Thank you for this. I don't understand why other posts are so heavily weighted with arguments of "Oh, so they didn't solve the homeless problem, so now the whole problem is their fault?" Amazon either took advantage of the scheme, or rushed in - maybe even with the best of intentions - without thinking through or committing to what was actually required to make it a success.
> It's the failure to follow through and provide the promised stability.
What evidence is there of failure to follow through? Temporary-to-permanent does not mean someone is guaranteed a permanent position, it means they have a chance at it. The permanent positions might be relatively small in number, and highly competitive, so some workers will not get it. Who is most likely to be interviewed by a newspaper and have an axe to grind?
The article would be more informative if it shared data about what percentage of workers were hired as temps, and how many full time positions were expected to be hired afterward, and how many of the homeless hired as temps made it into full time, and so on. Without that information, the article is just an anecdote from a person or two.
The nature of temp work is that it's not permanent, and no one hired into a temp job should have the disillusion that they will definitely get a permanent one. Temporary-to-permanent work means that there's a chance to stay on if you're good - you're not definitely going to get fired, nor do you definitely get to stay.
