Ask HN: Start a charity-driven staffing firm?

Have you seen the movie Dave from the 1990s about a guy who looks like the President and ends up being the stand-in for the President when he has a stroke? He runs a staffing agency who helps people down on their luck get jobs. Anyways, your thread title made me think of that.

I would say instead of just giving away the $$ to charity, why don't you put it towards helping low-income people have career advancement, or training homeless vets, or ex-cons?

You are crazy and this could work. However, if you’re going to run a staffing agency there are multiple ways you can do good with it. There’s only so much money to go round and your customers are not going to pay you more money because you donate a lot of money to charity though it may help with marketing and sales. Ultimately the money is either going to come from you or your employees. You’ve decided it’s going to come from you, which is greasy. You do what you want with your money. Staff are not going to work at below market rates for a company just because the owners donate a lot of money.

There is absolutely no way you will be able to skimp on sales and focus on service. Real businesses pay people large sums because they think they’re worth the price, not out of the kindness of their hearts. If you want to donate a lot of money you’re going to be doing the same kind of work as now and donating more money. Services don’t sell themselves.

If running a staffing agency and donating money doesn’t sound super rewarding all by itself consider taking on people who need a break, training them and sending them out into the working world until they move on.

Look at what Lambda School and Jessica Livingston are doing. http://foundersatwork.posthaven.com/women-learn-to-program-t...

Could you sponsor one person a quarter to do this, to come to your office while doing it and get paid, and then work for you for nine months after?

Or you could work for a company or organisation you actually thought was making a positive difference in the world. I think Lambda School is awesome because they’re trying to make a Lin education that leads to a good job available everywhere. I’m sure you can think of some company you admire.

Or look at the 80,000 hours job board, the product of some smart people looking for jobs that they think will make a big positive impact.

https://80000hours.org/job-board

I also used to be interested in effective altruism.

They're mostly smart people, and I respect them for sticking to their principles.

However, I don't think working at something you feel neutral, or negative, towards, and then donating the bulk of your income, is a path to personal happiness.

You need to do more thinking and reflection on your personal values, priorities, and the work you personally find fulfilling, meaningful, worthwhile. It can take years of thinking to figure out your purpose, but it can be done.

Try this as a place to start:

https://www.romangelperin.com/shop/self-actualizing-people-i...

Or maybe this: http://aristotleadventure.blogspot.com/2008/05/what-is-centr...

I suggest you take a look at the 80,000 hours website. Earning to give has become less emphasised as 80,000 Hours has done more research and the broader effective altruist community has grown, in experience, numbers and expertise.

https://80000hours.org/articles/comparative-advantage/#shoul...

> Should I earn to give or do direct work?

> We often advise people who say: “I have high earning potential, so I have good personal fit with earning to give, so I should earn to give”.

> But this doesn’t follow. We’re in a situation where we need the right ratio of funders to direct workers, so what matters is comparative advantage. This means you need to compare your earning potential to other people in the community who might do direct work or earn to give.

> If they have even higher earning potential, then you might have a comparative advantage in direct work, even though you have high earning potential compared to people in general.

> Cases like this might be common. There are people doing direct work in the community who could donate over $500,000 per year earning to give. So, even if you have earning potential this high, you might still have a comparative advantage in direct work.

> Of course, some people’s comparative advantage will be earning to give. If it looks like you might be less good than existing people doing direct work, or you have struggled to find work in direct work, we think that earning to give is a great alternative.

Yea can totally work - it gets at a lot in the zeitgeist in tech recently. I left Airbnb and started https://alma.app for similar reasons. We help companies with strong social missions (and their employees and their customers) connect with charities that share the same broad goals.

Many people I worked with would I think not only want to work with an agency that supports charities, but you could go a step further and also help those employees use their skills at the charities to volunteer, the companies support them too.

Always happy to talk, just ping me a note!

To me, business is business. When a business gives to charity, I usually see that as a gimmick dreamed up by their marketing department. I would rather make more or pay less, and then donate my own money to charity. No I guess I'm not a fan of your idea, but don't let me stop you from trying!

I think it's a gimmick if you decide to do it later for marketing reasons. If it's there from the beginning as a representation of company's values, it's something different. (Better?)

Seems like you need to be well-known, and/or have a deep network of contacts. Some way to get your name out there.

And I suspect that candidates have little loyalty to staffing agencies -- vs more of a broadcast. So you need to keep hustling.

I work at http://givelively.org for the same reasons. I want my work to be about more than making someone profit, so I work at a place that doesn't make profit. For what it's worth, the fact that the mission of your organization would be aligned with ours would certainly be very attractive to me as a hiring manager. I would furthermore be encouraged by the idea that your pool of candidates may also be of a similar mindset. Of course I am an exception. Most hiring managers may not see things the way I do. But nonetheless, I want to share my words of encouragement and I hope you'll reach out to me if you end up moving forward.

Thanks to all who replied to a stranger on the internet thinking a crazy idea out loud. I appreciate the links that were shared and will definitely take a deep dive into them. There seem to be a few agencies out there in the temp space helping out those looking to get back into the job market (ex-cons, homeless, etc.) which is great. Temp placement, even at the lower end of the pay scale, takes a rather large amount of capital to cover payroll and what I’m guessing would be very high insurance costs (manual labor, ex-felon, etc.) Also, probably more than 1 or 2 people could handle from an hours in the day standpoint without administrative/recruiting help. I feel like the big firms probably give such marginal amounts that while helpful feels more to me like marketing spin which a few of you felt this post could be construed as. The industry as a whole has such a negative reputation and unfortunately it’s probably well deserved. Maybe some of you are right and I'm barking up the wrong tree but I appreciate your thoughts nonetheless and plan on taking up the offers to chat/correspond by a few of you. If you didn’t have a profile in your email and wanted to touch base I set up charitystaffing@yahoo.com where we can correspond and I can send you my personal email address/details.

Some comments have suggested that the money needs to come from somewhere / business/staffing is still business, and/or that donating could be done in several ways.

Could you turn these two threads into two birds to kill with one stone? I'm thinking perhaps instead of donating to a 3rd party charity, are you able to perhaps do something like a training and internship program for disadvantaged candidates, be them career switchers, vets, non-college graduates, basically people that slip through HR-nets, with your clients where to get the clients on-board your people into post-training junior experience-building roles for a few months (no or minimal fee for client, you pay a retainer salary to your people) then after 3 or 6 or 9 months if the client wants to retain them you get a lump-fee (and perhaps they stay on your books as an agency too).

Sorry, just thinking aloud. But something like the above seems not only to be a one-off killing two birds with one stone, but might be a sustainable model depending on how you get client buy-in.

I’m a veteran of the NYC IT staffing market but recent years have me disillusioned with the business

Why are you disillusioned with the business?

Why do you feel that simply giving half the money to charity somehow makes it okay to continue working in an industry that you currently see in a negative light?

Do you think you could make a staffing firm that would solve the issues within the industry such that you would stop feeling negatively about it?

I'm all for some charitable giving. I think that helps make the world work better. The world needs some means to help those folks for whom life simply isn't working for some reason.

But I generally feel that when people see regular paid work so negatively and their answer is to do the same work, but give away most of the profit, then this suggests the system is broken. Something is fundamentally wrong. A new model is needed so people can feel that their paid job actually matters and is a positive thing.

Best of luck.

Can you really hire NYC area devs for so little pay? Even with the mission to help win candidates over, that seems incredibly low. I would normally be more worried about finding contracts (unless you have contacts you haven't mentioned), but I don't think that's going to be the primary problem in your plan.

I think he means paying himself and his wife $75k each. The placements would presumably be at market rates.

I think you should also consider paying the employees more than you strictly need to. I think lots of private companies squeeze their employees on wedges. And sure squeezing them for charity is better than for shareholders.

If it were me I'd do an employee owned nonprofit, than a 'profits go to charity'.

I like your question very much. IMHO, every entreprise is a social entreprise. No matter what it does, it affects society, does it not?

So, giving away a % of the revenues shouldn't be necessary, as long as the business does something meaningful for society.

Looks like you would help people make a living, while helping companies find talent. That seems more-than-enough meaningful.

And if you'd like to be even more meaningful, you may experiment with how you select your clients -- so they, too, do meaningful things.

I'd keep all the revenues, not out of greed, but simply so that you don't suffer, allowing you to keep helping society in the long run.

Others have downvoted you, so I want to add some ideas why you may not be right here.

From an economist's view, it is clear that such "market behavior" may be efficient in allocation of ressources, but not morally or ethically efficient. There are many "pareto efficient" equilibria, for example, but the subset of those which are socially desireable is small. Since we are not aware of a good regulatory mechanism that ensures both allocative and distributive efficiency, it is certainly commendable for individuals with wealth to throw their weight into making society better for more people. Another sense of how this may be desirable is that the more we look toward the long term, the more important social incentives should become - while we as humans often think very myopically. This is a view of efficiency.

From a sociologist's perspective, one may say that social norms - for example how much we can and should help other people - are driven by both the behavior around us, and what we observed in the past. So, being able to help people and improve society is something that can move us, collectively, to a better path. And not doing so, may cement a system that is not really desirable, yet binding for individuals.

So indeed, doing things like this may not only feel meaningful, but they are meaningful. And meaning in our actions is important for personal happiness.

I hope you have a long and healthy future. But if the staffing work is draining to you, how will this free you for "work that matters?"

It seems like the changes you're proposing are (1) cutting your own spending, and (2) publicizing your charity goals. But neither (1) nor (2) alters your work or gives money to your clients. Are you hoping (2) will bring you clients you admire, because they like your charitable goals?

It could work, in the sense that NYC IT staffing had better spin off >$75k/per employee in profit. But it doesn't seem to optimize for gains to charities or your personal pleasure.

All of the big firms in NYC already have their own heavily branded / promoted charity day / events / philanthropy programs - your own charitable contributions aren't going to be a selling point for them.

If you want do this for your own reasons, great, I am sure it could deliver a lot of meaning and satisfaction in a field where that is perhaps hard to come by.

(Shameless plug - I do happen to be on the job market in NYC now, if you wanted to connect or offer any advice I'd be receptive, email in my profile).

Crazy in a good way. I don't think you need to talk about your earnings distribution with either party.

Please remember to keep your hiring process human too and inculcate a culture among seekers where job attributes thus relevant are paid attention to.

As someone who worked in the wall-street in a quant role it can be a mad rush to nowhere and easy to get lost. So if you succeed, you'd be helping a whole lot of people.

Remember though- businesses take time to setup. The more you deviate from the normal the longer it may take you to get established.

To me, it comes across as a disingenuous marketing gimmick.

If you're still going to be a staffing agency making income from placements, what changes will you implement to transform it into a "service"?

And what's the difference between your idea and simply being an individual who donates a portion of their income to charity?

I mean, if you don't want to operate your business for profit, then don't. However, personally, I find it odd when business makes donations to charity. I would just take it as salary and donate it yourself. That shouldn't have any tax implications if you set the business up as a pass through entity.

This is a great idea. I know a recruiter (and motivational speaker) who places people in charities and knows the ins-outs of "social good" and recruiting. Let me know if you want to chat with him or have me send this idea over to him. :)

So where should I send my resume to work for you? I used to work for a boutique staffing firm; I'd love to help.

Great idea. you could also consider making it a Co-op staffing agency or a non-profit.