Editor's Focus

Second Chances

Recyclers such as Tony McCarthy, whose Florida company was featured in the December 2006 issue of Recycling Today, and Randy Castriota, whose Pennsylvania company is profiled in this issue’s Scrap Metals Supplement, have offered second chances to employees who are convicted criminals.

These two companies are not exceptions within the recycling industry, as a recent casual conversation with a plastics recycler in Ohio revealed. The company manager said proudly that his firm is a "second-chance company" that is willing to take the risk of hiring past offenders to allow them a second chance to perform honest work.

Offering second chances can be risky. While some people will take advantage of the chance offered to redeem themselves, others will simply take advantage of the person offering the second chance.

At a time of year when resolutions are made, offering a second chance to a person or a pre-conceived notion could be an appropriate resolution to make.

Within the recycling industry, a lot of the bad feelings and animosity can stem from an unwillingness to offer second chances. Throughout the materials chain—from generator to processor to freight company to consumer—one can find stories of deals gone bad and terms and conditions misunderstood. One can also find bad behavior.

Forgiving and forgetting can prove difficult in such circumstances. Such grudges may be a case of learning appropriately from past mistakes, but they can also gain a life of their own that keeps chugging along long after an offending party has either left the company or genuinely changed the way he does business.

Attitudes and nuggets of "accepted wisdom" may also deserve a second chance. Are all scrap recyclers out to hide the true value of scrap from generating customers? Do all solid waste companies really hold recycling in contempt? Are all municipal recycling advocates "tree huggers" who cannot calculate the costs and benefits of a program?

Those are some of the pre-conceived notions that can be found within the recycling community. The New Year might be a time to consider whether those labeled by these notions deserve a second chance.

Correction: In the feature titled "Aluminum Engine" in the Municipal Recycling Supplement of the December 2006 issue of Recycling Today, the total number of aluminum cans made in the United States in 2005 was misstated as 99.2 million. The number should be 99.2 billion. Also Dr. Das’s first name was misspelled. The correct spelling is Subodh. Recycling Today apologizes for these errors.