For the first 4 of the past 6 months, I've tried disclosing early (first or second phone call), half-way through, or near the job offer phase. Every single time, without fail, they email back (not even a phone call) with either a generic or very brief message retracting their offer or declining to proceed with the interview process. Smaller companies will simply stop returning my calls and emails, and completely cut off contact regardless of when I tell them. I only started waiting until the background check until I disclose for the past 2 months because I'm getting very nervous about not actually getting a job.
If a company will decline to hire you based on finding out, then there isn't really anything you can do - they will find out one way or another.
If you're being pragmatic about it, you might as well save your time and get rejected from these kinds of companies earlier on in the process, rather than get all the way to the end before having to move on.
If a company is rejecting you based on policy, yes. If it's a personal decision based on prejudice against felons (he can't possibly be competent and non-violent), the result is not the same, you have the chance to disprove those prejudices and sell yourself. Since such prejudice is rampant, it may be your best overall chance.
I believe that, aside from specialized fields like bank tellers or people working with children, access to conviction history should be severely restricted - the only point of such info is to facilitate discrimination.
In theory, the debt to society is repaid when the individual exits the penitentiary. In practice, the punishment continues on an ad-hoc, deregulated fashion from private individuals against the most vulnerable segment of the ex-felonry: those with meager material means and education, limited family support and in most desperate need to secure lawful employment. This extended and unequal punishment is a clear violation of the equality before law all citizens should enjoy, that should punish similar acts to the same degree.
It could be argued that social consequences of recidivism are so great in some cases (ex. sexual offenses) that it's reasonable to prevent them at all costs, provided the freedom of ex-felons to choose a wide array of other occupations is not impacted significantly.
It would be a great progress from the current status quo, that basically denies them most jobs, even those where the higher than average recidivism risk of ex-felons is immaterial. I would see it as a practical political compromise.
When you apply for banking jobs, there is a question that asks if you were related in any financial-style crime. I think it's mandated by regulation, and the scope is limited to crimes having to do with the profession itself.
The amount of political capital required to undo that law and make criminal histories effectively private would probably be too much, so you do the political compromise and exempt some categories.
Anyone want to bet that future offers will be retracted for the same reason (felony conviction), despite the word in the URL/email address where the recruiter/headhunter/whoever found the contact info, and presumably knowing about it up front?
