OP runs a small machine shop inherited from her dad due to her job limitations from her own record. She hires from a halfway house, where people have served time and are transitioning. When she hired an admin, the admin googled a machinist and found he had a check writing charge. She expected OP to fire him, but OP, who has her own felonies, refused. The admin quit, upset OP didn’t disclose this, leading to a local Facebook backlash. OP wonders if she’s in the wrong.
Scroll down below to read the story in OP’s own words.
1. OP asks if she was wrong for not telling the new employee about the criminal records of their coworkers?
2. OP, a 30F, inherited a machine shop from her dad due to her own job restrictions. She hires from a halfway house, helping people transition after serving time.
3. OP hired a 23-year-old admin to handle paperwork, but things changed when she approached OP about a coworker’s criminal record, leading to tension.
4. OP’s admin informed her that a machinist had a check writing charge from her research, but OP remained noncommittal, preferring not to confirm or deny the information.
5. OP, having three felonies herself, didn’t enforce a no-felon policy, finding it hypocritical. The admin, upset, felt OP should have disclosed this and resigned after the discussion.
6. OP’s friends agree with her, but the admin’s friends do not.
7. OP is a woman (30) and clarifies that predators are not hired.
Now that you have read the story, it’s time for you to see what Redditors had to say about this. Read till the end to see what are other people’s opinions on this. Don’t forget to share your own opinion at the end of this article.
8. OP doesn’t owe anyone details about her employees’ pasts, especially when she’s providing second chances and support.
9. It’s commendable to give ex-offenders opportunities, and the admin overstepped by expecting disclosures that aren’t required.
10. OP’s hiring policy is based on rehabilitation and second chances, not judgment.
11. OP did not do anything wrong at all.
12. OP’s upfront about her hiring practices, and the admin’s insistence on disclosure was out of line.
13. OP’s commitment to second chances is clear; the admin’s reaction was uncalled for.
14. OP’s approach to hiring is about rehabilitation, not judgment. The admin should have respected that.
15. OP has the right to make hiring decisions based on her own criteria.
16. OP’s office, her rules.
17. OP’s inclusive hiring policy shouldn’t be questioned; the admin’s reaction was unwarranted.
18. OP isn’t the A-hole here. The admin’s expectations were unrealistic given OP’s hiring practices.
19. Her office, her rules.
20. OP’s decision-making regarding her employees’ pasts is fair, and the admin’s reaction was unjustifiable.
What are your thoughts on this story? What would you do, or how would you react if you were in OP’s position? You know that your feedback means a lot to us; therefore, we want you to share your thoughts in the comment section below. For more such articles, keep visiting our website. Have a nice day!
