As someone with several drug related felonies on my record, I can do nothing but applaud the efforts of this CEO, although on a different level I wonder if any adult working a minimum wage job isn't living a very bleak existence anyway, and in fact isn't being exploited for having a brain disorder we currently call "addiction"
The problem with people who let drugs seriously affect their life is that...they let drugs seriously affect their lives, and at least from an employment point of view, where what matters is robot-like conformity and compliance, this is just not-to-be tolerated or even risked.
The sad, sad irony of this is that according to very recent studies[1], the very thing that made us addicts is the very prescription that society has deemed our punishment to be. Talk about cruel and unusual.
I wish I could say I don't struggle with relapse, but one of the few things worse then being an addict is being a lying addict.
Being unemployable by most metrics and having to constantly struggle to survive sure doesn't help with that battle.
Interesting article, thanks. As a Portuguese, and having been close to someone who was addicted to heroin, I know that besides clinics, we also had houses in the countryside where there were small communities where people trying to recover could stay for a few months, with very regular visits by specialist psychologists helping them. I don't know how effective they were or if they still exist, but it seems to jive with this idea of establishing human connections.
This article is garbage. As others have pointed out, the author is a repeat plagiarist [1], and the point that he makes in the article is heavily based around the Rat Park study - one that has struggled to be replicated [2]. The clickbait title doesn't help things either.
Thank you both for the courage to post this, and for the link to Johann Hari's article. It is a real eye-opener. (If anyone is tempted to skip it because of the HuffPo link, take my word for it, this is well worth reading.)
> I wonder if any adult working a minimum wage job isn't living a very bleak existence anyway, and in fact isn't being exploited for having a brain disorder we currently call "addiction"
Assuming you consider 28 years old to be "adult", I can confirm that there are such adults.
I wonder if a Silicon Valley tech company would care about drug related convictions. I don't think possession/distribution/etc. alone would really be an issue (except if it were extremely recent and potentially ongoing), but clearly "I was high and raped/killed my neighbor" would, and either could arguably be "drug related". "Was an addict and broken into cars to get money for drugs" would be a more interesting corner case; nonviolent property crime. I think "in the past" for sufficiently large values of past might be fine.
It's a bakery, requiring little to no skills, and nothing more than being able to repeat physical activity, and only 35% make it through the program (a 10 month on-the-job job).
I don't think this is the "success" story it's being made to be.
The lack of second chances we give in America to some of our most unfortunate means that even non-violent offenses can have lifelong consequences. It's shameful.
That's how I think about a lot of sentencing. Take sex offenders. After they are let out of prison, they have to register as a sex offender, can only live in certain areas, etc., which is equivalent to a life sentence.
We can debate the kind of punishment sex offenders deserve (and don't judge too quickly - urinating in public, statutory rape of a minor 6 months younger than yourself, visiting a prostitute, and even sexting if you are a minor all qualify as sex offenses. [0])
But my point is, if we are going to punish someone for life, let's be open and clear about it. Never being able to escape the year you spent in prison 25 years ago is torturous. It's no wonder recidivism is so high in the US.
This isn't about 'second chances'. Employers are picky because they can afford to be.
They will (mostly) always favor Ivy over state school grads, clean record vs. felon, good credit risk vs. applicant that declared bankruptcy ...and so on.
As low economic growth continues, this is only going to get worse. How many middle-aged people do you see working at Target/Wal-Mart now vs. 15 years ago? If you're not highly skilled with a clean record, things are going to be awfully tough for you.
I think the cost has some influence over employers making a decision to hire an ex-con. If a store can hire someone for minimum wage without any conviction records, why would they hire someone with conviction records when they can't pay any lower than the minimum wage?
well it is not like government doesn't have entry level jobs it could apprentice the recently paroled into. From janitorial to grounds maintenance to even becoming a fireman or similar first responder.
I do note that this business in the article is not really subject to costly losses from theft. There are likely others of similar nature where this can work.
Lastly, back on the government angle. There isn't any reason to not develop programs that start in prison to guide people into jobs with private employers who do not high skilled workers. From wage and transportation assistance there is opportunity there. It won't come free, but is has to be many times cheaper.
I wonder how many felons would vanish off the rolls if all marijuana convictions were pardoned?
If you find this story fascinating (and you should) I highly recommend reading the book written by the founder of Greyston Bakery, Bernie Glassman. It's called "Instructions to the Cook: A Zen Master's Lessons in Living a Life That Matters." It's extremely good, goes over all of the logical reasoning and humanistic basis for the decisions he made, and makes a ton of sense.
Yep, this wonderfully human organization came from a Zen master, and its foundations lie in practical Zen and all of the wonderful philosophies behind it.
Isn't it inspiring to think that the success of a business could have as much to do with the human ties and emotional connections, as it does individuals, skills, and resources? It is inspiring because it's true, and there's some core of each of us that knows that even in a corporate world.
The quality philosophies of W. Edwards Deming were equally appealing to Japanese companies, for many of the same reasons. Deming realized that the success of a company and especially the production of quality products was systemic, controllable, and inseparably human. If you enjoy this idea, read more about Deming as well.
Look at how proud the employees look in the second photo.
Some would generalize, and say that people who look like them, or who have criminal history, don't really want to work. But they do want to work, are employed, and their sense of dignity is palpable.
This is a really uplifting story. Nice to read some good news for a change.
As someone with a bad history -- when I was 17-18; 6 years ago -- this makes me so happy. I'm really fortunate when it comes to employment and work, and I know it's not like this for many other people who have ink on their paper.
I didn't run a malicious drug enterprise, have a wicked meth addiction, kill anyone, or sell my Adderall. Instead, I found my way into a bank's computer system and some financial card records. Some people are cautious with this, personally and professionally, so I explain to them what <really> happened and how it happened and why it happened. If they choose to not accept me for the mistake I _made_, then I remind myself that they're probably not worth my time anyway. If they choose to work with me... I do all I can to change their mind about people in a situation similar to mine.
If there was a silver lining, most would say that my criminal history got me a few gigs relating to fraud prevention and loss. But in my eyes, I think it's that I was able to change the minds of a few people who would have otherwise passed me off for no good - or so I would like to believe.
Interesting, quote that stood out:"Someone without an arrest may simply be a person who has never gotten caught".
That only 40% of business owners would consider hiring a ex-criminal also makes one wonder how many employers in general tend to lump all ex-cons in the same basket when assessing potential business risk (e.g. serial murderer vs thief/drug dealer, 1x vs multiple offender, etc).
Or, quite likely: has been caught but given multiple chances.
Look at the news out of Ferguson, MO, and particularly Tanesi Coates story on systematic corruption and focused arrests and prosecution of minorities / poor:
The "focus on revenue" was almost wholly a focus on black people as revenue. Black people in Ferguson were twice as likely to be searched during a stop, twice as likely to receive a citation when stopped, and twice as likely to be arrested during the stop, and yet were 26 percent less likely to be found with contraband. Black people were more likely to see a single incident turn into multiple citations. The disparity in outcomes remained "even after regression analysis is used to control for non-race-based variables."
Interesting stat... How many would make it if they screened like normal business? That's the more interesting one. Low-paid jobs have always had retention problems and the apprenticeship lasts 11 months.
The inability of convicted felons to find work is a huge contributor to recidivism. When you can't find work, it makes it that much easier to fall back into a life of crime. If we really cared about offering a path to redemption, we would revisit our policies on felony records, maintaining sex offender lists, and placing restrictions on felons ability to vote. Unfortunately prisons are quite profitable (not to mention racist), so the system has been rigged to make it easier for people to fall back to crime that to reintegrate into society.
I think this is awesome. The routine and self respect of getting up and going to a job every morning is something people trying to re-integrate back into society really need. Not to mention money to buy things.
But I do have a story to relate. I was a construction project manager in my early 30's. We did land reclamation in disturbed areas like mines. We had a large project reclaiming a mine in Arizona. The company I worked for hired lots of former convicts without discrimination, and fired them just about as quickly and also without discrimination. One of the water truck drivers had a cousin who had killed some people in his teens and had just gotten out of prison. The guy was I think late 20's. He was living with his aunt and uncle. We had him out on the job staying at a motel with the rest of the crew for a few months. He was a bit odd, but he did OK work. When the job was over, we didn't need the big crew anymore and he was laid off. About a month later he killed the aunt and uncle he was staying with and went right back to prison.
So even though this is a good program and I fully approve and think we need more programs like this.... there are qualifiers. Recently violent people may need more help or supervision after release, before they are ready to enter a workforce.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that this open-hire practice could give businesses a competitive advantage. With the US having 5% of the world's population but incarcerating 25% of the world's prisoners, we've got a surplus of those deemed unemployable due to past convictions. A person with past convictions will generally be more loyal to the company that hired him vs. someone who isn't systemically punished by the job market. If hiring felons with competitive wages means having a more devoted workforce, then those businesses willing to sidestep punitive screenings might just come out ahead.
>A person with past convictions will generally be more loyal to the company that hired him //
The risk factor is that they won't, that they're not really reformed, that if they robbed in the past then ripping off your office will seem a good option (or letting a friend know how to do it without getting caught, etc.).
Any evidence to back up your claim? It would be lovely to think that this is true.
FWIW I'm for applying grace, but not necessarily being naive as to the idea that it will always be repaid with loyalty rather than strife.
As an immigrant to the US from Europe, one of the worst aspects of US culture is how it treats the unfortunate. People are all too willing to inflict severe judgement and punishment on others (presumably because it makes them feel morally upright).
Poor? Fuck you, your fault. Addict? Fuck you, your fault. No, it does not matter that you have cleaned your act.
This country is psychopathic. Unfortunately, that also makes it a great place to earn money, and so here I am.
I would assume the moderator disagreed with the premise of lumping those three categories of people together, or that somehow being an addict is as bad as a felon, or vice versa. Really the offensive part is lumping immigrants in there. Additionally, it's sort of a click-bait title because they hire anyone regardless of their background, they aren't specifically seeking these people out.
I think some of this applies to tech hiring as well. There's only so much accuracy a tech interview can have, yet so much weight is given to it. In the end one person who's rejected at Google may end up at Dropbox, and would all the interview hand-waving have been necessary? I'd love to see studies if more intensive interview processes actually produce better quality hires.
I think more employers would do this if firing was easier.
It's perhaps counterintuitive that making firing cheap, easy, and without large liabilities could reduce our unemployment rate substantially. We should reduce the risk of employers taking a chance on people.
In the US at least, firing is really easy. "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."
Managers are people. I'd imagine there's a fair amount of guilt and shame around firing someone. I also think managers underestimate the damage done by crappy employees, and overestimate the difficulty in replacing people.
Less charitably, people given the power to hire and fire are likely selected for doing what they're told rather than doing what's best for business, so they're probably kinda spineless.
Eh … German labor law, for example, while quite strict when it comes to firing long-term employees, has several mechanisms in place that would make this easily possible with new hires. Lawmakers of course have long recognized that to spur companies to hire new people they have to give them a way out when they notice it doesn't work out during the first couple months.
First, it's possible to time limit an employment contract, e.g. to one year. After that one year the employment is automatically terminated. It is not possible to string time limited contract after time limited contract (if there isn't a reason for the time limit, e.g. another employee has to take care of his kids so there is an urgent need for someone to fill in, it's limited to two years, after which your contract is unlimited), but for new employees it's a tool that can be – and in practice is – used.
Furthermore the (up to) first six months can be a testing period (the law allows it) with severely shortened requirements to giving notice (minimum two weeks from both sides). During this time people can be fired pretty much at will.
On a side note, firing an employee in Italy is excruciatingly hard and, as a consequence, it makes for a lower job growth. As the say goes, "It’s easier for me to get rid of my wife than to fire an employee”.
> "Article 18 of the Labor Code, passed in 1970, mandates that after a short probationary period, an employee fired from a company with 15 or more employees can bring a lawsuit challenging the dismissal. If the suit is successful, as is often the case, the employer is forced to rehire the worker and pay back wages and social insurance contributions, as well as a large fine."http://goo.gl/EE9P5e
It is our individual and societal lizard brain that drives our puritan style shying away from "fallen" the way it was reacting toward lepers for centuries and millennia. It takes an intelligent effort to overcome it.
Did anybody else find the third to last paragraph a little odd?
> As I never tire of pointing out, environmental progress depends on social progress. When people are desperately poor they have no choice but to pillage the commons — to cut down forests, or turn to crime. When those people find the means to support themselves with dignity, forests are protected and high-crime areas turn into healthy, walkable neighborhoods.
They cut down forests? Is that really a thing people do when they can't support themselves?
Congrats to this bakery, and the felons who are happy with their job. As to someone who worked as a Baker; I can honestly state the job was one of the worst jobs I have ever
had--and I have had more than a bakers dozen x 2. The Bakery
I worked at couldn't keep employees. The hours were horrid. I remember having to be there at 4:30 a.am. The wage was
not a livable wage, unless you were living with family members. And two guys out of the 10 of us working there
committed suicide. I'll name the Bakery because the original owner was such a Jerk; it was Marin Bagel Factory.
This was in the ninties--maybe working in a bakery has changed, but any bakery owner should be glad they have any employees that show up. Sorry, but I think back at that Rat hole and cringe.
I have long suspected that for software developers, not bakers, you could hire off the street after a very brief interview and then do a combination of training and auditioning for the work. My belief is this would be both cheaper and more effective than all the money spent in the traditional process. The one caveat is that teams would have to be willing to work at 2 or 3 times their optimal size until the culling was done.
This is an experiment that really needs to be done. Google and the rest of the gang are beating the living hell out of "tell me everybody else you know that's cool" -- there's got to be some opportunities at the other end of the spectrum.
This relates to the hiring post tptacek wrote: "Over the years, Brady has come to suspect that the traditional metrics for determining who will be a good employee are flawed. Someone without an arrest may simply be a person who has never gotten caught."
I'm guessing that you can find better people this way, felony or not by providing an on boarding process with the open expectation that not succeeding there means you're not going to continue with the company.
"Someone without an arrest may simply be a person who has never gotten caught."
That argument is like a religious apologetic. Lack of evidence doesn't produce a positive argument for anything. On the other hand past criminal behavior is one of the best predictors of future criminal behavior. I completely agree with your own statement though.
There's a place in LA called Homeboy Industries with a similar model. This page might be of interest since it is less about the profitability from a business standpoint and more about the benefit to the individuals they hire: http://www.homeboyindustries.org/why-we-do-it/.
[+] [-] cubano|11 years ago|reply
The problem with people who let drugs seriously affect their life is that...they let drugs seriously affect their lives, and at least from an employment point of view, where what matters is robot-like conformity and compliance, this is just not-to-be tolerated or even risked.
The sad, sad irony of this is that according to very recent studies[1], the very thing that made us addicts is the very prescription that society has deemed our punishment to be. Talk about cruel and unusual.
I wish I could say I don't struggle with relapse, but one of the few things worse then being an addict is being a lying addict.
Being unemployable by most metrics and having to constantly struggle to survive sure doesn't help with that battle.
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-real-cause-of-...
[edits]
[+] [-] icebraining|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rsanek|11 years ago|reply
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Hari [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park
[+] [-] Stratoscope|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thaumasiotes|11 years ago|reply
Assuming you consider 28 years old to be "adult", I can confirm that there are such adults.
[+] [-] rdl|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] powertower|11 years ago|reply
I don't think this is the "success" story it's being made to be.
[+] [-] jim_greco|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] themartorana|11 years ago|reply
We can debate the kind of punishment sex offenders deserve (and don't judge too quickly - urinating in public, statutory rape of a minor 6 months younger than yourself, visiting a prostitute, and even sexting if you are a minor all qualify as sex offenses. [0])
But my point is, if we are going to punish someone for life, let's be open and clear about it. Never being able to escape the year you spent in prison 25 years ago is torturous. It's no wonder recidivism is so high in the US.
[0] http://www.businessinsider.com/surprising-things-that-could-...
[+] [-] bequanna|11 years ago|reply
They will (mostly) always favor Ivy over state school grads, clean record vs. felon, good credit risk vs. applicant that declared bankruptcy ...and so on.
As low economic growth continues, this is only going to get worse. How many middle-aged people do you see working at Target/Wal-Mart now vs. 15 years ago? If you're not highly skilled with a clean record, things are going to be awfully tough for you.
This isn't 'right' or 'wrong', it's just reality.
[+] [-] jsnk|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Shivetya|11 years ago|reply
I do note that this business in the article is not really subject to costly losses from theft. There are likely others of similar nature where this can work.
Lastly, back on the government angle. There isn't any reason to not develop programs that start in prison to guide people into jobs with private employers who do not high skilled workers. From wage and transportation assistance there is opportunity there. It won't come free, but is has to be many times cheaper.
I wonder how many felons would vanish off the rolls if all marijuana convictions were pardoned?
[+] [-] calinet6|11 years ago|reply
Yep, this wonderfully human organization came from a Zen master, and its foundations lie in practical Zen and all of the wonderful philosophies behind it.
Isn't it inspiring to think that the success of a business could have as much to do with the human ties and emotional connections, as it does individuals, skills, and resources? It is inspiring because it's true, and there's some core of each of us that knows that even in a corporate world.
The quality philosophies of W. Edwards Deming were equally appealing to Japanese companies, for many of the same reasons. Deming realized that the success of a company and especially the production of quality products was systemic, controllable, and inseparably human. If you enjoy this idea, read more about Deming as well.
[+] [-] jfc|11 years ago|reply
Some would generalize, and say that people who look like them, or who have criminal history, don't really want to work. But they do want to work, are employed, and their sense of dignity is palpable.
This is a really uplifting story. Nice to read some good news for a change.
[+] [-] joshmn|11 years ago|reply
I didn't run a malicious drug enterprise, have a wicked meth addiction, kill anyone, or sell my Adderall. Instead, I found my way into a bank's computer system and some financial card records. Some people are cautious with this, personally and professionally, so I explain to them what <really> happened and how it happened and why it happened. If they choose to not accept me for the mistake I _made_, then I remind myself that they're probably not worth my time anyway. If they choose to work with me... I do all I can to change their mind about people in a situation similar to mine.
If there was a silver lining, most would say that my criminal history got me a few gigs relating to fraud prevention and loss. But in my eyes, I think it's that I was able to change the minds of a few people who would have otherwise passed me off for no good - or so I would like to believe.
[+] [-] Geekette|11 years ago|reply
That only 40% of business owners would consider hiring a ex-criminal also makes one wonder how many employers in general tend to lump all ex-cons in the same basket when assessing potential business risk (e.g. serial murderer vs thief/drug dealer, 1x vs multiple offender, etc).
[+] [-] dredmorbius|11 years ago|reply
Look at the news out of Ferguson, MO, and particularly Tanesi Coates story on systematic corruption and focused arrests and prosecution of minorities / poor:
"The Gangsters of Ferguson" http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/The-Gang...
The "focus on revenue" was almost wholly a focus on black people as revenue. Black people in Ferguson were twice as likely to be searched during a stop, twice as likely to receive a citation when stopped, and twice as likely to be arrested during the stop, and yet were 26 percent less likely to be found with contraband. Black people were more likely to see a single incident turn into multiple citations. The disparity in outcomes remained "even after regression analysis is used to control for non-race-based variables."
[+] [-] addicted44|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pbhjpbhj|11 years ago|reply
If you want to play the game of capitalism well, ie win more of the profit, then you can't let humanity encroach on that. For better or worse.
[+] [-] vermontdevil|11 years ago|reply
According to IPCH's Spring 2014 Uncensored Magazine, 35% of open hires make it through Greyston Bakery's apprenticeship program.
Source| http://www.icphusa.org/filelibrary/ICPH_UNCENSORED%205.1_Spr...
[+] [-] acveilleux|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joshfraser|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jqm|11 years ago|reply
But I do have a story to relate. I was a construction project manager in my early 30's. We did land reclamation in disturbed areas like mines. We had a large project reclaiming a mine in Arizona. The company I worked for hired lots of former convicts without discrimination, and fired them just about as quickly and also without discrimination. One of the water truck drivers had a cousin who had killed some people in his teens and had just gotten out of prison. The guy was I think late 20's. He was living with his aunt and uncle. We had him out on the job staying at a motel with the rest of the crew for a few months. He was a bit odd, but he did OK work. When the job was over, we didn't need the big crew anymore and he was laid off. About a month later he killed the aunt and uncle he was staying with and went right back to prison.
So even though this is a good program and I fully approve and think we need more programs like this.... there are qualifiers. Recently violent people may need more help or supervision after release, before they are ready to enter a workforce.
[+] [-] grasstomouth|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pbhjpbhj|11 years ago|reply
The risk factor is that they won't, that they're not really reformed, that if they robbed in the past then ripping off your office will seem a good option (or letting a friend know how to do it without getting caught, etc.).
Any evidence to back up your claim? It would be lovely to think that this is true.
FWIW I'm for applying grace, but not necessarily being naive as to the idea that it will always be repaid with loyalty rather than strife.
[+] [-] littletimmy|11 years ago|reply
Poor? Fuck you, your fault. Addict? Fuck you, your fault. No, it does not matter that you have cleaned your act.
This country is psychopathic. Unfortunately, that also makes it a great place to earn money, and so here I am.
[+] [-] denim_chicken|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bhayden|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mod|11 years ago|reply
I understand some more click-bait titles getting changed (though I don't usually agree), but some edits, like this one, are seemingly without reason.
[+] [-] chrischen|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] calinet6|11 years ago|reply
How much of a person's effectiveness in a workforce is due to environmental factors, and how much is individual?
Now, for every factor you believe is individual, is there proof, or is it an assumption?
Now even further, for every factor you still believe is individual, can you imagine a system which would solve the problem in a generic way?
Given that, would an organization that assumed systemic solutions be more successful than one that assumes individual solutions?
The answer is yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming
[+] [-] nostromo|11 years ago|reply
It's perhaps counterintuitive that making firing cheap, easy, and without large liabilities could reduce our unemployment rate substantially. We should reduce the risk of employers taking a chance on people.
[+] [-] jfoutz|11 years ago|reply
Managers are people. I'd imagine there's a fair amount of guilt and shame around firing someone. I also think managers underestimate the damage done by crappy employees, and overestimate the difficulty in replacing people.
Less charitably, people given the power to hire and fire are likely selected for doing what they're told rather than doing what's best for business, so they're probably kinda spineless.
[+] [-] arrrg|11 years ago|reply
First, it's possible to time limit an employment contract, e.g. to one year. After that one year the employment is automatically terminated. It is not possible to string time limited contract after time limited contract (if there isn't a reason for the time limit, e.g. another employee has to take care of his kids so there is an urgent need for someone to fill in, it's limited to two years, after which your contract is unlimited), but for new employees it's a tool that can be – and in practice is – used.
Furthermore the (up to) first six months can be a testing period (the law allows it) with severely shortened requirements to giving notice (minimum two weeks from both sides). During this time people can be fired pretty much at will.
[+] [-] Red_Tarsius|11 years ago|reply
> "Article 18 of the Labor Code, passed in 1970, mandates that after a short probationary period, an employee fired from a company with 15 or more employees can bring a lawsuit challenging the dismissal. If the suit is successful, as is often the case, the employer is forced to rehire the worker and pay back wages and social insurance contributions, as well as a large fine." http://goo.gl/EE9P5e
[+] [-] trhway|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jlarocco|11 years ago|reply
> As I never tire of pointing out, environmental progress depends on social progress. When people are desperately poor they have no choice but to pillage the commons — to cut down forests, or turn to crime. When those people find the means to support themselves with dignity, forests are protected and high-crime areas turn into healthy, walkable neighborhoods.
They cut down forests? Is that really a thing people do when they can't support themselves?
[+] [-] DanBC|11 years ago|reply
In that context yes, poor farmers deforest an area; they sell the timber and try to use the land for farming.
[+] [-] patrickaljord|11 years ago|reply
In region like Brazil and Indonesia I guess.
[+] [-] marincounty|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanielBMarkham|11 years ago|reply
This is an experiment that really needs to be done. Google and the rest of the gang are beating the living hell out of "tell me everybody else you know that's cool" -- there's got to be some opportunities at the other end of the spectrum.
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|11 years ago|reply
I'm guessing that you can find better people this way, felony or not by providing an on boarding process with the open expectation that not succeeding there means you're not going to continue with the company.
[+] [-] A_COMPUTER|11 years ago|reply
That argument is like a religious apologetic. Lack of evidence doesn't produce a positive argument for anything. On the other hand past criminal behavior is one of the best predictors of future criminal behavior. I completely agree with your own statement though.
[+] [-] dredmorbius|11 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9164772
[+] [-] memco|11 years ago|reply