5 ms·

I wonder if a Silicon Valley tech company would care about drug related convictions. I don't think possession/distribution/etc. alone would really be an issue

by rdl 12y ago

I wonder if a Silicon Valley tech company would care about drug related convictions. I don't think possession/distribution/etc. alone would really be an issue (except if it were extremely recent and potentially ongoing), but clearly "I was high and raped/killed my neighbor" would, and either could arguably be "drug related". "Was an addict and broken into cars to get money for drugs" would be a more interesting corner case; nonviolent property crime. I think "in the past" for sufficiently large values of past might be fine.

stretchwithme 12y ago
If they care, one major reason is an employer's liability for everything an employee does. Perhaps if you could insure your company for each employee, it would be clearer whether you should hire someone and employers would take more well-justified risks on people.
MichaelGG 12y ago
Taking "drug convictions" into account is a form of discrimination. If the FDA revoked the licensing of Prozac or the DEA scheduled it tomorrow, suddenly tons of people would be guilty of drug-crimes. It'd criminalize being depressed. The same is true for the current state of drug laws. We're criminalizing people with anxiety, with existential pain, stress, curiosity, etc. What's different about stealing cars for money for medications, versus stealing cars for money for bread? Or robbing to afford rent? Are people that steal money for opiates less likely to cause a work incident than people that steal money to fund a kickstarter campaign? Medical issues should only be taken into account if they're relevant to the job at hand, which, at a tech company, is relatively rare. Otherwise, acceptable job performance should be the only measurement considered as far as medical is concerned.
- ars 12y ago
  > What's different about stealing cars for money for medications, versus stealing cars for money for bread They are totally different! Someone stealing for bread, i.e. to survive, will never consider crime if they don't absolutely have to. So they may have committed a crime, but they are not a criminal. But someone stealing for drugs demonstrate a level of selfishness that does make them a criminal, i.e. someone who does not care about other people. This is something will not change even if they have enough money to buy their drugs. That selfishness does not go away.
  - MichaelGG 12y ago
    What if it's necessary drugs, like anti-psychotics? What if they have a physical dependency? What if it's life critical, like a benzodiazepine addiction?
    - ars 12y ago
      > necessary drugs I would consider it like bread. > a physical dependency Was it their fault in the first place? i.e. did they start using it for a good reason and are now dependent? Or did they start using it because they like how it feels? > What if it's life critical Like bread. You are being a bit too simplistic - the specific details don't matter, what matters is the person's state of mind. Is he stealing because he does not care about the other person, and only about his own enjoyment? Or is he stealing because he has truly no other choice and he feels bad about it? It's impossible to really know someone else's mind, all you can do is judge based on behavior.
  - xj9 12y ago
    But someone stealing for drugs demonstrate a level of selfishness that does make them a criminal Perhaps you'd like to become acquainted with addiction[1] and substance dependence[2]. They are real issues that people (those who you call criminally selfish) have to deal with, (generally) alone. Due to societal attitudes towards drug use and the overly harsh treatment of users by the criminal justice system, people suffering from addiction often do not receive the medical and psychological attention they need. In a better world we'd be willing/able to provide that, but we aren't there yet. People start doing drugs for many different reasons, but some people can't handle their crack. An addict can be a threat to themselves and/or others, not because they are "bad" or "selfish", but because they are mentally ill. Addicts need rehab, not punishment. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_dependence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_dependence
    - ars 12y ago
      They were selfish to start using the drug. The dangers of drugs are known to all, they can not claim ignorance. On top of that addiction is no excuse to harm others by stealing or other activity. It might feel absolutely horrible not to have the drug, but it is not necessary in order to live. Someone who is so consumed by their addiction that they have no self control left, and they steal, is someone who is not employable. This doesn't mean they should be ignored - it's two different things. People should certainly help them, but at the same time they do not make good employees.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  Discrimination in job applications is perfectly legal outside specifically protected classes in the United States, including under various state laws. The nationally protected classes are race, sex, pregnancy, religion, national origin, age, veterans status / military service, bankruptcy or bad debts, genetic information, and citizenship status (exclusive of work eligibility). Under various state laws, there may or may not be additional protections for sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, medical condition, political affiliation or activities, military status, different age limits, familial status, public assistance status, and/or use of "lawful products" (e.g., tobacco, alcohol). http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law_... Outside of these classes (or within them where the state doesn't recognize the class) it's generally legal to make hire/fire decisions with few limitations. Given "at will" employment conditions in many states, proving discrimination is generally a case of showing specific evidence that a protected class was material and specifically related to the action. That can be difficult, though not impossible.
  - MichaelGG 12y ago
    Many drug convictions, outside of pure merchants (non-patients) are medical conditions and thus should be protected from discrimination.
- VLM 12y ago
  One way to think about interviewers ignoring current immoral and unethical laws would be to step back and consider past immoral and unethical laws. Going back a couple decades, being gay or holding the wrong political beliefs was something of a hiring problem. Given that "we" forget that technology and fads might change, but people never do, you can safely assume that if being "outed" a couple decades ago eliminated about 95% of employment opportunities, then the equivalent today will eliminate a similar percentage.
mb_72 12y ago
When I still worked for a company and not myself, and was assisting in the hiring process, I was much more inclined to overlook drug-related crimes as I felt then - as now - that these very often should be crimes in the first place. On the other hand, I remember once we had a job application from a recently-released convict (jailed for kidnapping, resisting arrest and assault of the arresting officers). The nature of his crimes, along with the high profile of his case, meant that we replied 'thanks for your interest, but you don't meet our criteria' and binned his application. We didn't want any attention from media, and our clients (many whom of which where schools) would likely not have appreciated our employment of such a person.
- mb_72 12y ago
  * oops, that should read "... very often SHOULD NOT be crimes...".
- mb_72 12y ago
  * oops, that should read "... very often SHOULD NOT be crimes...".
Kalium 12y ago
Depends on the company. They will definitely care if you lie about it.
- larelogio 12y ago
  Better not ask than...

by rdl 12y ago

stretchwithme 12y ago

If they care, one major reason is an employer's liability for everything an employee does. Perhaps if you could insure your company for each employee, it would be clearer whether you should hire someone and employers would take more well-justified risks on people.

MichaelGG 12y ago

Taking "drug convictions" into account is a form of discrimination. If the FDA revoked the licensing of Prozac or the DEA scheduled it tomorrow, suddenly tons of people would be guilty of drug-crimes. It'd criminalize being depressed. The same is true for the current state of drug laws. We're criminalizing people with anxiety, with existential pain, stress, curiosity, etc. What's different about stealing cars for money for medications, versus stealing cars for money for bread? Or robbing to afford rent? Are people that steal money for opiates less likely to cause a work incident than people that steal money to fund a kickstarter campaign? Medical issues should only be taken into account if they're relevant to the job at hand, which, at a tech company, is relatively rare. Otherwise, acceptable job performance should be the only measurement considered as far as medical is concerned.

ars 12y ago
> What's different about stealing cars for money for medications, versus stealing cars for money for bread They are totally different! Someone stealing for bread, i.e. to survive, will never consider crime if they don't absolutely have to. So they may have committed a crime, but they are not a criminal. But someone stealing for drugs demonstrate a level of selfishness that does make them a criminal, i.e. someone who does not care about other people. This is something will not change even if they have enough money to buy their drugs. That selfishness does not go away.
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  What if it's necessary drugs, like anti-psychotics? What if they have a physical dependency? What if it's life critical, like a benzodiazepine addiction?
  - ars 12y ago
    > necessary drugs I would consider it like bread. > a physical dependency Was it their fault in the first place? i.e. did they start using it for a good reason and are now dependent? Or did they start using it because they like how it feels? > What if it's life critical Like bread. You are being a bit too simplistic - the specific details don't matter, what matters is the person's state of mind. Is he stealing because he does not care about the other person, and only about his own enjoyment? Or is he stealing because he has truly no other choice and he feels bad about it? It's impossible to really know someone else's mind, all you can do is judge based on behavior.
- xj9 12y ago
  But someone stealing for drugs demonstrate a level of selfishness that does make them a criminal Perhaps you'd like to become acquainted with addiction[1] and substance dependence[2]. They are real issues that people (those who you call criminally selfish) have to deal with, (generally) alone. Due to societal attitudes towards drug use and the overly harsh treatment of users by the criminal justice system, people suffering from addiction often do not receive the medical and psychological attention they need. In a better world we'd be willing/able to provide that, but we aren't there yet. People start doing drugs for many different reasons, but some people can't handle their crack. An addict can be a threat to themselves and/or others, not because they are "bad" or "selfish", but because they are mentally ill. Addicts need rehab, not punishment. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_dependence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_dependence
  - ars 12y ago
    They were selfish to start using the drug. The dangers of drugs are known to all, they can not claim ignorance. On top of that addiction is no excuse to harm others by stealing or other activity. It might feel absolutely horrible not to have the drug, but it is not necessary in order to live. Someone who is so consumed by their addiction that they have no self control left, and they steal, is someone who is not employable. This doesn't mean they should be ignored - it's two different things. People should certainly help them, but at the same time they do not make good employees.
dredmorbius 12y ago
Discrimination in job applications is perfectly legal outside specifically protected classes in the United States, including under various state laws. The nationally protected classes are race, sex, pregnancy, religion, national origin, age, veterans status / military service, bankruptcy or bad debts, genetic information, and citizenship status (exclusive of work eligibility). Under various state laws, there may or may not be additional protections for sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, medical condition, political affiliation or activities, military status, different age limits, familial status, public assistance status, and/or use of "lawful products" (e.g., tobacco, alcohol). http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law_... Outside of these classes (or within them where the state doesn't recognize the class) it's generally legal to make hire/fire decisions with few limitations. Given "at will" employment conditions in many states, proving discrimination is generally a case of showing specific evidence that a protected class was material and specifically related to the action. That can be difficult, though not impossible.
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  Many drug convictions, outside of pure merchants (non-patients) are medical conditions and thus should be protected from discrimination.
VLM 12y ago
One way to think about interviewers ignoring current immoral and unethical laws would be to step back and consider past immoral and unethical laws. Going back a couple decades, being gay or holding the wrong political beliefs was something of a hiring problem. Given that "we" forget that technology and fads might change, but people never do, you can safely assume that if being "outed" a couple decades ago eliminated about 95% of employment opportunities, then the equivalent today will eliminate a similar percentage.

mb_72 12y ago

When I still worked for a company and not myself, and was assisting in the hiring process, I was much more inclined to overlook drug-related crimes as I felt then - as now - that these very often should be crimes in the first place. On the other hand, I remember once we had a job application from a recently-released convict (jailed for kidnapping, resisting arrest and assault of the arresting officers). The nature of his crimes, along with the high profile of his case, meant that we replied 'thanks for your interest, but you don't meet our criteria' and binned his application. We didn't want any attention from media, and our clients (many whom of which where schools) would likely not have appreciated our employment of such a person.

mb_72 12y ago
* oops, that should read "... very often SHOULD NOT be crimes...".
mb_72 12y ago
* oops, that should read "... very often SHOULD NOT be crimes...".

Kalium 12y ago

Depends on the company. They will definitely care if you lie about it.

larelogio 12y ago
Better not ask than...