
This bakery will hire anyone - nkurz
http://grist.org/food/felons-addicts-immigrants-this-bakery-will-hire-anyone/
======
cubano
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.

[1] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-real-cause-
of-...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-real-cause-of-
addicti_b_6506936.html)

[edits]

~~~
rdl
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.

~~~
MichaelGG
Taking "drug convictions" into account is a form of discrimination. If the FDA
revoked the licensing of Prozac or the DEA scheduled it tomorrow, suddenly
tons of people would be guilty of drug-crimes. It'd criminalize being
depressed.

The same is true for the current state of drug laws. We're criminalizing
people with anxiety, with existential pain, stress, curiosity, etc.

What's different about stealing cars for money for medications, versus
stealing cars for money for bread? Or robbing to afford rent? Are people that
steal money for opiates less likely to cause a work incident than people that
steal money to fund a kickstarter campaign?

Medical issues should only be taken into account if they're relevant to the
job at hand, which, at a tech company, is relatively rare. Otherwise,
acceptable job performance should be the only measurement considered as far as
medical is concerned.

~~~
ars
> What's different about stealing cars for money for medications, versus
> stealing cars for money for bread

They are totally different!

Someone stealing for bread, i.e. to survive, will never consider crime if they
don't absolutely have to. So they may have committed a crime, but they are not
a criminal.

But someone stealing for drugs demonstrate a level of selfishness that does
make them a criminal, i.e. someone who does not care about other people. This
is something will not change even if they have enough money to buy their
drugs. That selfishness does not go away.

~~~
xj9
_But someone stealing for drugs demonstrate a level of selfishness that does
make them a criminal_

Perhaps you'd like to become acquainted with addiction[1] and substance
dependence[2]. They are real issues that people (those who you call criminally
selfish) have to deal with, (generally) alone.

Due to societal attitudes towards drug use and the overly harsh treatment of
users by the criminal justice system, people suffering from addiction often do
not receive the medical and psychological attention they need. In a better
world we'd be willing/able to provide that, but we aren't there yet.

People start doing drugs for many different reasons, but some people can't
handle their crack. An addict can be a threat to themselves and/or others, not
because they are "bad" or "selfish", but because they are mentally ill.
Addicts need rehab, not punishment.

[1]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction)
[2]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_dependence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_dependence)

~~~
ars
They were selfish to start using the drug. The dangers of drugs are known to
all, they can not claim ignorance.

On top of that addiction is no excuse to harm others by stealing or other
activity. It might feel absolutely horrible not to have the drug, but it is
not necessary in order to live.

Someone who is so consumed by their addiction that they have no self control
left, and they steal, is someone who is not employable.

This doesn't mean they should be ignored - it's two different things. People
should certainly help them, but at the same time they do not make good
employees.

~~~
xj9
_They were selfish to start using the drug. The dangers of drugs are known to
all, they can not claim ignorance._

Drug use includes a _risk_ of addiction, not a guarantee. Just like a lot of
activities, there is a choice to be made considering the risks involved. For
some people, the level of risk is acceptable. Unfortunately, brain chemistry
is very complex and users rarely take the time to understand what they are
doing to themselves. The result is often an unexpected rollercoaster of self-
destruction.

 _they do not make good employees._

On that point I agree. I'd be willing to look the other way at drug-related
charges for a fully recovered junkie, but someone who is in the middle of the
recovery process (or possibly hasn't started) would be a no-go.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we need to stop demonizing drug users.
Addiction isn't an excuse for criminal behavior, but it shouldn't be a crime
or carry so much social stigma.

------
jim_greco
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.

~~~
bequanna
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.

This isn't 'right' or 'wrong', it's just reality.

~~~
sgift
> This isn't 'right' or 'wrong', it's just reality.

Government-supported reality. You can say that this is okay, but please do not
make it look like this is just the way it is: The government could disallow
access to all felony records (probably with an exemption for police) and even
(if it wanted) provide people with a fake background story for the time they
were in prison. Discrimination can only be based on things someone else knows,
if the government didn't provide the information, how could the employers be
"picky"?

~~~
tzs
> The government could disallow access to all felony records (probably with an
> exemption for police)

So instead of searching government records to find out if you have been
convicted of a felony when you apply to work for me, I use Google to find a
newspaper report of your conviction. Not as reliable, but will still probably
turn up most applicants with serious felony convictions.

If we are in one of the 40 state that does not prohibit employers from running
credit checks on applicants (or if we are in one of those states but the job
is one for which there is commonly an exception that allows credit checks,
such as jobs in banking) [1], then I can find addresses of banks and loan
providers you have used, and possibly more addresses, giving me geographical
areas you have probably been in. I can do searches of the local newspapers
there, which would be more likely to cover any less serious felony
convictions.

Same goes for the locations of any past employers on your resume.

The internet greatly increased the difficulty of leaving your past behind.
Even if the primary record (like the government record of your conviction and
sentence) is blocked, you leave plenty of breadcrumbs on your way to the
present, and the internet preserves them.

[1] [http://www.esrcheck.com/Articles/States-with-Laws-
Regulating...](http://www.esrcheck.com/Articles/States-with-Laws-Regulating-
Credit-Reports-for-Employment/186/)

~~~
sgift
I give you that with very high motivation you can find out anything about
anyone, more or less. I still think that the count of employers who would use
such measures is miniscule compared to the count of employers who check felony
records (because it's easy).

Additionally, according to this paper(1) around 8.6% of people have a felony
conviction in the US. I have a hard time believing that all - or even most -
of this felonies get reported by a newspaper/Google, so even for very noisy
employers this seems to be a small risk (yes, if you are the "Slaughterer of
<some town>" people will probably find you on Google even without a public
felony record).

All else given: Start with removing access to felony convictions, then remove
access to credit information and go from there. I didn't say it was easy, but
at the moment the government (in the US) seems to do its best to make the life
of people who have been convicted of a felony very hard.

(1)
[http://paa2011.princeton.edu/papers/111687](http://paa2011.princeton.edu/papers/111687)

~~~
Klathmon
Each company might not go through that on their own, but it will only be a
matter of time until companies are started up whose business model is doing
just that.

For $49.95 we will find any past convictions that any of your new hires might
have!

------
calinet6
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.

------
jfc
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.

------
joshmn
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.

------
Geekette
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).

~~~
addicted44
And keep in mind that 40% SAY they will hire. As seen in polls about racism
(even anonymous polls) the actual number is probably a lot lower.

~~~
notahacker
Though that's probably mitigated to an extent by many employers not bothering
to check.

------
vermontdevil
In case any is wondering, I looked at the comments under that article and saw
the stats:

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...](http://www.icphusa.org/filelibrary/ICPH_UNCENSORED%205.1_Spring%202014.pdf)

~~~
acveilleux
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.

------
joshfraser
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.

------
jqm
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.

------
grasstomouth
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.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _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.

~~~
vertex-four
As an offset to that risk, giving your employees more individualised attention
than many companies want to give entry-level/minimum-wage employees would
likely be a necessity.

------
littletimmy
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.

------
denim_chicken
Why did the moderators change the title from "Felons, addicts, immigrants:
This bakery will hire anyone"?

~~~
bhayden
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.

------
chrischen
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.

~~~
calinet6
This is the real moral of this story.

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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming)

------
nostromo
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.

~~~
jfoutz
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.

~~~
nostromo
That's true right up until you get sued, then suddenly firing becomes
extremely expensive.

Of course, sometimes employers should be sued! So it's a hard nut to crack.

------
trhway
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.

------
jlarocco
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?

~~~
DanBC
Grist is an environmental site. Cutting down forests is talking about
deforestation, especially of the rain forest.

In that context yes, poor farmers deforest an area; they sell the timber and
try to use the land for farming.

------
marincounty
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.

------
DanielBMarkham
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.

------
ChuckMcM
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.

~~~
A_COMPUTER
"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.

------
memco
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/](http://www.homeboyindustries.org/why-we-do-it/).

------
jheriko
I especially like the point about criminal records not labelling criminals...
just the ones who have been caught.

I've met plenty of people with criminal records who are in fact extremely
capable employees, and many criminals who have just not yet been caught.

... not to mention that drug addiction is an excellent motivator for making
money. :P

------
Red_Tarsius
tl;dr -> Despite my doubts, Brady makes an interesting argument for _open
hiring_ and the social duties of an employer in traditional businesses. Here's
the meat of the article:

> _“Low-wage workers tend to have a fair amount of turnover — if you make
> investments in a workforce it’s very difficult to judge if they are going to
> stay,” Brady said. “So companies try to make as low an investment as
> possible — and that means they are doing very little to break the chain of
> poverty.”

Greyston takes the opposite approach.

“Rather than spending money on interviews and background checks, we are
spending it on training and development,” he said.

New workers go through an intensive training period and a 10-month
apprenticeship. People who aren’t pulling their weight get fired. But there
are plenty of workers who do just fine, Brady said._

EDIT: If you downvote, at least write down why.

~~~
zf00002
I worked a minimum wage cashier job for a convenience store that had 3 rounds
of interviews. During the 2nd interview I had to sit there while the hr
manager called each of my references and verified info. I was not expecting
this and one of my refs was on a family vacation in Puerto Rico. This ended up
being a gigantic hassle and afterwards he told me that he wouldn't be a
reference anymore.

Anyway, I couldn't believe the amount of crap I had to go through to get a
minimum wage job for some extra money.

~~~
Red_Tarsius
Sorry you had to go through that. 3 rounds for a cashier job is crazy; it
wasted the time and money of that bad manager, as well as _each one_ of the
applicants.

Country wise, multiple interviews for no-skill jobs seem an economy sinkhole.

~~~
thaumasiotes
As I understand it, cashier is a low-skill job with high trust requirements
(since they work directly with money).

------
yoshizar
I was hoping for interviews with some of the workers that were photographed.
It'd be interesting to hear their opinions about their job and employer, and
learn more about their experience going through the apprenticeship program.

------
codyZ
I visited this Bakery twice - once to potentially buy bulk, another time as
part of a business case study. All the employees, atleast the ones I observed
working the floor, were all happy and smiling. Good for them.

------
snowpolar
What about sociopaths?

~~~
steveklabnik
They work in lower Manhattan, not Yonkers.

------
company
do they mean illegal immigrants? I was not aware of any place in the US that
made policy to not hire immigrants...

~~~
njloof
"No Irish Need Apply"

Oh, you mean _current_ policy.

------
jordhy
Respectfully, I don't think immigrants belong in a list including felons and
addicts. Can't we just get along?

~~~
jMyles
Why do felons and addicts belong on the same list?

~~~
rayiner
Why do felons belong on a list?

~~~
addicted44
It's a list of groups of people who are traditionally ignored by most
companies, but are hired by this one. If Harvard grads were traditionally
unemployable, but employed by this bakery, they would also be on the list
along with felons, immigrants and addicts.

~~~
rayiner
But I was responding to someone arguing we shouldn't put addicts and felons in
the same list.

~~~
jMyles
OK, I suppose you're right - both lists are very noisy with little signal. I
just meant to point out that addicts aren't fundamentally criminal.

~~~
Dylan16807
>addicts aren't fundamentally criminal

I think you have your ranking backwards. Having committed a crime means you
screwed up. Being an addict means a life-destroying drive that never truly
goes away.

