Quoth msmith537:
Perhaps, but that’s his decision to make. Apparently, he’s decided that the chance to help some unfortunates better their lots in life is worth the added risk to himself, and who are we to second-guess his decision?
This is just a live version of the “prodigal son” story in the bible.
On one hand, you want to help those less fortunate, but should they be rewarded for their failings.
For instance, I admire people who overcome adversity, but what about those who had the strength never to get themselves into a bad situtation to begin with. Not getting yourself into drugs is just as difficult as going through rehab.
Then you have the problem that a person recovering needs a leg up because there is a cost to society to letting him fail. He’ll go back to his corrupt ways and maybe wind up in jail or a burden on the welfare system.
A person who has never been in trouble, and maybe is forced to steal will likely get probation and that has mimimal cost to society. A criminal who didn’t get the job because it went to someone who never got in trouble, and has to steal to eat, will go back to jail, and become a drain.
So there is a cost here as well.
It’s always been a debate and is likely never to be resolved. In Romans we have God answering a similar type thing something along the lines of “I will have mercy upon who I will have mercy and compassion upon who I will have compassion. By the same hand I mold the righteous, I mold the unrighteous”
In other words I’m the boss, I’ll decided and it’s totally up to me, so butt out.
No, I’m pretty sure not getting into drugs (alcohol, narcotics, meth) wasn’t that hard for me. 'Cause I’m not an addict (meaning, I’m not prone to addiction to chemicals*), nor do I have the money or friends to get into drugs. It wasn’t a great test of willpower or anything. I’m not stronger than they are because my body’s chemistry is more stable and I’ve always been broke.
*Although I’m very intrigued with the Food Addict theory of obesity, and do think I might display addictive traits around food; drugs, not so much.
I’m sorry, but that statement’s just silly. Becoming addicted to drugs involves significant and severe changes in one’s brain chemistry and behavior that can be a bitch to change. Beginning is very easy; not beginning is very easy. Stopping once you’re addicted is extremely difficult. Hell, my caffeine addiction is a bitch, and I don’t doubt that more extreme drug like nicotine or heroin is enormously worse.
What you wrote is like saying that “not falling into a hundred-foot-deep well is just as difficult as crawling out of said well.”
I think it’s great, and I’ve seen this a lot from recovering folks.
People new in recovery tend to a have a bit of trouble finding jobs. Some of had mad skills in some professions that may overcome a spotty work history, but a lot of us did not. Some of us have been fired as a result of our addiction, some have done time, some never had jobs to begin with.
It’s a dilema. We need to practice honesty, but sometimes that honesty will scare off an employer (I make no judgments about this). It’s good to be able to be honest in an interview and get the job and build some work history. *I’m clean now *doesn’t pull nearly as much weight as I’ve been clean for a while and have a positive work history since.
True enough. I DO have sympathy (but not unlimited) with any person who has an addiction or mental or wieght or whatever type of problem.
Having said THAT, it does at least take more sense, strength, or good luck in rare cases to never GET near that 100 foot deep well in the first place than to peer over the edge thinking “hey, it cant be that bad”.
Although its obviously been filtered through others’ phrasing at this point, if it was put this way, I’d call it tactless, not unethical. Sort of like saying, "Oh, you’re looking for a job? You know, I have an opening right now! Of course, I’ll first have to go find out if anyone REALLY needs it.
Also, the litmus test of asking to see a one month coin – thats pretty weak, in my book; it sounds like this guy has a sort of “Well, I want to help people out who are down, but not those who are THAT down…”
Meh, I’m probably rambling at this point. Boil it down to this: this doesn’t sound like someone I’d want to work for. And perhaps his frequent turnover has something to do with his propensity for hiring substance abusers. Why not take the one who came to you? AA/NA people aren’t incompetent…they’re perfectly capable of seeking him out for a job (and if the meetings I’ve been to are any indication, the vast majority of those in AA are, in fact, employed). If you want the chronically unemployed, ask at the shelter, IMO.
Again, it seems like people are confusing AA attendees with the chronically homeless, or something. Being in AA isn’t like being an ex-con, or homeless, or whatever – it just means you’re an alcoholic. I suppose if one had a spotty resume due to…I dunno, alcohol-related dysfunctionality, that they might have a harder time getting a job than Joe Average Guy, but its not like AA is burned into ones cheek and some sort of “cross to bear”.
Yes, the business case for this type of hiring is that the owner believes he can better distinguish among potential employees, or manage existing employees, of this type than his competitors can.