11 ms·

"I believe private businesses should have the power to determine their own hiring practices" In that case I want to have the power to determine my own job acce

"I believe private businesses should have the power to determine their own hiring practices" In that case I want to have the power to determine my own job acceptance practices. I want my hiring manager to take a drug test too. After all, I don't wanna end up working for a drug edict. The asymmetry of employer/employee relationship is just astonishing.

dymk 8y ago
That's not really asymmetrical, in the same way that e.g. wage information is. You can refuse to take their test (and not be hired) the same way they can refuse to take your test (and you refuse to work for them). That being said, I believe that weed usage not being comparable to alcohol usage outside of the workplace doesn't make sense. I think it only makes sense to test for harder drugs e.g. opiates and amphetamines.
- perfunctory 8y ago
  > You can refuse to take their test (and not be hired) In idealistic world where everybody has the same leverage - perhaps. In real world refusing a job is a luxury most cannot afford. It is asymmetric precisely because negotiation positions are widely unequal.
  - rjf72 8y ago
    The current unemployment rate is < 4%. We're nearing never before seen lows. And that record was set in 1950, when the total labor force (as a percent of the population) was much smaller since women generally did not need to work. You're talking like being offered a job is some unique luxury. Maybe for extremely desirable jobs, but if a job is extremely desirable you generally just precluded the possibility of the employer being some dysfunctional drug addict - which makes your argument a nonstarter. So many companies in so many industries are just starving for good employees.
    - svantana 8y ago
      I dunno, I think you're more likely to find drug addict "employers" in some of the most sought-after businesses -- movies, music, fashion, sports -- compared to normal, boring jobs...
      - rjf72 8y ago
        Hahah, that's probably a pretty fair point! Though I suppose it gets back to the same point though that even if you do find out that your e.g. sports manager is a dysfunctional coke head, you're probably not going to be pass up a fat contract to do something you love.
    - arvinsim 8y ago
      Just because you are employed doesn't mean you are compensated well. > So many companies in so many industries are just starving for good employees. Perhaps we should consider the possibility that qualified candidates are not willing to work for sub-standard compensation.
- krageon 8y ago
  Knowing of plenty of places where absolutely nobody has to take drug tests to get hired, I fail to follow the line of reasoning that it makes sense at all. Could you elaborate?
  - burfog 8y ago
    It makes perfect sense for pharmacists, nurses, doctors, and others who are have to work with drugs. It would be awful to have them stealing from patients. It is also a generic test, kind of like a credit check, to avoid general mayhem. Things are correlated.
- loeg 8y ago
  Nothing else stays in your system nearly as long as marijuana metabolites. Testing is only going to catch really frequent users, and what, you don't think you're not going to notice if that makes them unable to do their job?
  - wolco 8y ago
    You would be surprised at the high quality code being made by experienced/daily pot smokers. Not to be confused with someone smoking for the first time sitting outside passed out after the first hit.
    - loeg 8y ago
      Ah, to be clear my earlier comment was focused on regular non-marijuana drug users (i.e., daily coke or opiate or amphetamine use). Either it affects their work performance (negatively), or it doesn't, but the urine doesn't tell you that — their work output does. Ditto marijuana and alcohol.
- stordoff 8y ago
  > I think it only makes sense to test for harder drugs e.g. opiates and amphetamines. Why? Why is it any of my employer's business what I do outside of work?
  - colejohnson66 8y ago
    Because it can affect your work life
  - dymk 8y ago
    Same reason I don't let crack addicts into my house. They're going to steal from me.
- _Schizotypy 8y ago
  Can you explain what pharmacological properties of a substance makes a drug "hard"? This is defined nowhere in literature.
  - Simon_says 8y ago
    https://geology.com/minerals/mohs-hardness-scale.shtml https://geology.com/minerals/mohs-hardness-scale.shtml
  - pennaMan 8y ago
    Disabling withdrawal symptoms, mainly. The literature has plenty of quantizations of harmfulness of drugs.
    - _Schizotypy 8y ago
      Cocaine has negligible withdrawal symptoms especially when compared to benzodiazepines or alcohol, so this is absolutely not the case. The literature that I have read does not say that any compounds are "hard" or "soft" The literature that I have read also has noted that the impact of alcohol and tobacco are worse than the drugs people always refer to as "hard" drugs.
    - mruts 8y ago
      cocaine and meth don’t have withdrawels. alcohol, benzos, and opiates do. I’m not sure you could agree that one group is “harder” than the other.
- auiya 8y ago
  > I think it only makes sense to test for harder drugs e.g. opiates and amphetamines. I think you would be shocked to learn how many of your co-workers take prescription opiates and amphetamines, and aren't punished at all for it.
  - mruts 8y ago
    I work in finance a good number of people are popping pills and doing lines in the bathroom all day long. It’s a little rarer, but a not insignificant group of people are doing heroin as well. I used to be addicted to the stuff and ended up starting becauase an analyst gave me some when we were working on a model late at night.
King-Aaron 8y ago
> After all, I don't wanna end up working for a drug edict. I know it's a tongue-in-cheek comment, but this is part of the stigma needs to end too. If they wanted to have a toke with some friends at a bucks night the week before or some such, and then have it detected on a test, that doesn't really mean they're a drug addict...
- arvinsim 8y ago
  A person who is an occasional user and a drug addict are two very different people.
  - imgabe 8y ago
    And a one-time drug test has no way of discerning between the two.
  - pennaMan 8y ago
    A person who consumes cannabis every evening after work and a drug addict are two very different people.
    - Dumblydorr 8y ago
      Depends on which definition of addiction you adhere to. In medicine, there is substance misuse vs substance abuse, and the line between them has to do with negative impacts in life that are results from the substance use. So, drug addict itself is not the best term, as one might use that to describe a daily user of caffeine or alcohol and yet they are seemingly unhindered by their habit, though they may be technically addicted due to near 100% consistent use.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - deytempo 8y ago
        Better show em some autopsy photos of cannabis overdose
TuringNYC 8y ago
I once had a midsized startup doing something very similar to my small startup try and recruit me aggressively, they sent an NDA to sign and said i couldn’t even speak to interviewers until I did. (Consider how dangerous this is given the similar products.) I told them I’d sign the NDA if all my interviewers also signed one from me, nice way to end the discussion. My point is, if there is something you don’t like and it isn’t common, a way to decline is to decline the job. If it is a widespread practice, and unfair, then we need legislation.
eikenberry 8y ago
"I believe private businesses should have the power to determine their own hiring practices" Like only hiring whites, or blacks, or Christians, or felons, or gays, or people who went to Harvard? Really, the government doesn't regulate this kind of thing at all. Companies can do whatever they want.
- mruts 8y ago
  They occasionally do, but it’s not really worth it. Companies have different needs and it would be pretty absurd if the government was trying to ensure that there was ethnic diversity in, say, a stereotypical hip hop music video.
ramblerman 8y ago
Well of course it's asymmetric. It's a transaction with money flowing in exactly one direction. You are of course free to not take the job on your end. I actually like the NYC law and think it is reasonable regulation, but your argument makes no sense (imo).
- nefitty 8y ago
  If the employer is not totally screwing the employee over, hopefully there's a near equivalance of labor for money. Human labor is one of the most valuable products, so yes money may be flowing in one direction, but value is flowing in both.
bko 8y ago
> I want my hiring manager to take a drug test too. You can choose to work in an organization that has strict testing policies, including the hiring managers. Or you can ask your recruiter to take a test. I'll admit its a weird request, but considering the commissions on finding an employee are so high (1 to 2 months annual salary) and tight labor market, I wouldn't be surprised if they did it. I would take a drug test for much less. I don't see the asymmetry here.
crankylinuxuser 8y ago
> "I believe private businesses should have the power to determine their own hiring practices" So... how about skin color^W^W culture fit test? Or, perhaps there's some hidden classifiers that out protected statuses that can be used in AI/ML interviewing black boxes? By the time someone sues, the ML logic will have mutated with more input thus invalidating the previous decisions. https://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2018/02/26/artificial-intelligence-ai-bias-google/#10ed41441a01 https://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2018/02/26/artificia... Long story short, hiring practices need to be transparent AND understandable. Because right now we're going down a very bad path.
- AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
  hiring practices need to be transparent AND understandable It's easier said than done. Can you, for example, think of a transparent and understandable way of telling a cat from a dog?
- mruts 8y ago
  Are you saying that you shouldn’t be able to consider skin color in movies or tv shows? Because that would be pretty ridiculeous.
  - jogjayr 8y ago
    Acting roles are an example an exception from EEO laws because the job requires it. It's not illegal to discriminate on the basis of a protected class (age, sex, color, nationality etc) if it's a genuine requirement for the job. And if the employer claims a protected class attribute is a "genuine requirement" when it really isn't, you can be sure they'll have to go to court to defend it. An exceptional case isn't applicable to most jobs in the world.
mruts 8y ago
Astonishing? They own the means of production, you are the means of production. But let me give you an example of how these sort of laws have severe unintended consequences: In some states it is illegal to ask a potential hire if they have a felony. The reasoning was that this would force employers to be less discriminatory. The result? More discrimination of black people and lower wages. Why, you might ask? Because the less information you have as an employer, the more you are going to rely on the information you do have: what the applicant looks like, how they act, etc. Also the wages are lower becauase you have to price in the risk of them being a felon. Employers should be able to choose whoever they think is best through whatever metrics they want. After all, it’s their business, and hiring and firing who you want is absolutely integral to freedom and free markets. And laws imposed by the government just make things worse, and more discriminatory. Let’s say a teenage boy who looks like a stoner wants a job at WalMart. He’s not a stoner though, he just has long hair or whatever. If WalMart could have made him pee in a cup, they would have hired a dependable and honest employee. But because they can’t, they judge him on his hair and don’t give him the job.
- zelon88 8y ago
  If you're hiring for a $10 job you get what you pay for. This is the asymmetry the OP of this thread is talking about. Employers want to screw the applicant on wages, paying him market value for his "specifications" rather than paying what the job is worth to the company. Did you expect gentlemen and scholars to apply for warehouse jobs at Wal-Mart? Do you really think it's right to practically push your job positions to halfway houses and then discriminate against felons? One man's wasteful spending is another man's prosperity. You get what you pay for.
  - SauciestGNU 8y ago
    Just FYI, "jip" or "gyp" is an ethnic slur against the Roma people, and I would encourage you to phrase things differently in the future.
    - zelon88 8y ago
      Took care of it. I meant no offense to the Roma people.
BubRoss 8y ago
Bullseye - I was going to say the same thing. The imbalance and asymetry of information and investment is a huge problem. Companies want information from you that they won't share. They have economies of scale with many employees, yet employees have one source of income. Employees might relocate while the company just readies a desk. I would say that a company that wants a drug test should give me the results from the management chain as well as HR.

dymk 8y ago

That's not really asymmetrical, in the same way that e.g. wage information is. You can refuse to take their test (and not be hired) the same way they can refuse to take your test (and you refuse to work for them). That being said, I believe that weed usage not being comparable to alcohol usage outside of the workplace doesn't make sense. I think it only makes sense to test for harder drugs e.g. opiates and amphetamines.

perfunctory 8y ago
> You can refuse to take their test (and not be hired) In idealistic world where everybody has the same leverage - perhaps. In real world refusing a job is a luxury most cannot afford. It is asymmetric precisely because negotiation positions are widely unequal.
- rjf72 8y ago
  The current unemployment rate is < 4%. We're nearing never before seen lows. And that record was set in 1950, when the total labor force (as a percent of the population) was much smaller since women generally did not need to work. You're talking like being offered a job is some unique luxury. Maybe for extremely desirable jobs, but if a job is extremely desirable you generally just precluded the possibility of the employer being some dysfunctional drug addict - which makes your argument a nonstarter. So many companies in so many industries are just starving for good employees.
  - svantana 8y ago
    I dunno, I think you're more likely to find drug addict "employers" in some of the most sought-after businesses -- movies, music, fashion, sports -- compared to normal, boring jobs...
    - rjf72 8y ago
      Hahah, that's probably a pretty fair point! Though I suppose it gets back to the same point though that even if you do find out that your e.g. sports manager is a dysfunctional coke head, you're probably not going to be pass up a fat contract to do something you love.
  - arvinsim 8y ago
    Just because you are employed doesn't mean you are compensated well. > So many companies in so many industries are just starving for good employees. Perhaps we should consider the possibility that qualified candidates are not willing to work for sub-standard compensation.
krageon 8y ago
Knowing of plenty of places where absolutely nobody has to take drug tests to get hired, I fail to follow the line of reasoning that it makes sense at all. Could you elaborate?
- burfog 8y ago
  It makes perfect sense for pharmacists, nurses, doctors, and others who are have to work with drugs. It would be awful to have them stealing from patients. It is also a generic test, kind of like a credit check, to avoid general mayhem. Things are correlated.
loeg 8y ago
Nothing else stays in your system nearly as long as marijuana metabolites. Testing is only going to catch really frequent users, and what, you don't think you're not going to notice if that makes them unable to do their job?
- wolco 8y ago
  You would be surprised at the high quality code being made by experienced/daily pot smokers. Not to be confused with someone smoking for the first time sitting outside passed out after the first hit.
  - loeg 8y ago
    Ah, to be clear my earlier comment was focused on regular non-marijuana drug users (i.e., daily coke or opiate or amphetamine use). Either it affects their work performance (negatively), or it doesn't, but the urine doesn't tell you that — their work output does. Ditto marijuana and alcohol.
stordoff 8y ago
> I think it only makes sense to test for harder drugs e.g. opiates and amphetamines. Why? Why is it any of my employer's business what I do outside of work?
- colejohnson66 8y ago
  Because it can affect your work life
- dymk 8y ago
  Same reason I don't let crack addicts into my house. They're going to steal from me.
_Schizotypy 8y ago
Can you explain what pharmacological properties of a substance makes a drug "hard"? This is defined nowhere in literature.
- Simon_says 8y ago
  https://geology.com/minerals/mohs-hardness-scale.shtml https://geology.com/minerals/mohs-hardness-scale.shtml
- pennaMan 8y ago
  Disabling withdrawal symptoms, mainly. The literature has plenty of quantizations of harmfulness of drugs.
  - _Schizotypy 8y ago
    Cocaine has negligible withdrawal symptoms especially when compared to benzodiazepines or alcohol, so this is absolutely not the case. The literature that I have read does not say that any compounds are "hard" or "soft" The literature that I have read also has noted that the impact of alcohol and tobacco are worse than the drugs people always refer to as "hard" drugs.
  - mruts 8y ago
    cocaine and meth don’t have withdrawels. alcohol, benzos, and opiates do. I’m not sure you could agree that one group is “harder” than the other.
auiya 8y ago
> I think it only makes sense to test for harder drugs e.g. opiates and amphetamines. I think you would be shocked to learn how many of your co-workers take prescription opiates and amphetamines, and aren't punished at all for it.
- mruts 8y ago
  I work in finance a good number of people are popping pills and doing lines in the bathroom all day long. It’s a little rarer, but a not insignificant group of people are doing heroin as well. I used to be addicted to the stuff and ended up starting becauase an analyst gave me some when we were working on a model late at night.

King-Aaron 8y ago

> After all, I don't wanna end up working for a drug edict. I know it's a tongue-in-cheek comment, but this is part of the stigma needs to end too. If they wanted to have a toke with some friends at a bucks night the week before or some such, and then have it detected on a test, that doesn't really mean they're a drug addict...

arvinsim 8y ago
A person who is an occasional user and a drug addict are two very different people.
- imgabe 8y ago
  And a one-time drug test has no way of discerning between the two.
- pennaMan 8y ago
  A person who consumes cannabis every evening after work and a drug addict are two very different people.
  - Dumblydorr 8y ago
    Depends on which definition of addiction you adhere to. In medicine, there is substance misuse vs substance abuse, and the line between them has to do with negative impacts in life that are results from the substance use. So, drug addict itself is not the best term, as one might use that to describe a daily user of caffeine or alcohol and yet they are seemingly unhindered by their habit, though they may be technically addicted due to near 100% consistent use.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - deytempo 8y ago
      Better show em some autopsy photos of cannabis overdose

TuringNYC 8y ago

I once had a midsized startup doing something very similar to my small startup try and recruit me aggressively, they sent an NDA to sign and said i couldn’t even speak to interviewers until I did. (Consider how dangerous this is given the similar products.) I told them I’d sign the NDA if all my interviewers also signed one from me, nice way to end the discussion. My point is, if there is something you don’t like and it isn’t common, a way to decline is to decline the job. If it is a widespread practice, and unfair, then we need legislation.

eikenberry 8y ago

"I believe private businesses should have the power to determine their own hiring practices" Like only hiring whites, or blacks, or Christians, or felons, or gays, or people who went to Harvard? Really, the government doesn't regulate this kind of thing at all. Companies can do whatever they want.

mruts 8y ago
They occasionally do, but it’s not really worth it. Companies have different needs and it would be pretty absurd if the government was trying to ensure that there was ethnic diversity in, say, a stereotypical hip hop music video.

ramblerman 8y ago

Well of course it's asymmetric. It's a transaction with money flowing in exactly one direction. You are of course free to not take the job on your end. I actually like the NYC law and think it is reasonable regulation, but your argument makes no sense (imo).

nefitty 8y ago
If the employer is not totally screwing the employee over, hopefully there's a near equivalance of labor for money. Human labor is one of the most valuable products, so yes money may be flowing in one direction, but value is flowing in both.

bko 8y ago

> I want my hiring manager to take a drug test too. You can choose to work in an organization that has strict testing policies, including the hiring managers. Or you can ask your recruiter to take a test. I'll admit its a weird request, but considering the commissions on finding an employee are so high (1 to 2 months annual salary) and tight labor market, I wouldn't be surprised if they did it. I would take a drug test for much less. I don't see the asymmetry here.

crankylinuxuser 8y ago

> "I believe private businesses should have the power to determine their own hiring practices" So... how about skin color^W^W culture fit test? Or, perhaps there's some hidden classifiers that out protected statuses that can be used in AI/ML interviewing black boxes? By the time someone sues, the ML logic will have mutated with more input thus invalidating the previous decisions. https://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2018/02/26/artificial-intelligence-ai-bias-google/#10ed41441a01 https://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2018/02/26/artificia... Long story short, hiring practices need to be transparent AND understandable. Because right now we're going down a very bad path.

AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
hiring practices need to be transparent AND understandable It's easier said than done. Can you, for example, think of a transparent and understandable way of telling a cat from a dog?
mruts 8y ago
Are you saying that you shouldn’t be able to consider skin color in movies or tv shows? Because that would be pretty ridiculeous.
- jogjayr 8y ago
  Acting roles are an example an exception from EEO laws because the job requires it. It's not illegal to discriminate on the basis of a protected class (age, sex, color, nationality etc) if it's a genuine requirement for the job. And if the employer claims a protected class attribute is a "genuine requirement" when it really isn't, you can be sure they'll have to go to court to defend it. An exceptional case isn't applicable to most jobs in the world.

mruts 8y ago

Astonishing? They own the means of production, you are the means of production. But let me give you an example of how these sort of laws have severe unintended consequences: In some states it is illegal to ask a potential hire if they have a felony. The reasoning was that this would force employers to be less discriminatory. The result? More discrimination of black people and lower wages. Why, you might ask? Because the less information you have as an employer, the more you are going to rely on the information you do have: what the applicant looks like, how they act, etc. Also the wages are lower becauase you have to price in the risk of them being a felon. Employers should be able to choose whoever they think is best through whatever metrics they want. After all, it’s their business, and hiring and firing who you want is absolutely integral to freedom and free markets. And laws imposed by the government just make things worse, and more discriminatory. Let’s say a teenage boy who looks like a stoner wants a job at WalMart. He’s not a stoner though, he just has long hair or whatever. If WalMart could have made him pee in a cup, they would have hired a dependable and honest employee. But because they can’t, they judge him on his hair and don’t give him the job.

zelon88 8y ago
If you're hiring for a $10 job you get what you pay for. This is the asymmetry the OP of this thread is talking about. Employers want to screw the applicant on wages, paying him market value for his "specifications" rather than paying what the job is worth to the company. Did you expect gentlemen and scholars to apply for warehouse jobs at Wal-Mart? Do you really think it's right to practically push your job positions to halfway houses and then discriminate against felons? One man's wasteful spending is another man's prosperity. You get what you pay for.
- SauciestGNU 8y ago
  Just FYI, "jip" or "gyp" is an ethnic slur against the Roma people, and I would encourage you to phrase things differently in the future.
  - zelon88 8y ago
    Took care of it. I meant no offense to the Roma people.

BubRoss 8y ago

Bullseye - I was going to say the same thing. The imbalance and asymetry of information and investment is a huge problem. Companies want information from you that they won't share. They have economies of scale with many employees, yet employees have one source of income. Employees might relocate while the company just readies a desk. I would say that a company that wants a drug test should give me the results from the management chain as well as HR.