I recommend hiring him based upon the franchise owner’s reference. His work record there was good enough to receive his referral.
Would he stay clean? An employer doesn’t know that about any of the applicants unless a drug screen is in place.
No, it’s the opposite. Simply never taking drugs and expecting a cookie for it is doing what is expected. Overcoming addiction is an accomplishment, albeit one that is stained. And as I said, if that’s your biggest accomplishment you’ve led an empty life otherwise. I’d feel very sorry for someone who couldn’t list a better accomplishment than that in life whether they’ve been an addict or not.
A student worker gig is barely a step up from burger flipper. I think some of y’all are over thinking it. The guy showed up on time, has references, and has demonstrated some degree of honesty. I say give him a chance.
University students generally haven’t had a lot of time to win their Oscar. People can develop drug habits for all kinds of reasons. For all you know it could have formed from a legitimate prescription that his body went and got addicted to. But kicking a drug habit takes a level of determination and self-awareness that very few university students have had the chance to demonstrate.
A slight aside, but a friend of mine recently told me that back in the 80s, he knew a hippy commune that actually kept itself in drug money purely by writing Mills and Boon novels.
I’m not quite sure why that pleases me so much, but it made me very happy to think that the shelfloads of drivel my elderly Aunt used to read was keeping some hippy well supplied with LSD.
Anyway; the guy sounds like he’s tried pretty hard to get his life sorted out, and so far is doing a good job at it. Keep an eye out for relapses, sure, but I can’t really see why he’d be unsuitable for a University Library job.
I’m not sure I even understand why there’s a question. Hire him.
Piling on with the majority. If this guy’s been consistently on time and sober at your friend’s place for a year, give or take, I’d say that trumps his old drug habit. It’s a risk, but so is everybody.
This was a heroin addiction. And university students should be able to show more accomplishment than kicking an addiction or they shouldn’t be in a university to begin with.
Well, based on personal observation (n=1, what of it?) I disagree. Desperation can make people’s ethics get more flexible, and people who would never steal for other things will steal for drug money.
But unless he’s going to be working with access to cash or valuables, I say hire him. I mean, he kept down the fast-food job, why shouldn’t he keep this one?
And what exactly is a college student supposed to have accomplished? Graduating from High School?
I think it’s a little ridiculous to make a condition of employment as a student worker random drug tests that have to be paid for by the employee. If he relapses, you’ll be able to tell. And if he can hide it without it impacting his work at all, what business is it of yours?
Like what? My biggest accomplishment in high school was getting the local record store to carry my homemade 'zine. What is it you expect people to be doing?
A heroin addict would readily steal anything from anybody if he relapses. This is not an indictment of all recovered addicts, but it is a concern of an employer. He may also become addicted to substances with even worse problems. The point is to have a recourse in place when something turns up missing or the employee has outlandish excuses for missing work. I assume the OP does not actually own the library involved and has a responsiblity to act in the owner’s best interest. The test never has be demanded if there is no problem.
That’s more of an accomplishment to be proud of then overcoming a voluntary addiction. One could gnaw off their own foot and call it an accomplishment, but if they aren’t trapped under a rock they’ve accomplished nothing worth considering as a qualification of employment.
This. I like it when I see someone with prison tattoos at work, it’s someone who’s been able to turn around after a serious fuckup. Someone has to be willing to give them the chance to do so.
Those disdaining his accomplishment are overlooking the fact that the other applicants were junk. The question was not, “Should I hire this valedictorian/Nation Merit Scholar/Eagle Scout or the junkie?”.
ZPG has it narrowed down to a “few applicants”, and from the lack of information on the others, I infer that they don’t even have as strong an endorsement as a franchise owner/previous employer (or counselor) with strict standards and very positive feedback.
Hell, consider the fall from grace and redemption a wash- and hire him based on his application, work history, and references alone, unless another applicant out-shone him in those areas…?
If it is narrowed down to two applicants that are equal and one is a recently recovering addict and one is not, I would go with the non-addict. If he is the best candidate I would take a chance and go with him. In other words I wound not penalize someone for not ever being a drug addict.
As an ex-junkie, he could sniff out the any other (current) junkies coming in the library and tell them to stop junkying around, or whatever crap junkies can pull at libraries.
LOL. There might be something to that, actually. There are a lot of things that someone who has had a taste of “the life” will notice that most of us would not.
ETA: TriPolar, why are you so certain we’re talking about heroin here? **ZPG Zealot **certainly hasn’t mentioned it.
I wouldn’t hire someone in his position for a job that involved handling any form of drug and might hesitate about a job involving money handling, but a library should be safe enough. I’d say give him a chance.