3 ms·

10 years ago when I worked for amazon as an SDE, they never drug tested me for anything. I remember that because at the time I would have failed. I guess the

10 years ago when I worked for amazon as an SDE, they never drug tested me for anything. I remember that because at the time I would have failed. I guess there was a class component to who they decided test, white collar office workers don't get tested but the blue collar workers did?

lotsofpulp 5y ago
It's probably a liability based decision. If someone that works with machinery gets injured or causes damage, the insurance company might have stipulated they will not cover damages (at whatever premium they agreed on) if the company is not drug testing.
- rejectedandsad 5y ago
  I think both are correct. I’ve worked other software jobs that do drug test. From what I remember even Goldman Sachs does for SDEs.
creato 5y ago
It is not explicitly a class issue, it is insurance companies looking for any reason to get out of paying a claim, and testing positive for drugs is one of those reasons. My guess is this comes about because insurance companies will dodge claims due to a positive drug test, but an injured worker could still sue the company. So, companies don't want workers that would test positive for drugs in the event of a work related injury. Warehouse workers are relatively likely to get injured at work. SDEs are not.
- adamcstephens 5y ago
  Warehouses have a solution for that, which doesn’t require drug testing everyone. If you get injured, you’re required to immediately get a drug test. If you fail, you’re fired and they don’t have to cover anything.
  - WesleyHale 5y ago
    If only that's the way it worked. Employees are less likely to report an injury if they fear they may fail a drug test and continue working while hurt. In fact, they encourage corporations to not drug test unless they have reason to believe drugs were a contributing factor. https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2018-10-11 https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2018-...

lotsofpulp 5y ago

It's probably a liability based decision. If someone that works with machinery gets injured or causes damage, the insurance company might have stipulated they will not cover damages (at whatever premium they agreed on) if the company is not drug testing.

rejectedandsad 5y ago
I think both are correct. I’ve worked other software jobs that do drug test. From what I remember even Goldman Sachs does for SDEs.

creato 5y ago

It is not explicitly a class issue, it is insurance companies looking for any reason to get out of paying a claim, and testing positive for drugs is one of those reasons. My guess is this comes about because insurance companies will dodge claims due to a positive drug test, but an injured worker could still sue the company. So, companies don't want workers that would test positive for drugs in the event of a work related injury. Warehouse workers are relatively likely to get injured at work. SDEs are not.

adamcstephens 5y ago
Warehouses have a solution for that, which doesn’t require drug testing everyone. If you get injured, you’re required to immediately get a drug test. If you fail, you’re fired and they don’t have to cover anything.
- WesleyHale 5y ago
  If only that's the way it worked. Employees are less likely to report an injury if they fear they may fail a drug test and continue working while hurt. In fact, they encourage corporations to not drug test unless they have reason to believe drugs were a contributing factor. https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2018-10-11 https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2018-...