s past, such as whether they have murdered or robbed another person (most of which is already public record), I believe we would be granting a class of people special treatment, not equal opportunity.
It is not true that convicted criminals are “banned” from working or applying to jobs, any more than high-school dropouts or those with 2.0 college GPAs or any other number of resume obstacles are “banned” from obtaining work. Perhaps certain people have a harder time than others based on their history, but such are the consequences of all of the actions we choose in life, and the unemployment rate of convicted criminals is nowhere near 100%. Ultimately, it should be the employer’s choice of whom to hire, and withholding relevant information from them through force of law would impair their ability to make good employment bets and invest in the future of their company. I personally believe in forgiveness, and I know that many, but perhaps not all, employers do also.
On a more personal note, I would strongly suggest that you move out of Rhode Island to New Hampshire or Virginia. The unemployment rates of these states are 5.0% and 5.6% respectively, and many businesses in these states are hiring, unlike in Rhode Island. Taxes are also lower, so you will keep more of the money you earn when you do find full-time work. I wish you the best of luck.
“High time for a walk on the real side
Let’s admit the bastards beat us.
I mean to dissolve the corporation
in a pool of Margharitas.”
from Everything Must Go
(Let’s have a block party in front of the Superman Building.) bounce some hi-fi
Welcome to Providence, home of Steely Dan-like
ideation
applied
to the new.
…a major event stop on the Boston/DC Smoothliner,
Reggie Van Gleason: (with nasality) … ummh, and such a new deco stop it is.
www.nationalreentryresourcecenter.org/states/rhode-island
Mr. Hedge,
The above address discusses potential employment for ex-cons in RI. There are also websites regarding employment for ex-cons in every state. Good luck!
“RtW, the campaign that is most active on criminal record discrimination is trying to “Ban the Box,” or not allow that question on the application.”
Aaron,
I believe the bill that was originally submitted two sessions ago went beyond ban the box to banning the question until after a conditional offer of employment. The only thing it would have created was a waste of time for some employers and worse an opportunity for frivolous lawsuits that would harass employers.