It is reasonable to conclude that virtually all companies and all supervisory employees, at one time or another, have run into employees who wanted a job but didn’t really want to work — who wanted the pay but didn’t really want to put forth the effort to earn it.

Such employees undermine their company’s overall performance and, thus, often erode the company’s bottom line.

In this competitive business world, that truly must be characterized as unsustainable and must be addressed quickly.

Enough of that, though, because this editorial will be focusing on a resource that many companies are reluctant to utilize — but which can produce some positive surprises, if management has the determination to make that opportunity successful.

An article in the Mirror’s Sept. 20-21 edition — “Employers urged to consider fair chance hiring” — focused on that opportunity, giving employers a good deal to think about, especially if they weren’t familiar with “fair chance” and its possibilities.

There can be failures in “fair chance,” just as with traditional hirings, but judging it without trying it is the wrong path for companies to follow.

Granted, not all companies are suitable for the kind of individuals being referred to here — former prison inmates — but it is not unreasonable to conclude that probably most businesses and industries could find a place for one or more and be elated about the efforts those workers put forth on their behalf.

But it is companies themselves that must decide whether “fair chance” can work for them, and no company should be criticized for opting against trying it.

Still, some of the information Katie Urban, program manager for reintegration services at Goodwill of the Southern Alleghenies, focused upon at a fair-chance hiring workshop earlier this month is worth a second helping of food for thought.

Urban pointed out, for example, how hard it is for ex-inmates to land a job, with about 75% of former inmates remaining unemployed a year after leaving prison.

Yet, she stressed, former inmates tend to be highly motivated and dedicated to their jobs, because their opportunities for employment elsewhere tend to be scarce.

She said former inmates are likely “to bend over backwards” for their employer, because they can’t walk out the door and easily get other work.

For employers, there are potential tax credits available and, for communities, she said, “former inmates who are employed are less likely to commit crimes that could hurt those communities.”

She acknowledged that there are fears and risks involved — logical indeed — but in many instances recidivism — relapsing into criminal behavior — must be judged the bigger fear and threat because it deprives a community of the potential productivity of such individuals.

A 2011 report produced by the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Council of State Governments Justice Center indicated that recidivism, if reduced by just 10% nationally, would save $635 million a year in averted prison expenses.

It would be interesting to know how much recidivism in the six-county Southern Alleghenies Region costs this region: Perhaps not a burgeoning amount but enough to ignite concern.

“Fair chance” has a place, though, here as long as the commitment remains strong to make it successful.