5 ms·
This won't apply to everyone, but before applying to Walmart/Walmart Labs, do remember that Walmart will ask you to pass a drug test.
by lquist 13y ago
This won't apply to everyone, but before applying to Walmart/Walmart Labs, do remember that Walmart will ask you to pass a drug test.
- diogenescynic 13y agoYou may not know, but does the Dept. of Justice announcing they won't challenge state medical marijuana laws have any effect on pre-employment drug testing? Why or why not? Most employers seem to be moving away from it, in my experience.
- awda 13y agoIndependent of state (medical or otherwise) marijuana laws, employers still drug test (even in WA, where personal pot use is legal, for example). Pot users aren't a protected class for discrimination purposes, afaik. I agree that it seems silly. Things are a bit different in the software world, where employers are moving away from drug testing because they need all the talent they can get. It turns out some potheads are actually pretty productive members of society if you give them a chance.
- malandrew 13y agoI read somewhere that among Silicon Valley engineers, the usage rate is like 40% or so. If that is true, then when almost 1 in 2 engineers smokes, you can't afford to discriminate.
- awda 13y agoYep. Among the US population as a whole, lifetime illicit drug use is something like 50%. So I wouldn't be too surprised if it was that high among SV engineers.
- lawnchair_larry 13y agoMost tech employers never had it to begin with. I don't understand how it's legal, honestly.
- holograham 13y agoI dont understand why private businesses discriminating even matters. They just put themselves at a disadvantage by limiting their applicant pool based on whatever tests/discrimination they want.
- mikeash 13y agoAlso remember that they are evil. I don't toss this around lightly, but Wal-Mart is one of the very few companies (I actually can't think of any others right now) that I absolutely will not do business with no matter what.
- vowelless 13y agoCould you elaborate why?
- mikeash 13y agoThey severely mistreat their employees when it comes to on-the-job injuries. Friend of mine injured his knee while working in one of their warehouses. A perverse company policy gives bonuses if the crew is injury-free for a certain amount of time. This is supposed to improve safety, but what it does is cause management to put intense pressure on workers not to see a doctor when injured, because if they don't see a doctor then it doesn't count. In my friend's case, this exacerbated the injury greatly. By the time he got medical attention, it was a $20,000 surgery. Wal-Mart then denied responsibility, saying it was an old football injury and thus a preexisting condition not covered by their health policy. This basically bankrupted him. Beyond that, they achieve low prices by leveraging their massive size difference to completely screw producers. Examples: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MF1qnjmw8c4J:joewo.com/WordPress/%3Fp%3D9281+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MF1qnjm... http://www.fastcompany.com/54763/man-who-said-no-wal-mart http://www.fastcompany.com/54763/man-who-said-no-wal-mart In short, Wal-Mart will make big promises that generate big commitments from suppliers, then break their contracts in ways that are difficult to fight in order to save money and make the suppliers ever more dependent on them. But, to be honest, the way they personally affected me by fucking over my friend is by far the bigger reason behind my judgment. I'm not generally troubled by the way that companies act as amoral profit-maximizers. But they're supposed to do it within the law. Wal-Mart actively screws over people by playing outside the rules, far beyond what I see other companies doing.
- vowelless 13y ago