He owns a small construction company with about a dozen employees, and one of his electricians has been with him for close to ten years. The guy is excellent at his job, which is why he’s still employed despite a personal life that has never been particularly stable. He drinks heavily and has a cocaine habit, both of which his boss has always known about and never addressed because they haven’t affected the quality of his work. His reasoning is straightforward enough: if he fired every tradesman in construction who used cocaine, he’d struggle to keep enough people on staff to operate.
The personal chaos recently reached a new level. His electrician started a relationship with a new girlfriend, his wife found out, and she kicked him out and changed the locks. He stayed with a friend for a few weeks before that arrangement fell apart. His girlfriend is also married, so moving in with her isn’t an option. He ran out of places to go and showed up at work yesterday with no money and nowhere to sleep that night, asking if he could stay at the office for a few weeks while he got back on his feet.
💸 Take Back Control of Your Finances in 2025 💸
Get Instant Access to our free mini course
5 DAYS TO A BETTER BUDGET
His boss said absolutely not, told him he should have thought about that before spending his money on cocaine and cheating on his wife, and when the man begged not to be left on the street, told him he was the one who put himself there. He also told him he looked terrible and warned him not to show up to client sites looking and smelling the way he did or he’d be fired. His wife heard about all of it that evening and told him it was a cruel way to treat someone who had worked for him for nearly a decade. He values her opinion and says they’re usually aligned on things, but he can’t get her to accept that his employee created this situation himself and that fixing it isn’t his responsibility.
The case he’s making to himself
His position has a recognizable logic to it. His electrician is a grown adult who made a series of choices, maintained an affair, spent money on drugs, and ended up without a place to live as a direct result of those choices. None of those decisions were made by his employer, and the argument that an employer owes an employee housing because the employee’s personal life collapsed isn’t one most people would accept as a general rule.
He also has a legitimate point about the office itself. Allowing an employee to live in a workplace, even temporarily, creates liability issues, insurance complications, and boundary problems that don’t disappear just because the request came from someone in a difficult situation. A construction company office isn’t a shelter, and treating it like one even for a few weeks sets a precedent that’s hard to walk back.
Where his wife’s reaction is pointing
What his wife seems to be responding to isn’t the decision itself but the way it was delivered. Telling someone who has worked for you for ten years, while they’re standing in front of you with no money and nowhere to sleep, that they should have thought about this before spending their money on cocaine is technically accurate and also a fairly brutal thing to say to someone in crisis. The decision to say no to the office is defensible. The choice to frame that no as a moral verdict on someone’s entire personal life while they’re at their lowest point is a different thing.
His wife has been with him long enough to know when he’s made a reasonable call in an unreasonable way, and her reaction suggests this is one of those moments. She’s not arguing that he should let someone live in the office. She’s arguing that how he spoke to a loyal long-term employee in a moment of genuine desperation revealed something about how he sees that person, and she’s uncomfortable with what she saw.
What a decade of good work is actually worth
His electrician has been excellent at his job for nearly ten years. That’s not a trivial thing in a skilled trades business where reliable, competent workers are genuinely hard to find, something his employer acknowledged directly when he explained why he never addressed the drug use. A decade of quality work doesn’t entitle someone to unlimited personal bailouts from their employer, but it probably warrants more than being told they put themselves on the street while asking for help.
There’s a version of this conversation that still ends with no to the office but includes a referral to a shelter, an offer to advance a portion of his paycheck, or even just a acknowledgment that the situation is hard before laying out what he can and can’t do. None of those things required him to take on a problem that isn’t his to solve. They just would have treated a ten-year employee as a person rather than a cautionary tale.
Whether anything can still be done
He’s already said no to the office and that decision doesn’t need to change. But if his wife’s reaction is sitting with him, there’s still room to follow up differently than he did yesterday. Finding out whether his employee has connected with any local resources, offering a paycheck advance if the finances allow it, or simply checking in without adding another warning about client visits would cost him very little and might go some distance toward the gap his wife is pointing at between how he made the call and how he communicated it.
The cocaine and the affair and the eviction are all his employee’s doing. How an employer of ten years responds when that employee hits the floor is its own separate question.
Featured on Cents + Purpose: