I want to relate to you a situation that happened today.
My fiance, until last week, was working as an independent contractor at the Denver, Colorado offices of TIAA-CREF. She is a fibromyalgia sufferer and has had an extended flare (very rare) for the past week, which caused her to miss several days of work. TIAA-CREF chose to terminate her contract with them, a technically permissible action, though questionable on the ethics. Friday, she sent a message to Bret Deardorff (bdeardorff@tiaa-cref.org) informing him that I would be coming this morning (Monday, December 17th) to retrieve her personal effects like her mp3 player and her purse, which she accidently left at work last week.
When I arrived at their office this morning, I went straight to their security desk, which is located on the 28th floor of the building they are in (note that I am leaving the actual address out, please) and attempted to request one of the TIAA-CREF staff retrieve her belongings. I had her security badge with me, in case they requested it, and the key to her desk. The security guard (Wes) stated he could not reach anyone to help unless I knew their LAST name. At the time, the information was on my fiance's Yahoo! Mail account. I tried to reach her by phone while I was there, but was unsuccessful. I informed the security guard that I would have to go back home to retrieve the information he requested, but he refused to allow me to leave unless I surrendered her badge immediately. Begrudgingly, I gave it to him, but kept her desk key, intending on contacting Bert Deardorff to request his presence when I returned. When I got home, we found a letter from Chris Weston (head of Global System Staffing) insisting on a contact phone number for Laura. It seems TIAA-CREF had told him that Laura gave me her security badge and that I was wandering around the building in violation of security rules, which was a blatant lie.
I sent an email informing them that the security guard's action to detain me was an illegal detainment which could subject them to civil litigation action by me and that their lack of cooperation in returning Laura's belongings were, under Colorado law, an act of criminal theft (failure to surrender property to its rightful owner when demanded), but that, as a professional courtesy between nonprofit organizations (I run House Wyldstar) I was willing to overlook this misconduct if they would simply return my fiance's belongings because she needs her ID for a plane flight Wednesday morning.
Chris Weston flamed back an email accusing me of threatening them and violating TIAA-CREF security, which I never did either of those, I merely pointed out the misconduct of their staff in the situation and reminded them of the potential effects of it.
I will admit, my last email was slightly more than heated, though I did my best not to become abusing towards them. I was originally, in response to their attitudes, going to have a civil escort go with me this afternoon. I thought it might be prudent to have an officer assist me with this crazy situation. Unfortunately the Denver Police Department did not have one available before 5pm, so I will have to do it in the morning.
Such misconduct is unbecoming to ANY organization, much less one with as much responsibility as TIAA-CREF. I would personally NEVER treat anyone like this and would NOT let a situation like this get out of hand like they have done, but after viewing the wide variety of consumer complaints against TIAA-CREF, I am really not surprised.
And by the way, if anyone from TIAA-CREF wishes to challenge my statements here, I have the emails mentioned saved and could easily post them online for everyone to view. Or we could post the security video of my visit there and let the rest of the world judge for themselves. Think about it.
December 20, 2007
Follow-up:
This situation has been more or less resolved.
My fiance contacted the TSA (airport security) and learned that her student ID would suffice for boarding her airplane. Subsequently she had contact with Chris Webster (who is actually an executive with Global System Solutions, a TIAA-Cref contractor, and not TIAA-Cref itself) and agreed to have her belongings shipped to our home.
We were also informed that I have effectively been banned from the Denver TIAA-Cref occupied building by Mr. Webster, although I am not certain he has the authority to do that. Personally, I could care less if the building suddenly collapsed around him, except one of my favorite Starbuck's is also in the building. I guess one cannot truly consider themselves an activist until they have either been arrested during a protest (which almost did happen to me years ago, but that is another story) or have been banned from a facility for standing up to governmental or corporate misconduct and corruption. Perhaps I should take this incident as my ''coming of age'' event, maybe?
Showing posts with label employment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label employment. Show all posts
Monday, December 17, 2007
Friday, December 14, 2007
Social Forgiveness of Branded Men
I'd like to hold my head up and be proud of who I am
But they won't let my secret go untold
I paid the debt I owed them,but they're still not satisfied
Now I'm a branded man out un the cold
- Merle Haggard, Branded Man
I've been a fan of Merle Haggard ever since I was a kid. His songs seemed to strike a cord with me. The one that touches me the most is Branded Man, the story of a man who was in prison and paid his debt to society, but was discriminated against after his release.
It might be just another song if it didn't reflect exactly how our society treats ex-offenders. Long ago, a man released from prison could move out of the state and start over. Now, thanks to computer technology and registration requirements for many ex-offenders, there is not only nowhere to hide, there is nowhere to start over.
We complain about the rampant crime in our society, yet we fail to realize we are, in part, responsible for our own mess.
Multiple studies, academic, governmental, and independent, have shown that ex-offenders who have steady, stable employment, housing, and community support services are far more likely to never commit another crime. Yet two-thirds of employers, if they know someone is an ex-felon, won't give them the chance. Many apartment complexes refuse to rent to them. Sex offenders in particular are victimized by this phenomena, being the only class of ex-offender who is required to uniformly not only register with the state they are living in, but in most states to have their picture, crime, and address posted on the Internet.
The basic question is, does this make us and our children any safer in our society? Statistics indicate the answer is no. By not allowing ex-offenders a chance to start over after paying their debt to society, we are setting them up for repeat behavior and endangering ourselves and our families.
Maybe we need to rethink this.
But they won't let my secret go untold
I paid the debt I owed them,but they're still not satisfied
Now I'm a branded man out un the cold
- Merle Haggard, Branded Man
I've been a fan of Merle Haggard ever since I was a kid. His songs seemed to strike a cord with me. The one that touches me the most is Branded Man, the story of a man who was in prison and paid his debt to society, but was discriminated against after his release.
It might be just another song if it didn't reflect exactly how our society treats ex-offenders. Long ago, a man released from prison could move out of the state and start over. Now, thanks to computer technology and registration requirements for many ex-offenders, there is not only nowhere to hide, there is nowhere to start over.
We complain about the rampant crime in our society, yet we fail to realize we are, in part, responsible for our own mess.
Multiple studies, academic, governmental, and independent, have shown that ex-offenders who have steady, stable employment, housing, and community support services are far more likely to never commit another crime. Yet two-thirds of employers, if they know someone is an ex-felon, won't give them the chance. Many apartment complexes refuse to rent to them. Sex offenders in particular are victimized by this phenomena, being the only class of ex-offender who is required to uniformly not only register with the state they are living in, but in most states to have their picture, crime, and address posted on the Internet.
The basic question is, does this make us and our children any safer in our society? Statistics indicate the answer is no. By not allowing ex-offenders a chance to start over after paying their debt to society, we are setting them up for repeat behavior and endangering ourselves and our families.
Maybe we need to rethink this.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Release of a Dangerous Man
Colorado has released a sexually violent predator back into society. In Colorado that label is applied to the worst of our sex offenders. In this case, the man was convicted of raping a 17-year-old girl while she was incapacitated by drugs and/or alcohol. The conviction was a long time ago, but it seems the offender refused to cooperate with in-prison therapy programs and thus remains a high-risk offender.
My position on this is mixed. On one hand, I believe that everyone can change and should be given a second chance in our society. On the other hand, he has shown no desire or attempt to change. This is NOT a good situation. Personally, I think Colorado should go back to the old sentencing guidelines on sex offenders. It use to be that the sentence was one year to life, allowing the parole board some discretion in how to handle each individual. They could go easy on a Romeo-and-Juliet offender, while keeping ones that seemed likely to be a danger in prison indefinitely. Now, once an offender has completed the maximum sentence (4-32 years, depending on the crime), the parole board has no choice but to release him on mandatory parole. The current laws also dictate lengthy mandatory minimums that have been described by most legal experts as draconian.
My position is further mixed by my animosity towards SVPs. In my book, those who pose a true threat to our society are treated too lightly, but in response to this, in an effort to appear 'tough on crime', our legislators are going overboard in my opinion. Statistically, longer prison sentences are NOT as effective as our legislators would have us believe during election years and, in my humble opinion, may be making the situation even worse.
This goes not only for ever increasing prison sentences, but for the so called 'habitual offender' laws as well. The longer the sentence the offender knows he may be facing, the more willing he is to violently and/or desperately act to avoid it when discovered. How many times have we heard in recent years of three time losers shooting it out with police rather than go back to prison?
I, personally, would like to see more efforts at crime prevention by addressing the core causes of crime and in reforming the offenders through mandatory therapy participation and education opportunities when they are returned to society, if not in the prisons themselves during their incarceration.
What's that you say? Wouldn't that be expensive? The answer is yes and no. In the short-term, the cost would be greater to establish and deliver the necessary services and training, but in the long-term the cost would be less by helping the offender better reintegrate into society, becoming a contributing member, rather than costing more in the form of further law enforcement and incarceration expenses.
Of course, the society itself has to help in this matter. In a poll a couple years ago, it was found that almost two-thirds of all employers stated they would NOT hire an ex-felon for any reason, any position, and without regards to how long ago the crime was and what efforts the ex-felon had taken to reform themselves. I believe this attitude is counterproductive. We say we want the ex-offender to become a law-abiding community member and contribute positively to our society, yet the majority of employers don't want to give them the chance to do so.
House Wyldstar may have an answer to this situation, but we are going to need help. Our idea is the creation of companies specifically for the employment of ex-offenders, including ones like the SVP I described earlier. The employment environment could be monitored to ensure desirable behavior of the participants. This would be especially important in dealing with SVP cases. A monitored, protected work environment would improve the chances of all participants in successfully reintegrating into society and improve recividism rates. Ex-offenders who have successfully reintegrated could act as advisors and mentors for those who are just beginning the transition, or who may be having some difficulty in the process. Creating a stable and safe work environment for ex-offenders would be an excellent first step.
Another answer would be to 'ban the box' on job applications that asks about convictions or arrests. The asking about arrests that did not end in a conviction should be banned outright and questions about convictions should be limited to job-related issues and/or time-limited (7-10 years sounds about right). The asking about arrests that did not end in a conviction is a fundamental insult to everyone. It is VERY easy to be arrested for a charge that one did not commit. To hold the fact of any arrest without a conviction against a person for any reason is a clear violation of civil and constitutional rights, punishing the individual by making it legal to discriminate against them without cause. The second point, regarding actual convictions, is that many times the criminal conviction has NOTHING to do with the job being applied for and/or was so long ago that society can and should presume the offender to be rehabilitated.
Another change I would make is in the prisons themselves. At one time, inmates were required to perform many laborious tasks such as working farm fields around the prison to supply food for the prison, chain-gangs that worked on the roadways, or making license plates used by the DMV. Some states still have these in place-most do not. Instead of letting many offenders stay in their cells watching TV all day, playing games, or working out on weight equipment, let's put them to work. Require them to either work in government supporting operations or to attend education programs and classes that can prepare them for reintegrating with society. This would give them more of an incentive and the abilities to make it work when they are released from prison, having giving them SOMETHING along the lines of job-related skills.
Changes like these will obviously not come easy. They will require effort on the part of our entire society. But we will all benefit from them in the long run. Eliminating conditions that drive many ex-offenders into additional criminal conduct will drastically reduce our crime rate and subsequently the cost of operating our judicial and penal systems. I anticipate the strongest resistance to this idea from those who profit from those costs, namely the lawyers and prison management officials.
And just think ... these ideas are coming from a disabled ex-offender!
My position on this is mixed. On one hand, I believe that everyone can change and should be given a second chance in our society. On the other hand, he has shown no desire or attempt to change. This is NOT a good situation. Personally, I think Colorado should go back to the old sentencing guidelines on sex offenders. It use to be that the sentence was one year to life, allowing the parole board some discretion in how to handle each individual. They could go easy on a Romeo-and-Juliet offender, while keeping ones that seemed likely to be a danger in prison indefinitely. Now, once an offender has completed the maximum sentence (4-32 years, depending on the crime), the parole board has no choice but to release him on mandatory parole. The current laws also dictate lengthy mandatory minimums that have been described by most legal experts as draconian.
My position is further mixed by my animosity towards SVPs. In my book, those who pose a true threat to our society are treated too lightly, but in response to this, in an effort to appear 'tough on crime', our legislators are going overboard in my opinion. Statistically, longer prison sentences are NOT as effective as our legislators would have us believe during election years and, in my humble opinion, may be making the situation even worse.
James A. Baldwin, I believe, put it best:
The most dangerous creation
of any society is the man
with nothing to lose.
This goes not only for ever increasing prison sentences, but for the so called 'habitual offender' laws as well. The longer the sentence the offender knows he may be facing, the more willing he is to violently and/or desperately act to avoid it when discovered. How many times have we heard in recent years of three time losers shooting it out with police rather than go back to prison?
I, personally, would like to see more efforts at crime prevention by addressing the core causes of crime and in reforming the offenders through mandatory therapy participation and education opportunities when they are returned to society, if not in the prisons themselves during their incarceration.
What's that you say? Wouldn't that be expensive? The answer is yes and no. In the short-term, the cost would be greater to establish and deliver the necessary services and training, but in the long-term the cost would be less by helping the offender better reintegrate into society, becoming a contributing member, rather than costing more in the form of further law enforcement and incarceration expenses.
Of course, the society itself has to help in this matter. In a poll a couple years ago, it was found that almost two-thirds of all employers stated they would NOT hire an ex-felon for any reason, any position, and without regards to how long ago the crime was and what efforts the ex-felon had taken to reform themselves. I believe this attitude is counterproductive. We say we want the ex-offender to become a law-abiding community member and contribute positively to our society, yet the majority of employers don't want to give them the chance to do so.
House Wyldstar may have an answer to this situation, but we are going to need help. Our idea is the creation of companies specifically for the employment of ex-offenders, including ones like the SVP I described earlier. The employment environment could be monitored to ensure desirable behavior of the participants. This would be especially important in dealing with SVP cases. A monitored, protected work environment would improve the chances of all participants in successfully reintegrating into society and improve recividism rates. Ex-offenders who have successfully reintegrated could act as advisors and mentors for those who are just beginning the transition, or who may be having some difficulty in the process. Creating a stable and safe work environment for ex-offenders would be an excellent first step.
Another answer would be to 'ban the box' on job applications that asks about convictions or arrests. The asking about arrests that did not end in a conviction should be banned outright and questions about convictions should be limited to job-related issues and/or time-limited (7-10 years sounds about right). The asking about arrests that did not end in a conviction is a fundamental insult to everyone. It is VERY easy to be arrested for a charge that one did not commit. To hold the fact of any arrest without a conviction against a person for any reason is a clear violation of civil and constitutional rights, punishing the individual by making it legal to discriminate against them without cause. The second point, regarding actual convictions, is that many times the criminal conviction has NOTHING to do with the job being applied for and/or was so long ago that society can and should presume the offender to be rehabilitated.
Another change I would make is in the prisons themselves. At one time, inmates were required to perform many laborious tasks such as working farm fields around the prison to supply food for the prison, chain-gangs that worked on the roadways, or making license plates used by the DMV. Some states still have these in place-most do not. Instead of letting many offenders stay in their cells watching TV all day, playing games, or working out on weight equipment, let's put them to work. Require them to either work in government supporting operations or to attend education programs and classes that can prepare them for reintegrating with society. This would give them more of an incentive and the abilities to make it work when they are released from prison, having giving them SOMETHING along the lines of job-related skills.
Changes like these will obviously not come easy. They will require effort on the part of our entire society. But we will all benefit from them in the long run. Eliminating conditions that drive many ex-offenders into additional criminal conduct will drastically reduce our crime rate and subsequently the cost of operating our judicial and penal systems. I anticipate the strongest resistance to this idea from those who profit from those costs, namely the lawyers and prison management officials.
And just think ... these ideas are coming from a disabled ex-offender!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)