My daughter is kind of upset about this, but understands it's what he needs. I'm kind of the same way.
I'll post another update sometime after the surgery.
>> If you don't mind, share his GoFundMe.
All the parts of his story, here: Original, first update, second update, third update, fourth update, fifth update, sixth update.
No, I'm not saying you shouldn't expect people to do the work you hired them to do, I'm saying you shouldn't try to control them beyond what is necessary to do the work.
That means no sexual molestation/urine fetish called "drug testing". If someone is at work and you think they seem impaired or unable to do the job-- for whatever reason-- fire them. You have the right to do that, but to demand a sample of their fluids to see what they might have done when they weren't working for you is an indication that you don't respect their boundaries. You're a terrible boss.
Along the same lines: Don't demand they get vaccinated against a new cold virus. Send them home or fire them if they get sick. Firing them would demonstrate to everyone what a jerk you are, but you have that right.
If the person doesn't clean themselves and is making people sick by how they look or smell, that affects job performance. If they are rude to others and drive away business or make their cow-orkers miserable, that matters. If they are so incompetent that they endanger life and limb-- even if they aren't on drugs-- that person needs to go away. Some things matter, but a lot of what makes it hard to find good employees doesn't.
It's the same as the old silliness of (mainly) the past of not hiring a person based on the color they dyed their hair, the length of their hair, their visible tattoos, or anything else that's irrelevant to the job. If you want to have trouble finding good employees, then continue down that path. But, if not, the solution is in your hands.
The last "normal job" I held was burdened by bad management. They treated employees badly and took advantage of them, and fired hard workers for silly reasons, and then moaned that everyone in the area was too lazy to work. (Even though they had hired and rehired everyone around, even after firing them or driving them away-- the available jobs were as limited as the available bodies to fill those jobs.) When I pointed out that the evidence didn't support their claim, that there was an obvious problem they weren't acknowledging, they shut up about it. I'm sure their opinion didn't change, though.
This doesn't mean everyone is suited to hire. If the person preaches "seize the means of production", giving them the job is not a smart hiring decision. Such a philosophy is relevant-- it's a warning sign. I would say there are other signs that warn that the person will likely be more trouble than they could possibly be worth-- there are warning signs all over the place, such as social media bios. Believing in "microaggressions" and other w0ke nonsense being a big one. You are free to take the chance, though.
The deal-breaker for me, as a potential employee, is selling out your employees to government, on any basis. Yes, I know, government bribes you to do so, and threatens to punish you if the bribes don't work. Still, you really don't have the right to do that, "private business" or not.
The "worker shortage" could be ended overnight, but you'd have to be courageous enough to do the right thing. Fewer and fewer are that brave anymore.
