S.O.’s part-time job offer is contingent on him making a very expensive purchase. Is this sketchy or am I overthinking it?

Disclaimer: I don’t know that much about guns. I’m not against them, it’s just not really my thing. I apologize in advance if I’ve used any of the firearms terminology wrong.

My S.O. is really into building firearms and sport shooting. He recently decided to take a part-time at a gun range - mostly so he can participate in his hobby and hang out with other enthusiasts. The job only pays minimum wage ($11 something an hour in our state) - so it’s basically pocket change in comparison to his “day job” (this will be important later).

My SO owns a few rifles (he is into target shooting and hunting), but doesn’t have a handgun license. When he was first brought on, he was told that while almost all of the employees own a pistol, owning a handgun wasn’t absolutely necessary for getting hired. He was also told that he’d need to obtain handgun and range officer licenses to work there permanently, but that the company would pay for his license and classes if he made it through the probation period.

SO is getting close to the end of his probation period. However, today, he was told that he will not be eligible to be brought on permanently unless he buys a gun before the end of his probation period.

As you all probably know, guns are rather expensive (especially in our state, which has strict gun laws). A good pistol can easily cost several hundred dollars, even into the low thousands. The employer assured him that he could purchase the pistol from them directly and that he’d be given an employee discount, but let him know that he will not be reimbursed for the purchase.

This is where I felt things started to get sketchy. We have good “day jobs” so the money isn’t exactly the problem. I’m more just concerned that a company is making a part-time, minimum-wage employment offer contingent upon making a very expensive purchase - with no offer of reimbursement or even to take it out of his paycheck or anything. Especially since they want him to purchase the gun FROM them. It seems sketch. And it makes me wonder if the job itself/ the company as a whole will be sketchy.

Am I over thinking this?

TL;DR: SO’s minimum wage, part-time employer requires him to make a several-hundred dollar purchase in order to keep his job. Is it just me, or does that sound sketchy?

Edit (for sake of clarity): He doesn’t absolutely HAVE to buy the gun from them, but he does have to buy a gun to keep the job. And they are definitely encouraging him to buy the gun directly from them. Since we live in a state with strict gun laws, especially for pistols, other purchasing options could be tricky/expensive. Buying from them is probably one of the easiest ways to obtain a pistol, and I feel the company is capitalizing on that.

I also think it’s weird he was told he didn’t need a pistol at first, then told otherwise after he had invested some time at the place.

Again, this could all just be common practice. I was just always told that you shouldn’t have to pay money to have a job - but neither of us has worked retail in years. I know companies don’t invest in employee benefits as much nowadays - so we’re just trying to gauge whether this is “normal” or if we should take it as a red flag.

usa jobs
usa jobs resume
usa hotel jobs
usajobs
usa jobs federal government
usa job in ksa
usa jobs
usa jobs login
usa jobs gov
usajobs.gov
www.usajobs.gov
usajobs.com
usajobs
usajobs.gov official