5 ms·

I was recruited by, and damn near did a tour with USDS. I ended up passing on it. They wanted an "entrepreneur in residence" to help drive change, which sound

I was recruited by, and damn near did a tour with USDS. I ended up passing on it. They wanted an "entrepreneur in residence" to help drive change, which sounded great to me. Then they did the whole "we need you to keep in a cup" thing. I wouldn't have had any problem passing the test, but I told the recruiter "this is where the change needs to start". There's no way I can attract and retain good technical talent if we're still ruling out candidates because of smoking pot. Plus, I find the whole "pee in a cup" thing demeaning, intrusive and offensive. The recruiter and I were both very frustrated by the situation. I wasn't the first candidate they'd lost over the issue. I don't know if it's still like that, but the feds seriously need to get their act together in hiring process before we can improve the quality of government systems.

hipadev23 3y ago
[flagged]
- datadrivenangel 3y ago
  Pee in a cup - drug test.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
ToucanLoucan 3y ago
I mean no offense, but this is sort of, with regard to your principles at least, cutting off one's nose to spite one's face? I get that incremental reform is frustrating, but here you had a chance to enter an org you know needed changes, and you blew it because you refused to take a basic drug test that you openly state you could've passed easily. Like, it's bullshit that they asked, it is an invasion of privacy, it shouldn't be a reason to forgo employment of a candidate they otherwise liked, but at the same time, it wasn't an issue of like, you wouldn't get hired because of your race or gender, it was an issue of like, you'd have to abstain drugs for a while. And then, once you're part of that organization, you can help push for the exact changes you want to see in it. It's the same reason I get frustrated with my generation not wanting to run for office: we spend all our time complaining about how awful the government is, but precious few are putting themselves out there as the instruments of that change. I don't know if it'll work out or not but I know damn well it won't if we refuse to even try.
- _gmax0 3y ago
  +1 to this sentiment.
- mattnewton 3y ago
  Almost all bad business practices were ended by labor refusing to comply with them, not complying to get the job and then somehow changing it within. I think that on top of not taking a massive pay cut, not submitting to a test that can flag you as an opiate addict to the government for life if you ate a poppyseed bagel in the morning is reasonable.
- claytongulick 3y ago
  I get that perspective, and I did think about it a lot. Understand that the position was mostly charity work - the pay was negligible for a six month contract. I was ok with that part - I was motivated to help, not by compensation. The intrusive testing, coupled with bad compensation is a root cause of the problem IMHO. I think organizations only really change when they feel pain. In this case, my hope is that the pain of repeatedly losing good candidates is enough to drive policy change (at the congressional or executive level). I don't think it helps to try to "change from the inside" in this case. If I (and other candidates) just roll with it, there's no incentive for change.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    You are completely right. Once inside, your power to affect change is nearly zero unless you are a very high ranking person, and even then it's pretty near impossible. The change will come when enough people say "we can't hire the best people!" Until then, the only argument is "it's an invasion of privacy and outdated" but if it's not broken (i.e. not causing any problems) they won't fix it. All the candidates power is at negotiation of the offer time. Once you accept, it's kind of over.
- bumby 3y ago
  I'll add, from their perspective, it may also have security risk associated with it. If you are applying for a federal job, there may be a chance that you deal with sensitive information. Just like I may think it's bullshit if they ask how much debt I'm carrying, I understand it from the standpoint that it may impact my security risk.
wslack 3y ago
Current USDSer here posting personally. I hear this and you aren't alone. It's not a decision specifically about USDS, more about the entire White House staff and federal law.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rs999gti 3y ago
> Plus, I find the whole "pee in a cup" thing demeaning, intrusive and offensive. Marijuana is still US federally illegal.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  That's a matter for law enforcement, not your employer.
  - rs999gti 3y ago
    OP of comment says they were applying for a federal job. So federal rules apply.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      Not everything that is "federal" is the same. Hiring policies and legality are different matters. If there is a hiring policy against it, then that hiring policy is paternalistic and demeaning and shouldn't exist. If it's illegal, that's not the responsibility of the people hiring you. The people in charge of hiring should not be trying to enforce laws outside of the workplace.
- dnate 3y ago
  It is as well in most of europe. And its also illegal to make your employees take a drug test in most of europe unless you work for the police or with heavy machinery
mountainriver 3y ago
I had read awhile back this is a big issue for them finding tech talent. Almost like the government is just a really bad corporation

hipadev23 3y ago

[flagged]

datadrivenangel 3y ago
Pee in a cup - drug test.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

ToucanLoucan 3y ago

I mean no offense, but this is sort of, with regard to your principles at least, cutting off one's nose to spite one's face? I get that incremental reform is frustrating, but here you had a chance to enter an org you know needed changes, and you blew it because you refused to take a basic drug test that you openly state you could've passed easily. Like, it's bullshit that they asked, it is an invasion of privacy, it shouldn't be a reason to forgo employment of a candidate they otherwise liked, but at the same time, it wasn't an issue of like, you wouldn't get hired because of your race or gender, it was an issue of like, you'd have to abstain drugs for a while. And then, once you're part of that organization, you can help push for the exact changes you want to see in it. It's the same reason I get frustrated with my generation not wanting to run for office: we spend all our time complaining about how awful the government is, but precious few are putting themselves out there as the instruments of that change. I don't know if it'll work out or not but I know damn well it won't if we refuse to even try.

_gmax0 3y ago
+1 to this sentiment.
mattnewton 3y ago
Almost all bad business practices were ended by labor refusing to comply with them, not complying to get the job and then somehow changing it within. I think that on top of not taking a massive pay cut, not submitting to a test that can flag you as an opiate addict to the government for life if you ate a poppyseed bagel in the morning is reasonable.
claytongulick 3y ago
I get that perspective, and I did think about it a lot. Understand that the position was mostly charity work - the pay was negligible for a six month contract. I was ok with that part - I was motivated to help, not by compensation. The intrusive testing, coupled with bad compensation is a root cause of the problem IMHO. I think organizations only really change when they feel pain. In this case, my hope is that the pain of repeatedly losing good candidates is enough to drive policy change (at the congressional or executive level). I don't think it helps to try to "change from the inside" in this case. If I (and other candidates) just roll with it, there's no incentive for change.
- freedomben 3y ago
  You are completely right. Once inside, your power to affect change is nearly zero unless you are a very high ranking person, and even then it's pretty near impossible. The change will come when enough people say "we can't hire the best people!" Until then, the only argument is "it's an invasion of privacy and outdated" but if it's not broken (i.e. not causing any problems) they won't fix it. All the candidates power is at negotiation of the offer time. Once you accept, it's kind of over.
bumby 3y ago
I'll add, from their perspective, it may also have security risk associated with it. If you are applying for a federal job, there may be a chance that you deal with sensitive information. Just like I may think it's bullshit if they ask how much debt I'm carrying, I understand it from the standpoint that it may impact my security risk.

wslack 3y ago

Current USDSer here posting personally. I hear this and you aren't alone. It's not a decision specifically about USDS, more about the entire White House staff and federal law.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

rs999gti 3y ago

> Plus, I find the whole "pee in a cup" thing demeaning, intrusive and offensive. Marijuana is still US federally illegal.

Dylan16807 3y ago
That's a matter for law enforcement, not your employer.
- rs999gti 3y ago
  OP of comment says they were applying for a federal job. So federal rules apply.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    Not everything that is "federal" is the same. Hiring policies and legality are different matters. If there is a hiring policy against it, then that hiring policy is paternalistic and demeaning and shouldn't exist. If it's illegal, that's not the responsibility of the people hiring you. The people in charge of hiring should not be trying to enforce laws outside of the workplace.
dnate 3y ago
It is as well in most of europe. And its also illegal to make your employees take a drug test in most of europe unless you work for the police or with heavy machinery

mountainriver 3y ago

I had read awhile back this is a big issue for them finding tech talent. Almost like the government is just a really bad corporation