No Rhymer family or job drama this time, folks. But the question is based on something going on in my life. Here’s the scoop:
I have a friend who owns a small restaurant. It’s been open about, oh, two years, I’d guess, and seems to be doing pretty well, though I’m not privy to the books. Anyway, recently one of my stepdaughter’s friends asked me if I could help her get a job, and I thought of my friend and gave him a call. When we spoke about it, he mentioned that he did in fact have an opening (he frequently does), but before he’d give this girl a chance, he wanted to check with his AA and NA groups to see if anyone there needs a job. He makes a practice of favoring people in 12-step programs for work, as long as they have at least their 1-month chip.
My stepdaughter was a bit vexed at this, as she thinks my friend is being unfair and perhaps discriminatory; her friend, she says, should not be penalized for never having drunk or used drugs, particularly in the current economy. I can’t entirely agree that her friend is being unfairly discriminated against. A recovering addict is likely to have difficulty landing a job, and I think my friend is being a mencsch to go out of his way to give them a chance.
Sounds like a time for a lesson in “Protected Classes”, of which being sober is not one. Is it unfair? Perhaps, but life isn’t fair, Princess. Is it fair for all those folks in NA and AA that the vast majority of business owners would give *her *preferential hiring? No, that’s not fair, either (although it’s even more understandable.) He’s not “penalizing” her for being a good girl; he’s trying to help someone at an even lower rung of society get out of a jam.
I agree he’s being a mensch. It’s his business, and it’s not only legal, but admirable, I think. And while jobs are getting hard to find in this economy, they’re even harder for those other guys to get. A little compassion is a good thing.
(Plus, of course, you don’t have to be a diagnosed anything to go to AA or NA. If she feels it’s that important, she could go to a meeting or three, and perhaps get a new perspective on what they’re dealing with and make future employer contacts while she’s there.)
I support the business owner in trying to help addicts reintegrate into society. An ex-con or addict is more likely to go back to their old ways if they can’t get a respectable job, but most respectable jobs don’t want anything to do with them…so what are they supposed to do?
It’s not really unfair because I’m sure that girl will find a job somewhere else, probably at a place that would never consider someone with a past of drug use or criminal behavior.
but no more so than a slight preference for hiring a friend, a friend of a friend, or a relative, or whatever, which is how many folks get their jobs in the first place. And that is what almost got the young lady HER job with him.
And besides its this guys business and HIS money and HE will suffer directly economically if this is a less than optimum hiring guideline.
Now if a public entity like the gubment was doing this in an official capacity I’d be a bit more miffed, but even then…
Well, in Spain it could be considered illegal, as it’s reckoned that the list of “discrimination reasons” in our Constitution is a list of examples, not of protected classes. In theory, she could sue him and win, unless his restaurant is set up as an NPO dedicated to the rehabilitation of “at-risk people.”
Do I think it’s unethical to give the underdog a chance? No. And he hasn’t said that he will not consider her as she’s not “at risk,” he’s said he prefers to give at risk people that chance others won’t, so I’m sorry: if I was the judge in her suit, I’d rule against her.
I’ve heard of another small business that does this, and has been doing it for many years. They’ve helped a lot of people. I think it’s an ethical practice and an admirable one. I think your stepdaughter’s friend will have other opportunities.
Homeboy Industries hires only ex-cons. I wuld support them if one of their places was nearby.
I like the idea of somebody giving ex-drunks and ex-junkies an opportunity to have a “real” job on their resume that isn’t a lie.
Explain to your stepdaughter that this guy is one of very few people who will give these guys and gals a chance, whereas her friend probably has many more opportunities to get a job.
Is it unethical? Probably not. Is it unwise? I think so.
A business owner’s primary obligation is to the success of their business. For many business owners, their business is their livlihood. So I have to question the wisdom of going out of your way to hire addicts and convicted felons. Especially in a business that deals heavily in cash and serves alchohol. While people can change, it’s hard to evaluate people on anything other than their past actions.
While it may seem unfair to the addicts and felons, they did make their own choices.
I hope this isn’t too much of a hijack, but can someone explain the legal reasons why the owner can prefer AA members over other people? I thought the “protected class” thing came into play if an employer was discriminating against you. But in this case nobody has been hired yet.
I dont want to chime in on the ethics issue so much, but I also wondered if this place serves alcohol, and if so, is it wise to have people who are currently struggling with thier own over-consumption to be around others who are actively drinking?
Why? For a CEO, operating on the behalf of stockholders, sure. But if he owns the business, it is his to risk.
There’s no evidence that he hires any addict that wants a job, nor is their evidence that he trusts them blindly–giving people a chance does not equal being a sucker. All we know about this guy is that he 1) has kept a restaurant open for 2 years and 2) hires addicts (nothing is said about felons). We don’t know much of anything, really, but on the face of it I’d say that keeping any sort of business–especially a restaurant–open through the first two years suggests pretty decent business acumen.
I think it’s hilarious that you didn’t read the OP with the slightest bit of care. The person trying to get the job was not the person who felt the restaraunteur was being unfair.
I know more than a few recovering folk who have gone into business and make a point to hire other recovering people where possible. Frankly, people working a good solid recovery program tend to make good employees, as the recovery process emphasizes personal responsibility very strongly.
Consider that the market perhaps undervalues their talents and relative value. Presumably it’s possible to hire someone with a known history of an addiction with a given skill set at a relative discount to someone with an “unblemished,” record.
I think it’s hilarious that you don’t realize that many if not most jobs are gotten through networking.
The market doesn’t undervalue their talent. There is a significant risk premium for hiring someone with a known history of addiction or a criminal past.
Nowhere have I asserted that my compadre goes out of his way to hire criminals. I am sitting at the restaurant in question right now, and just went to ask him; he said that he doesn’t knowingly hire persons who have priors for theft and such, though he has hired at least one waitress who was formerly involved in the commercialization of affection.
I don’t deny the added risk, but it is certainly possible that the market currently overestimates that risk. Hence, the possibility that former addicts are available on the labor market at a discount that outweighs the added risk compared to limiting your search to prospective employees to only those with perfectly clean backgrounds.
