AITA for not telling the new employee that most of the others have criminal records?
The hum of machinery filled the air as a 30-year-old shop owner leaned against her office desk, facing a fuming young admin. The new hire, barely 23, had just uncovered a coworker’s criminal past and expected swift action—only to learn her boss, with three felonies of her own, saw things differently. Running a machine shop built on second chances, this woman’s mission to help ex-convicts clashed with her employee’s shock, sparking a fiery debate about trust and transparency.
For this boss, giving former inmates a shot at redemption is personal, rooted in her own journey. But when her admin quit, claiming she deserved a warning about working alongside ex-felons, the owner stood firm. Was she wrong to keep her team’s pasts private? Readers might feel the tension of balancing compassion with workplace expectations.
‘AITA for not telling the new employee that most of the others have criminal records?’
This shop owner’s standoff with her employee is a raw look at the clash between personal values and workplace norms. By hiring ex-convicts, she’s championing rehabilitation, but her admin’s reaction reveals society’s lingering stigma. Her refusal to disclose coworkers’ records was both principled and practical, though it left the young hire feeling blindsided.
Dr. Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow, notes, “Once released, former prisoners face a second-class status, often denied jobs and opportunities” (The New Press, 2010). The owner’s hiring practice counters this, aligning with studies showing that stable employment reduces recidivism by 20% (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2019). Yet, the admin’s discomfort reflects a common fear of the unknown, especially for a young woman in a male-dominated shop.
The broader issue is workplace transparency versus privacy. Legally, employers aren’t obligated to disclose employees’ criminal histories, and doing so could violate privacy laws. The owner’s stance protects her team’s fresh start, but a general hiring policy statement could set expectations for future hires.
To move forward, the owner might consider a brief disclosure during onboarding, like, “We hire from diverse backgrounds, including those with past convictions, to support second chances.” This respects privacy while fostering openness. For the admin, exploring workplaces with different cultures might suit her better, but reflecting on her biases could bridge understanding.
Here’s how people reacted to the post:
Reddit brought the heat, with users dishing out praise and practical tips for the shop owner’s bold stance. Here’s what they had to say:
![[Reddit User] − NTA You may consider making it more known about your hiring practices so that you attract employees with more compassion like yourself. There’s a coffee company near me that actively recruits ex-convicts and has incorporated it into their business strategy.](https://en.aubtu.biz/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/221435cmt-06.png)
These spicy takes cheer the owner’s mission but nudge her toward clearer communication. Do they nail the balance between compassion and practicality, or is there more to unpack?
This story sparks a thorny question: where’s the line between transparency and privacy when second chances are at stake? The shop owner’s commitment to redemption shines, but her admin’s exit highlights society’s unease with ex-convicts. What would you do as a boss or employee in this situation? Have you worked alongside someone with a past—or been given a second chance yourself? Share your thoughts and experiences below!
