My company operates/ed a job board and a staffing business. Both ran like traditional job boards (Indeed, Zip Recruiter, etc) and staffing companies (Kelly, Adecco, etc.), except being focused entirely on the formerly incarcerated. This is how large employers source many, many employees.
The staffing business was much larger. In this model, we serve as the hirer-of-record, and essentially lease out the workers to our client employers, who cover all our costs (wages, unemployment insurance, taxes, etc.) plus our mark-up (profit). It's a high volume, low margin business.
During the Great Resignation, we found it took 10x the time and effort to get someone placed, eroding our already thin margins. Plus, if a worker left (which they began doing at a great rate), we're obligated to replace them. All of this made it pretty much impossible for us to make money. (Again, we're a for-profit business). I hope this clarifies things.
Did this have any impact on recidivism?
Is it possible that these employees found better jobs? If so, could it have theoretically been possible to retain them had you offered better wages, benefits or assignments?
I just don’t fundamentally understand the position of “I had a group of people that truly needed my business, but a phenomenon called The Great Resignation changed the world in such a way that they… didn’t need it anymore (?)”
Is it possible that your business model of (in your parlance) leasing out convicts maybe had some sort of innate flaw unrelated to covid?
I would love to know what jobs were difficult to fill and how much they paid because “The Great Resignation” narrative (kind of conveniently) squarely puts the blame for the failure of this business on a caricature of lazy poors and the government. This narrative also absolutely vindicates the founder and management because the demise is because of an uncontrollable external force.
Kind of hard to think something suddenly changed about the operation of the company that had been running well for the past few years.