Why can't I get a job without being insulted?

[livendive 8]

  Quote

  Quote

Exactly. If enough quality candidates refuse to work for companies with such hiring criteria, they will have to either change the way they do business or settle for lower quality employees.

Nonsense. There will be enough quality canidates that will submit to them since they have nothing to hide.

You are tying to make it seem that only "bad" canidates submit to drug tests....That is a position you can not back.

I'm not trying to make it seem that way at all. What I said was what I meant. If enough quality candidates (undefined, could be 80% of quality candidates) refuse to submit to such testing (for privacy reasons, not because they have something to hide), employers will change their hiring practices. The current status quo only exists because the workforce considers it acceptable. If enough of the workforce decides it's unacceptable, the status quo will change.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[DaVinci 0]

  Quote

Simple.

If I tell them, "get this done". and they do it to an acceptable level, then quality of work is just fine.

Call me crazy, but I think good project results would be a pretty decent indication of good performance.

OK so why interview?

I mean you could just give them the job and if they did OK then you keep them, if they suck you fire them.

Fact is that there is enough correlation between drug abuse and poor employees that it became a test before you hire someone.

Just like an interview, while not perfect, is a good test to decide if you hire someone. Same with credit checks.

Also the legal aspect. In my company the company is legally responsable for the employees actions. And I bet that is true almost everywhere.

[DaVinci 0]

  Quote

I'm not trying to make it seem that way at all. What I said was what I meant. If enough quality candidates (undefined, could be 80% of quality candidates) refuse to submit to such testing (for privacy reasons, not because they have something to hide), employers will change their hiring practices. The current status quo only exists because the workforce considers it acceptable. If enough of the workforce decides it's unacceptable, the status quo will change

Sorry then, it seemed that way.

However, I think it must be a good way to do buisness since a company would not spend the money it does unless it worked.

[GTAVercetti 0]

  Quote

OK so why interview?

I mean you could just give them the job and if they did OK then you keep them, if they suck you fire them.

Fact is that there is enough correlation between drug abuse and poor employees that it became a test before you hire someone.

Just like an interview, while not perfect, is a good test to decide if you hire someone. Same with credit checks.

Also the legal aspect. In my company the company is legally responsable for the employees actions. And I bet that is true almost everywhere.

If you have a good hiring manager, I would hope the interview is done well enough that the person's skills and qualities can at least be somewhat determined.

For years companies got by without drug tests in just that manner. Do you think our workforce has gotten BETTER in the years since drug testing has taken to such popularity?

You don't test for drinking. And I am not talking about being drunk at work and the legal ramifications of an accident. I am talking about the effect of heavy drinking on performance. What about alcoholics? There is most likely a STRONG corrolation between alcoholics and poor work performance, yet we don't ask questions about that do we? Because it is legal to get so blitzed every night that you can barely function the next day.

Being legally responsible is a different argument. I agree there. For jobs which have that potential (say fork lift operator or truck driver), drug testing may be a valid option. But I don't think it needs to be done in every area.

In any case, it is up to the company. In the same way the government should not MAKE companies give drug tests, they should also not MAKE them NOT give them. Ya don't like it, ya find another company.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rehmwa 2]

  Quote

In any case, it is up to the company. In the same way the government should not MAKE companies give drug tests, they should also not MAKE them NOT give them. Ya don't like it, ya find another company.

YAY!!

I don't have anything else to say here.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DaVinci 0]

  Quote

If you have a good hiring manager, I would hope the interview is done well enough that the person's skills and qualities can at least be somewhat determined.

Some think that a drug test is a good indication of how the person will perform. Studies have shown a correlation between drug use and poor employees. Plus if it did not work companies would not spend the money to do it.

[GTAVercetti 0]

  Quote

  Quote

If you have a good hiring manager, I would hope the interview is done well enough that the person's skills and qualities can at least be somewhat determined.

Some think that a drug test is a good indication of how the person will perform. Studies have shown a correlation between drug use and poor employees. Plus if it did not work companies would not spend the money to do it.

sigh.

well, at least you ignored the part about the drinking. Because that has NO effect on work.

Like I said, good in some job areas. Not worth it in others. Companies can do whatever they please.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[tigra 0]

I was under the impression that employers received tax breaks and insurance discounts if they had mandatory drug testing. Pretty good incentive.

[DaVinci 0]

  Quote

well, at least you ignored the part about the drinking. Because that has NO effect on work

Did I say it does not? The fact is that we are talking about drug tests, not alcohol. There is no test for alcohol use like drug use. Alcohol is legal.

That is why I did not mention alcohol.

[GTAVercetti 0]

  Quote

  Quote

well, at least you ignored the part about the drinking. Because that has NO effect on work

Did I say it does not? The fact is that we are talking about drug tests, not alcohol. There is no test for alcohol use like drug use. Alcohol is legal.

That is why I did not mention alcohol.

yes, but the topic at hand was the relation of drugs to performance, not its legality. At least that is what I was talking about.

I even conceded the point that in jobs where accidents could happen, drug tests may be a good idea for legal purposes.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[DaVinci 0]

  Quote

was under the impression that employers received tax breaks and insurance discounts if they had mandatory drug testing. Pretty good incentive.

Don't know. However, tax breaks I do not agree with.

Insurance discounts I *do* agree with.

[DaVinci 0]

  Quote

yes, but the topic was the relation of drugs to performance, not its legality.

The topic was why do I have to submit to releasing a bunch of personal information to get a job to include a drug test, background check, and credit check.

It has since moved to if drug testing is good or bad. And if drugs affect work performance.

Simple facts are that studies have shown that drug abuse is bad. This *includes* alcohol. However, alcohol is not illegal.

I think, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, bad credit and a bad background are all good indications of a potential bad employee.

The fact remains that since alcohol is legal is is not legall to bar employment for its use. But Pot is illegal.

I think Pot is pretty harmless. However, I would rather employ a person without *any* drug use.

[livendive 8]

  Quote

The fact remains that since alcohol is legal is is not legall to bar employment for its use. But Pot is illegal.

There was a company last year who told all employees that they had until the end of the year to quit smoking tobacco or be terminated. Last I checked tobacco was legal.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[gemini 0]

Employment in Texas is "free will" unless you have a contract. This means an employer can fire you and doesn't have to even give a reason.

I once worked for a software company where we had to wear Hawaiian shirts on Fridays. One of the techs got fired because he refused to wear the shirt. I think the official reason was "he was not a team player."

Bottom line is the employer can require anything not prohibited by law, like a breathalyser to open an office door. If you don't like an employer's rules, find another job.

Blue skies,

Jim

[DaVinci 0]

  Quote

There was a company last year who told all employees that they had until the end of the year to quit smoking tobacco or be terminated. Last I checked tobacco was legal.

And IMO the company had the right since they were a health care company and had offered assistance to quit and gave the employees plenty of notice.

Smoking has been shown to increase the amount of sickness and sick days an employee takes. It also reduces the amount of work being done with all the uncoded smoke breaks.

I have heard of people taking half days on Friday and being able to justify it since they don't smoke.

[livendive 8]

  Quote

Employment in Texas is "free will" unless you have a contract. This means an employer can fire you and doesn't have to even give a reason.

It's the same way in Washington, and for the most part I like it that way.

  Quote

Bottom line is the employer can require anything not prohibited by law, like a breathalyser to open an office door. If you don't like an employer's rules, find another job.

I agree with you. And if an employer doesn't like the workforce they have remaining when the employees who didn't like the rules found other jobs, they can change the rules.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[nathaniel 0]

  Quote

Plus if it did not work companies would not spend the money to do it.

That's not quite a valid argument. Lots of companies do stupid things, like spending hundreds of dollars on a Verisign SSL certificate instead of dozens of dollars at one of their competitors.
Lots of companies also do not test their employees (such as mine), yet manage to stay in business. That doesn't prove it's malarkey either.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[livendive 8]

  Quote

  Quote

There was a company last year who told all employees that they had until the end of the year to quit smoking tobacco or be terminated. Last I checked tobacco was legal.

And IMO the company had the right since they were a health care company and had offered assistance to quit and gave the employees plenty of notice.

Of course they had the right. Similarly, 100% of their employees had the right to find other jobs because they didn't want to work for a company that extended it's reach that far into their private lives. Basically, the company threw it out there to see if they could get away with it. The workforce said yes. Other employers took note. It was the same with drug tests, credit checks, etc. Employers have the right to establish just about any requirements they want, and if employees accept them, they stick. If the workforce quits and nobody applies for the vacant positions, they don't. The workforce in America is pretty tame. We need jobs in order to buy all the things we want and our employers use that to their advantage. They can afford to sit idle for longer than we can, so that's just how things will be. Exception: Some employers want their employees to actually like working for them and will make concessions to attract and retain good people, for example those companies that allow employees to bring their dogs into work with them. If such companies ever establish a significant advantage over their competitors as a result of providing such a working environment, you can bet their competitors will take steps to follow suit.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Airman1270 0]

Thanks for the responses. I kinda guessed this conversation would degenerste into a discussion of drug use.

The personal information being asked for included such things as detailed salary histories, and questions like "What did you like best/least about your former jobs", as well as "reasons for leaving." While the salary info is none of their business, these other questions can be addressed in an interview. I see no reason to clutter the application with this drivel, and screen out good people because they balk at writing it all down on a legnthy form.

The credit info is also none of their business. Several people have replied that they need this in order to protect themselves againt potential thefts, the reasoning being someone in debt might be tempted to steal. Again, I have a solid employment history and a clean criminal record. It would seem that this would indicate that I have no history of stealing or causing trouble.

Drug testing is an offensive, intrusive, expensive procedure which insults human dignity and creates an administrative hassle for the employer, while in turn doing nothing to ensure sobriety on the job. Furthermore, if someone is doing drugs to the point where it will impair their performance, this will be evident without a lab test. The issue is not drugs, but that the job is not being done correctly. This is what must be addressed, regardless of the reason, be it general incompetence, or temporary lack of focus due to personal issues.

My exposure to the party runs the gamut from sporadic to zero, but in the late'70's/early 80's there was a period of five or six years where I never would have passed the test. Even so, I arrived at work sober, did an excellent job, and was held in high regard by my employers. I worked for over two years at a deli, and by hiring me the boss & his wife were able to go home in the afternoons rather than work the entire 14+ hour day themselves. I was responsible for dealing with customers, handling money, and securing the store at closing time. After work, I'd usually go home, get stoned, and play my guitar for a few hours before going to the local bar until the wee hours. It was not unusual to stop at the store for some potato salad, etc. at 4:30am. In fact, one night I was there when the bread delivery arrived, so I put the bread into the display case to prepare for opening. When the boss arrived at 5:30 he said "Oh, look - Jon was here!" I don't know if he knew about the pot smoking; if so, he didn't care. What he knew was that the store was in good hands and the job was being done to his satisfaction. Yet, according to the current drug testing proponents, I should never have been hired in the first place.

The issue of C.Y.A. is a valid concern. I believe we should get away from the mind-set that the employer is responsible for the actions of employees. Example: If the UPS truck runs a red light and hits someone, the driver is responsible, not the company. By holding a drivers' license, he is presumed to understand basic traffic rules. If he violates these rules and causes a problem, he should be held responsible regardless of who owns the vehicle he is driving.

The driver is the only person who has any control over how the vehicle will be operated. With all due respect to the legal industry, who rely on lawsuits for their income, it is immoral to demand that any third party be forced to pay for someone else's error. We can exert some influence in this direction by welcoming, rather than trying to avoid, the opportunity for jury service and not being hornswoggled into giving in to cheap appeals to emotion.

When workplace drug testing was introduced in the mid-'80's, proponents acknowledged the offensive nature of this procedure but claimed it was a compromise that was dictated by public safety concerns. They always referred to such things as pilots, truck drivers, and customs agents, etc. as occupations in which this might be warranted. It wasn't long before this was expanded to indlude the teenage clerk working the Wal-Mart check out lane. They lied to us. Back then, when most companies did not do this, people who worked for those that did had an opportunity to refuse and go elsewhere. But, NO, they were intimidated by the accusation of "something to hide" and failed to take a stand for common decency. They are the primary reason we are where we're at today.

Cheers,
Jon S.

[namgrunt 0]

I work for and oil co. that also has 2 trucking co.
here is what we do

1 application filled out
a check work history
b check refrences
c check criminal history plus driveing hist.
d check credit history
2 re-interview qualified applicants
3 offer job
a drug screne
b randum post employment drug screens

all this HAS a reason

theft..fraud..co-employee liability issues

ever wonder what happons when an x con,ax murderer sex deviant is hired and hurts a co employee?

we have had applications on folks with outstanding felony warrents on them such as for theft ,assult,rape etc.

the employeers hate this process as much as the epplicant but the lawyers have changed the system.

if we hire a truck driver that has a history of traffic tickets we are at fault if he has a wreck.

stick with it
no crim. historyno drug use
pay your bills
give me a call we will put you to work tomorrow

..

59 YEARS,OVERWEIGHT,BALDIND,X-GRUNT
LAST MIL. JUMP VIET-NAM(QUAN-TRI)
www.dzmemories.com

[rehmwa 2]

  Quote

After work, I'd usually go home, get stoned, ..... It was not unusual to stop at the store for some potato salad, etc.

gotta ask - did you have the boss's agreement to eat his inventory whenever you felt like it?

I'm assuming you did. This way you can note that before someone translates that as "at night I'd get stoned and then go to his shop and steal". It would hurt your position quite a bit.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Airman1270 0]

  Quote

  Quote

After work, I'd usually go home, get stoned, ..... It was not unusual to stop at the store for some potato salad, etc.

gotta ask - did you have the boss's agreement to eat his inventory whenever you felt like it?

I'm assuming you did. This way you can note that before someone translates that as "at night I'd get stoned and then go to his shop and steal". It would hurt your position quite a bit.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Yes, good point. I did have permission. In fact, I once left a dollar in the register. The next day he gave it back and said it wasn't necessary. I was expected to pay for pre-packaged items, such as beer, etc., but he didn't mind if I helped myself to the salad case. He trusted me completely, and I never abused his trust.

Cheers,
Jon S.