reply to post by Six6Six
In the same vein, it typically costs more for a company to go 'green'.
However, by going green, the company attracts more business, in turn generating more profits.
In regards to your generalization about people that are unemployed being lazy, you should be ashamed of yourself. Do you have generalizations about
all the other little people based on their professions, maybe their cultural heritages, the color of their eyes?
Those blue eyed people are usually lazy snobs that seem to get everything handed to them, so, they make terrible workers.
Shame on you and your generalization about unemployed people.
I'll take an 'in your experience' statement. 'In your experience' you haven't had as much success in hiring unemployed people as from hiring
in-company or from a competitor. That's acceptable, and I can take that, but, what is the run of your experience?
Over what span of time in hiring employees where what number of positions were open during that time were positions filled by people that were
unemployed on hire?
Out of the last 10 employees you hired, what percentage did you hire that were unemployed?
What kind of data set are you working from to base this opinion about unemployed people?
Sure, investing in unemployed people may have a risk, but, investing in some undisciplined kid right of college is a similar risk, possibly more so
with very little relevant work history.
From a social perspective, just like the green perspective, yes, it may cost you a little more, and even have its risks in hiring the unemployed over
an equally skilled and experienced candidate already emplyed elsewhere, but, from a marketing point, showing your social awareness and volunteer
effort in contributing to social responsibility, you may find that like going green, you may very well attract socially conscious clients over what
your competitor is offering, and possibly even steal some away with such social consciousness.
The government does
not care.