Maybe the problem is not them. It's the round holes we're trying to fit them into. Maybe if we expand the places they can fit...there can be something they can do.
A lot of people who can't hold down a job are like that because they aren't able to be consistently productive, not because they're not able to be productive at all.
I think that's true that inconsistent results lead to poor employment outcomes, but I do believe that's only part of the picture. I think the perspective it misses is maybe the assessment is not true that it's their inability. Maybe we aren't looking at the right definition of opportunity, training, job, working environment, company culture, or even productivity to make that assessment of their ability currently. The basic thesis is these people are an underutilized resource because they do not fit into the consensus method of assessment of the system. In fact they're so outside the conventional metrics that people don't even realize it's discrimination how they're handled but it is. So I guess one way I plan to handle this in future is to approach it as a way to include a type of diversity and difference that is not currently being addressed. Not without realizing that these people are crafty and they will consistently try to get something for nothing if you provide them that opportunity. So I think a contract where there's exchange both ways is fair and it's something that has a chance of working.
