7 ms·

I agree with you. The one thing I can never figure out is why managers of some types of companies run them the way they do. Why couldn't a call center employee

by tibbon 14y ago

I agree with you. The one thing I can never figure out is why managers of some types of companies run them the way they do. Why couldn't a call center employee work with a headset from a van and wear whatever they please? There's all sorts of strange practices that some of these companies do. Never in a million years would I ask an employee to submit to a drug test before being employed for example- yet that's what things like call centers do. I want my employees to be happy, because they are the people that make the company work. When I talk to a manager of a company like this - they act like I've never managed anything before and just 'dont get it'.

Diederich 14y ago
I work for the largest (I believe) 'callcenter in the cloud' companies. http://www.liveops.com/ http://www.liveops.com/ You can work from anywhere, as long as you have a good phone line and good Internet.
sliverstorm 14y ago
Why couldn't a call center employee ... wear whatever they please? Presumably the managerial types are trying to help cultivate a "professional" environment. Never in a million years would I ask an employee to submit to a drug test I understand the personal freedoms angle, but I can also sympathize with employers who are tired of discovering that guy they hired last week is actually a raging meth head.
- doesnt_know 14y ago
  What does it matter if their employees are meth heads, they shouldn't have to be tested. If they are unproductive, look like shit, have poor time management, have mood swings etc then they are a liability to their employer because of those things, not because they "do drugs". On the other hand if they are productive, are professional, [any other positive attribute] and contribute to their employer, does it matter if they are on drugs at the time? Granted, I've never meet anyone that are actually functional members of society once they start abusing something like meth, but my point is that employees should be judged purely on their performance in the workplace or how they contribute.
  - ido 14y ago
    I assume it's more about predicting these things before employment begins - someone might look ok at the interview but if you found out traces of drugs in his blood that could be an indicator that this is not their usual state. Basically we're talking about low-skilled jobs that always have plenty of applicants, filtering a bit too many people isn't that big of a deal when there're still plenty of others remaining afterwards. It's just a cheap initial filter, as long as it's better than completely arbitrary it's probably beneficial to have.
    - jiggy2011 14y ago
      That depends, Pot is detected by a drugs test if the person has used within around 3 weeks. So you would get a positive reading from somebody who went to a party 2 weekends ago and took a couple of hits from a joint.
      - jmcdonald-ut 14y ago
        Not that it matters much, and this is only anecdotal but I had friends who would smoke pretty frequently. A lot of call centers, and retail spots would drug test. My friends would still get the job if they got past the initial interview. It seems like most companies are more interested in harder drugs, which I can understand. On topic: I think that if you're looking for a cost effective way to live, do what someone said earlier and move to a less prominent neighborhood. This seems like it would be more along the lines of "fun to do for a couple weeks".
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    Because employers believe that P(workplace violence/poor time management/etc | meth head) > P(workplace violence/poor time management/etc). Do you disagree that this is the case?
  - Natsu 14y ago
    You've never had to deal with someone who came to work while on drugs, have you? Someone can go from comparatively normal to crazy enough to freak everyone out and maybe get someone hurt in no time flat. That's a bit of a problem, especially given that some people work at places where accidents like slitting one's wrist wide open, crushing one's hand and being killed by an item dropped by a forklift happen a little too regularly, even to people who are not thus impaired.
philwelch 14y ago
The call center I used to work at had no dress code and no drug tests. In fact, almost everyone who worked there, other than myself, was constantly stoned.

by tibbon 14y ago

Diederich 14y ago

I work for the largest (I believe) 'callcenter in the cloud' companies. http://www.liveops.com/ http://www.liveops.com/ You can work from anywhere, as long as you have a good phone line and good Internet.

sliverstorm 14y ago

Why couldn't a call center employee ... wear whatever they please? Presumably the managerial types are trying to help cultivate a "professional" environment. Never in a million years would I ask an employee to submit to a drug test I understand the personal freedoms angle, but I can also sympathize with employers who are tired of discovering that guy they hired last week is actually a raging meth head.

doesnt_know 14y ago
What does it matter if their employees are meth heads, they shouldn't have to be tested. If they are unproductive, look like shit, have poor time management, have mood swings etc then they are a liability to their employer because of those things, not because they "do drugs". On the other hand if they are productive, are professional, [any other positive attribute] and contribute to their employer, does it matter if they are on drugs at the time? Granted, I've never meet anyone that are actually functional members of society once they start abusing something like meth, but my point is that employees should be judged purely on their performance in the workplace or how they contribute.
- ido 14y ago
  I assume it's more about predicting these things before employment begins - someone might look ok at the interview but if you found out traces of drugs in his blood that could be an indicator that this is not their usual state. Basically we're talking about low-skilled jobs that always have plenty of applicants, filtering a bit too many people isn't that big of a deal when there're still plenty of others remaining afterwards. It's just a cheap initial filter, as long as it's better than completely arbitrary it's probably beneficial to have.
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    That depends, Pot is detected by a drugs test if the person has used within around 3 weeks. So you would get a positive reading from somebody who went to a party 2 weekends ago and took a couple of hits from a joint.
    - jmcdonald-ut 14y ago
      Not that it matters much, and this is only anecdotal but I had friends who would smoke pretty frequently. A lot of call centers, and retail spots would drug test. My friends would still get the job if they got past the initial interview. It seems like most companies are more interested in harder drugs, which I can understand. On topic: I think that if you're looking for a cost effective way to live, do what someone said earlier and move to a less prominent neighborhood. This seems like it would be more along the lines of "fun to do for a couple weeks".
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  Because employers believe that P(workplace violence/poor time management/etc | meth head) > P(workplace violence/poor time management/etc). Do you disagree that this is the case?
- Natsu 14y ago
  You've never had to deal with someone who came to work while on drugs, have you? Someone can go from comparatively normal to crazy enough to freak everyone out and maybe get someone hurt in no time flat. That's a bit of a problem, especially given that some people work at places where accidents like slitting one's wrist wide open, crushing one's hand and being killed by an item dropped by a forklift happen a little too regularly, even to people who are not thus impaired.

philwelch 14y ago

The call center I used to work at had no dress code and no drug tests. In fact, almost everyone who worked there, other than myself, was constantly stoned.