4 ms·

> Perhaps a reason for this is that not everybody agrees that drugs are all that bad As an explanation, this is implausible to the point of impossible. The sa

> Perhaps a reason for this is that not everybody agrees that drugs are all that bad As an explanation, this is implausible to the point of impossible. The same employers drug test lower-level employees but (e.g. in the warehouse) but don't test other employees (e.g. in the office). Amazon drug tests warehouse workers but not AWS engineers. It is difficult to come up for a coherent theory for that that includes "as an organisation, we don't think drugs are all that bad"

chii 3y ago
obviously it is the belief of upper management that low level workers cannot be trusted to behave and work to their maximum if they're on drugs, while the "elites" require such drugs to reach their maximum potential.
- calvinmorrison 3y ago
  No its because usually low level jobs require you to operate heavy machinery like driving a truck or operating a forklift or work on the floor of the factory, or being around those things. Or for example handling cash at registers etc. I feel like this conspiracy is the author, and apparently hn needs to touch grass a little bit
  - 6510 3y ago
    A friend from Yugoslavia told me about his job there. Their lunch room looked like a grand cafe with every possible kind of liquor and a variety of beer on the tap. Around 11 am some of his coworkers had a few beers, in the sun, in front of the building. Around 1 they had some whiskey or vodka etc. At the end of the work day some went home, others stuck around. They had a few more drinks, some went home, others went out to eat together, some went home after dinner, some went back to the office. He regularly got very drunk. Sometimes he would make a row of chairs and sleep there. 7 am his boss would be the first to arrive. He was always happy to see someone was already there and made coffee. They sat around and chatted some more and he would start his shift an hour early (not paid ofc) It wasn't that everyone got drunk at work every day, some more often than others, some rarely which made it kind of a special occasion if they stuck around. He had the same assignments as his coworkers but completed them in half the time. Sometimes, at 11 am, he would just continue drinking beer while sitting in the sun and go home an hour early. The funniest part was that they mostly talked about work. It was one lengthy extended meeting till 1 am, if they had some kind of deadline they would just work in their spare time while drinking (without pay) No culture is strange until compared. I drink 2 liters of coffee, smoke a lot and consume lots of sugar. This is perfectly normal here. edit: it was a desk job
    - ghaff 3y ago
      When I was an engineer in the offshore drilling business in the early 80s, when we were in the office (not on a rig or in a shipyard), it was very common to call up a vendor to take us out for lunch and a couple beers. Usually that was it but there were days we took the afternoon off. Alcohol at lunch in a business setting was much more widespread at the time.
  - Baeocystin 3y ago
    Seriously. I was drug tested when I worked at the shipyard. Not in my current job in tech. That doesn't bother me in the least, because I had hundreds more ways to accidentally kill either myself or a coworker when I was welding 100' up on the side of a ship than if I hazily mis-click a dialogue box now. No one complained about it at the shipyard, either, because we didn't want to get killed by a high idiot.
- BossingAround 3y ago
  Surely, occam's razor applies here. Low level workers have the highest chance of getting injured while operating heavy machinery -> highest chance of being drug tested by the police in such cases -> the management would rather spend money on drug testing than on the lawyers later on. High-paid workers have a pretty small risk of injury -> very small risk of the government testing them -> management is not incentivized to spend money on drug testing (and possible hiring costs later on).
- jillesvangurp 3y ago
  It's actually the same reasoning as with remote work. Lower level employees are easier to replace. So they can be more strict on those. And drugs and certain equipment can create dangerous situations. Where dangerous here means "has the potential to create expensive liability related lawsuits". Which is of course something companies do care about. This is less of an issue with office workers and creatives.
nindalf 3y ago
As an organisation we’d like to drug test everyone, except those with enough leverage to tell us to get lost.
- CRConrad 3y ago
  Hm, one might think at least some of those are the ones you'd especially like to test. (Just not actually get to test.)
radicalbyte 3y ago
They test warehouse workers because their insurance demands it. Personal injury settlements are expensive and drugs increase the risk. If employers cannot show that they are taking efforts to discourage it then they could end up being held liable (and the insurance not covering it).
vasilipupkin 3y ago
If you are lifting heavy boxes in the warehouse and you are on drugs, you can physically harm someone. There is no way to directly correlate using drugs and performance of an engineer, for all we know, small infrequent drug use improves performance ( not talking about abusing drugs heavily)

chii 3y ago

obviously it is the belief of upper management that low level workers cannot be trusted to behave and work to their maximum if they're on drugs, while the "elites" require such drugs to reach their maximum potential.

calvinmorrison 3y ago
No its because usually low level jobs require you to operate heavy machinery like driving a truck or operating a forklift or work on the floor of the factory, or being around those things. Or for example handling cash at registers etc. I feel like this conspiracy is the author, and apparently hn needs to touch grass a little bit
- 6510 3y ago
  A friend from Yugoslavia told me about his job there. Their lunch room looked like a grand cafe with every possible kind of liquor and a variety of beer on the tap. Around 11 am some of his coworkers had a few beers, in the sun, in front of the building. Around 1 they had some whiskey or vodka etc. At the end of the work day some went home, others stuck around. They had a few more drinks, some went home, others went out to eat together, some went home after dinner, some went back to the office. He regularly got very drunk. Sometimes he would make a row of chairs and sleep there. 7 am his boss would be the first to arrive. He was always happy to see someone was already there and made coffee. They sat around and chatted some more and he would start his shift an hour early (not paid ofc) It wasn't that everyone got drunk at work every day, some more often than others, some rarely which made it kind of a special occasion if they stuck around. He had the same assignments as his coworkers but completed them in half the time. Sometimes, at 11 am, he would just continue drinking beer while sitting in the sun and go home an hour early. The funniest part was that they mostly talked about work. It was one lengthy extended meeting till 1 am, if they had some kind of deadline they would just work in their spare time while drinking (without pay) No culture is strange until compared. I drink 2 liters of coffee, smoke a lot and consume lots of sugar. This is perfectly normal here. edit: it was a desk job
  - ghaff 3y ago
    When I was an engineer in the offshore drilling business in the early 80s, when we were in the office (not on a rig or in a shipyard), it was very common to call up a vendor to take us out for lunch and a couple beers. Usually that was it but there were days we took the afternoon off. Alcohol at lunch in a business setting was much more widespread at the time.
- Baeocystin 3y ago
  Seriously. I was drug tested when I worked at the shipyard. Not in my current job in tech. That doesn't bother me in the least, because I had hundreds more ways to accidentally kill either myself or a coworker when I was welding 100' up on the side of a ship than if I hazily mis-click a dialogue box now. No one complained about it at the shipyard, either, because we didn't want to get killed by a high idiot.
BossingAround 3y ago
Surely, occam's razor applies here. Low level workers have the highest chance of getting injured while operating heavy machinery -> highest chance of being drug tested by the police in such cases -> the management would rather spend money on drug testing than on the lawyers later on. High-paid workers have a pretty small risk of injury -> very small risk of the government testing them -> management is not incentivized to spend money on drug testing (and possible hiring costs later on).
jillesvangurp 3y ago
It's actually the same reasoning as with remote work. Lower level employees are easier to replace. So they can be more strict on those. And drugs and certain equipment can create dangerous situations. Where dangerous here means "has the potential to create expensive liability related lawsuits". Which is of course something companies do care about. This is less of an issue with office workers and creatives.

nindalf 3y ago

As an organisation we’d like to drug test everyone, except those with enough leverage to tell us to get lost.

CRConrad 3y ago
Hm, one might think at least some of those are the ones you'd especially like to test. (Just not actually get to test.)

radicalbyte 3y ago

They test warehouse workers because their insurance demands it. Personal injury settlements are expensive and drugs increase the risk. If employers cannot show that they are taking efforts to discourage it then they could end up being held liable (and the insurance not covering it).

vasilipupkin 3y ago

If you are lifting heavy boxes in the warehouse and you are on drugs, you can physically harm someone. There is no way to directly correlate using drugs and performance of an engineer, for all we know, small infrequent drug use improves performance ( not talking about abusing drugs heavily)