- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
One of my clients regularly employs people whose background checks prevent them from taking jobs elsewhere. Ignoring a criminal record or social deviancy, the next biggest factor is "how much supervision and adaptive aids will they require?" With a lot of their hires, the cost in supervision generally matches their productivity. Most quarters it's a wash, and occasionally it's a small loss which they write off. But that's their expectation, since this is part of a charitable initiative, which doesn't interfere with their core business. From their position, I can see them taking on Chris as a new hire. But, I suspect they would quickly find that Chris requires almost constant supervision because of his inattentiveness, unwillingness to work when not directly supervised, frailty, and other cognitive failings. He'd eventually cross a line where he's too much of a burden, and would be let go. Beyond RARE charitable organizations, whose only goal is to keep such people occupied solely for the sake of keeping them occupied (sounds a lot like prison work programs), Chris - as he stands today - really does seem unemployable. The only other rare instance would be someone who'd take him on as a pet project.JULAY said:Marvin, I have to solicit more info about your perspective here. Yes, any employer who does a BG check on him (particularly one that uses a basic Google search) would reject him outright, but what other barriers do you foresee to Fatty getting a job stocking shelves or scrubbing toilets or doing some other menial task?
Regarding keeping Chris busy with chores... Somehow I suspect Bob gave up on Chris, when Chris had proven he can't do ANYTHING right. I'd be willing to bet any chore Chris did, he did poorly - probably to the point that it took more work to fix what Chris had screwed up, than if Bob had just done the job right himself. I also wouldn't be surprised if Bob was getting backlash from Chris - perhaps even Wendy's - every time Chris came home from a long day of fucking up. It may not seem ethical, but if I had such a burden - especially at an age where I just want to lay down a die in my sleep - I'd want to bury him in a pile of toys too... Sort of like that episode of Gilligan's Island when Skipper buried Gilligan in the sand, and let the tide consume him.
TL;DR - Whenever people realize he's a bigger burden/liability, they'll get rid of him.