Are You Cool, Man? and More

« Return to Article
  • operagost 2008-06-18 10:09
    The real WTF is assuming that a person who is concerned about drug testing is a drug user. Some people think it's intrusive. Quaint, I know; as once President Obama implements his universal health care, we'll have mandatory blood tests and invasive exams annually on pain of imprisonment.

    (premier)
  • Chris 2008-06-18 10:12
    You know... I come here to avoid the hassle of politics... thank you, operagost, for ruining even that...
  • Col. 2008-06-18 10:12
    I don't know anything about the details of Obama's healthcare plan, but as a resident of the country that started universal healthcare, I can assue you that there are no mandatory blood tests of annual medical exams.

    Anyway, yeah, Scott is an uptight asshole. So what if a sysadmin likes a bit of fun at the weekends, what business is that of anyone's?
  • Top Cod3r 2008-06-18 10:13
    Yeah, I know what you mean with these stories. One time I got called into an interview, but it was over within minutes. I think I was overqualified for the job because with every question they asked me, I knew way more than they did and even offered them advice on what changes they should make in order to get better at programming.
  • Alan 2008-06-18 10:14
    <quote>"Hey, you seem cool, man. I'm a DJ and that's my first love, and my question is, do they drug test here?"

    I just left the room and had him escorted out.</quote>

    Wow, what a rude prick. It's not as if he started shooting up right there, he just asked you an honest question.
  • Dean 2008-06-18 10:19
    The town in Iowa didn't happen to be Pella did it?
    And you didn't interview with Hans and Yuriy did you?

    This setting of this story seems very, very familiar...
  • The Undroid 2008-06-18 10:19
    I was impressed by my 11th-grade English teacher who thought facade was pronounced "Fake-aid", but the programmer definitely outdid him.

    Why didn't Scott just say Yes?

    By the way, 'nisl' isn't a word that I know of. Num scripsi nisi?
  • The Undroid 2008-06-18 10:20
    sorry, "scripsis"--and whoa, it is Latin captcha day!
  • Philippe 2008-06-18 10:21
    "Hey, you seem cool, man. I'm a DJ and that's my first love, and my question is, do they drug test here?"

    I don't live in the states, and over here (central Europe), drug tests are not administered, so please forgive me if this question seems odd:

    Other than that asking the question may be quite inappropriate, why is this considered a WTF? You said he was an honest and competent candidate. What company's business is it then if the guy recreationally uses drugs on weekends? Why not instead of escorting him off the premises give him a straight answer and say "Yes, we do test, so if you're going to work here, this part of your lifestyle would have to change. Will this be a problem?"
  • GruntProgrammer 2008-06-18 10:22
    Mother of God... I'm from a third world country but live in USA for the past 20+ years. I only WISH my English speaking skill wasn't good, otherwise I could get away with swearing at work like that Facade guy. Then again I do get away with it anyways.
  • Yo mama's 2008-06-18 10:22
    http://www.insult-o-matic.com/insults/?yourname=Scott&numinsults=5&mode=classic
  • Ie 2008-06-18 10:24
    "On the drive back to Des Moines and the flight back to Missouri, I meditated on what a waste of time and money the interview had been."

    Wow... travelling for an interview for a company that wasn't interested enough to compensate your travel expenses? TRWTF right there.
  • Blobster 2008-06-18 10:31
    "Scott"s reaction to the interviewee's question seems a bit extreme. Technically asking the question doesn't indicate that he is a drug user though from the context it appears to be likely.

    But should that affect whether or not he receives a job offer? Any effects that drug use would have had on him would have already been reflected in his abilities, which is the basis for comparison - so the presence or absence of drug use isn't relevant since it's already factored into the appraisal of ability.
  • Gieron 2008-06-18 10:32
    I pronounce it fuck-aid. But only in my head :)
  • akatherder 2008-06-18 10:33
    Ie:
    "On the drive back to Des Moines and the flight back to Missouri, I meditated on what a waste of time and money the interview had been."

    Wow... travelling for an interview for a company that wasn't interested enough to compensate your travel expenses? TRWTF right there.


    He didn't say it was a waste of HIS money.

    The Article:

    "They'd looked at my resume and where it had said "University of Missouri — Rolla 1996-2000," they only saw that I had graduated in 1996."


    Why did they think he graduated in 1996 when that was the year he started school? Did I miss something or did the interviewers just completely misread common English?
  • foo 2008-06-18 10:34
    Yeah, I know what you mean with these stories. One time I got called into an interview, but it was over within minutes. I think I was overqualified for the job because with every question they asked me, I knew way more than they did and even offered them advice on what changes they should make in order to get better at programming.


    I feel obligated to point out that you might have come off as a "know it all" instead of a mentor. Got to be careful on that one.
  • Paul 2008-06-18 10:34
    Any day you get a 2 hour gratis lunch is not a wasted day.

    Dolor--someone on the dole
  • Anon 2008-06-18 10:35
    Philippe:
    Other than that asking the question may be quite inappropriate, why is this considered a WTF? You said he was an honest and competent candidate. What company's business is it then if the guy recreationally uses drugs on weekends? Why not instead of escorting him off the premises give him a straight answer and say "Yes, we do test, so if you're going to work here, this part of your lifestyle would have to change. Will this be a problem?"


    Don't bring your newfangled "logic" and "common sense" in here, buddy! The American system is working just fine without it, thankyouverymuch.

    See, if the candidate were simply a chronic alcoholic he wouldn't be having this problem. "Drug testing" indeed. But we all know if he engages in any other recreational drugs at all, it also means he's going to be working impaired. We need not bother with actual metrics of performance to make such decisions any longer.
  • Flavio 2008-06-18 10:36
    Scott, you are the real WTF.
  • snoofle 2008-06-18 10:37
    Given that the facade guy was competant, I would have made that mispronunication the prime reason to hire him (over some other qualified candidate) - you gotta bring in entertainment on the company nickel.
  • real_aardvark 2008-06-18 10:39
    Paul:
    Any day you get a 2 hour gratis lunch is not a wasted day.

    Dolor--someone on the dole
    No, that would be "Dolores" -- people on the dole.

    Dolor would, in that context, be the Gummint.

    Quite appropriate, in fact.
  • Flatline 2008-06-18 10:44
    akatherder:
    The Article:

    "They'd looked at my resume and where it had said "University of Missouri — Rolla 1996-2000," they only saw that I had graduated in 1996."


    Why did they think he graduated in 1996 when that was the year he started school? Did I miss something or did the interviewers just completely misread common English?


    I think it was you who misread common English. As they weren't expecting students still at school they assumed that the first entry on his resume would be his current (and first) place of employment, rather than study.
  • Arlen 2008-06-18 10:45
    Oh no - "Top Cod3r" knows what he's doing.
  • Vroomfundel 2008-06-18 10:49
    Damn, I can't wait for the time when the Scotts will take over the software industry. Then I can hire drug users for pennies.

    I wonder when they will ban smokers and drinkers from working. Poor me when they target the speeders.
  • Erik 2008-06-18 10:49
    I used to be neutral on drug testing, but now I'm completely against it, at least ever since I interviewed a guy that refused to take one.

    The guy was incredibly intelligent, very engaging, and seemed like a kind of guy I would love to work with. However, the company I worked for at the time had a very strict drug testing policy: mandatory drug test when you get hired, and random tests after that (although I was never again tested in my 3.5 years with the company, so who knows how much they followed up on that).

    Anyway, the guy said he never used drugs, and he probably didn't (although he was kind of an old hippy sort, so I'm sure he had some fun in his past), but he absolutely refused to take a drug test because he felt it violated his rights. I thought the guy was so well qualified and so likely to be a great addition to the team, I begged my managers to let the drug testing thing slide, but they wouldn't budge. So, we couldn't hire him. Of course, the whole company went under about a year later, so it was probably best for him that he didn't get hired, but it still pissed me off that we couldn't hire well-qualified people because of such a draconian policy.
  • Sql Slave 2008-06-18 10:50
    The real WTF is that the original resume was improperly written. School graduation dates are given as a year and optionally a month; you do not list the dates of attendance. It is understandable that they made the mistake of thinking you were listing your experience at the school as a job you held for four years.

    It's also common practice for people to get a free lunch on the company regardless of the expense, so I understand why they took you to lunch. If you're in a hurry, grow a pair and tell them you can see it's not a good fit and you're leaving.
    --

    I had an Indian coworker a few years back who, when he meant to use the term "workaround" said "reacharound." Genius points to whomever managed to plant that in his head. On the plus side for him, all his reacharounds got a lot of attention in meetings.
  • Ben 2008-06-18 10:55
    Ie:
    "On the drive back to Des Moines and the flight back to Missouri, I meditated on what a waste of time and money the interview had been."

    Wow... travelling for an interview for a company that wasn't interested enough to compensate your travel expenses? TRWTF right there.


    He didn't say they didn't cover expenses, just that it was a waste of time/money. Not necessarily his.
  • Alan 2008-06-18 10:58
    operagost:
    Quaint, I know; as once President Obama implements his universal health care, we'll have mandatory blood tests and invasive exams annually on pain of imprisonment.


    I live in a country with free universal healthcare, and I havent seen a doctor in 12 years.
  • Charles 2008-06-18 10:58
    The fuckhead pattern. I laughed so hard I had tears...

    I'll never be able to pronounce "The Facade Pattern" the right way again. Heaven help me if it slips out at the wrong time, out loud, in a meeting ...
  • Jakob 2008-06-18 10:59
    "Hey, you seem cool, man. "

    Yeah! That'll teach him to make that mistake!
  • Larry Lard 2008-06-18 11:01
    TFA:
    "Hey, you seem cool, man"


    At least the interviewee learned one thing. He learned that not everyone who *seems* cool *is* cool.
  • Anonymous Coward 2008-06-18 11:02
    With regards to the facade story, I had the EXACT same thing happen in a software engineering class I had at university.

    It went something like this:

    "..and to do this we use the F*ckaid."

    The class looks on blankly as the prof goes on like nothing happens. I look at my friends and we're all kind of confused. Then he says it again. One of my friends cracks a comment and we all try our best not to die of laughter right there.

    A few minutes go by and we've all calmed down. He says it again and I look over my friend and we're dying of laughter again. We decide to bail on the class before embarassing ourselves any further. But we laughed all the way back to the dorms.

    Seems inappropriate now but it was quite amuusing at the time.

    Captcha: quibus
  • KR 2008-06-18 11:02
    Alan:

    I live in a country with free universal healthcare, and I havent seen a doctor in 12 years.


    Health care is free where you are? So tell me, do the doctors in your country enjoy being unpaid slaves?
  • Ytram 2008-06-18 11:02
    I've worked with an alcoholic or two in my day, and that's not really pleasant. However, I've known a few potheads/ex-heads, and I'd take them any day over an alcoholic.

    To be honest, none of it's my business until it starts affecting their work. Unfortunately, with some of the jacked up laws around employment, you pretty much have to give a drug test to new applicants if you ever want to fire them for failing at their job due to drugs.
  • Sarge! 2008-06-18 11:04
    I'm from Canada, but worked in California for 6 years. When a small company I was working for was bought out by a big one they had all the employees take drug tests.

    One of the best guy on our team did test positive. He was *really* *really* good at his job, plus I never ever even think he could be the kind of guy to use drugs. (And I worked there for 3 years with him) So needless to say, not only it wasn't an issue with his ability to do his job... if it wouldn't be for the test, you wouldn't know he used it.

    He was let go.. just because of that. When I asked him, he just plainly said, that yes... he smoked once in a while during week-ends.

    To this day (5 years later) I fail to see *ANY* use in those drug test policies... I actually think they are bad. Sure way to loose some really creative people on your team!

    Way to go US... freedom loving country ;-)

    hahaha.
  • The real wtf fool 2008-06-18 11:07
    Flavio:
    Scott, you are the real WTF.


    absolutely.
  • Andy Goth 2008-06-18 11:07
    Gieron:
    I pronounce it fuck-aid. But only in my head :)
    Remember the movie My Fellow Americans?
  • James 2008-06-18 11:08
    Given that the drug test guy was probably interviewing in America, maybe they're trying to make sure that their employees aren't going to take tens of thousands of dollars of training and experience to prison with them. I mean, if there was a way of testing if somebody goes out and steals cars on the weekend, I'm sure they'd do that too.

    Bottom line: if the dude is breaking the law and not getting caught (yet), the potential employer has a business interest in that information. Whether the employer thinks the activity in question *should* be legal or not doesn't really factor into it.
  • akatherder 2008-06-18 11:09
    Flatline:
    akatherder:
    The Article:

    "They'd looked at my resume and where it had said "University of Missouri — Rolla 1996-2000," they only saw that I had graduated in 1996."


    Why did they think he graduated in 1996 when that was the year he started school? Did I miss something or did the interviewers just completely misread common English?


    I think it was you who misread common English. As they weren't expecting students still at school they assumed that the first entry on his resume would be his current (and first) place of employment, rather than study.


    That doesn't make much sense. The article only calls out the graduation date of 1996 (i.e. it doesn't make clear that the interviewers mistook his school experience for work). We have take these items for granted for the story to be clear:

    1. The resume includes only work experience and no education and the interviewers don't care if a resume doesn't list education.
    2. The title above his "education" section is ambiguous enough that it isn't clear whether it is school or work experience.
    3. All of the information included in his schooling can be understood as work-related at a job.
  • ryan 2008-06-18 11:09
    KR:
    Alan:

    I live in a country with free universal healthcare, and I havent seen a doctor in 12 years.


    Health care is free where you are? So tell me, do the doctors in your country enjoy being unpaid slaves?


    DURRR HURRR

    pretending not to understand common English phrases is not an argument. It's also not funny
  • Wayne 2008-06-18 11:10
    The real WTF is why Scott had the potential sysadmin escorted out. ALL Linus sysadmins are on drugs. you have to just to work on them.

    Same way that Windows admins are driven to drink.
  • Grovesy 2008-06-18 11:13
    Alan:
    operagost:
    Quaint, I know; as once President Obama implements his universal health care, we'll have mandatory blood tests and invasive exams annually on pain of imprisonment.


    I live in a country with free universal healthcare, and I havent seen a doctor in 12 years.


    Me neither, other than one time I had to run into the local surgery to say 'hey I've an ear infection', was prescribed some antibiotics and then sent packing... all for the cost of £6 for the prescription. The only 'invasive' exams I've ever had to go through were when I left a company which gave me free private medical cover and I thought about extending the policy personally... They wanted an exorbitant amount of cash because I once caught pneumonia 10 years previously
  • distineo 2008-06-18 11:13
    Seems like the drug testing issue is generating the most comments. What a lot of people fail to realize is that companies drug test for a reason. Liability.

    Let's say you are a functional drug user. By which I mean that most people wouldn't be able to tell if you were using or not. If it comes to pass that while performing your job duties you make a mistake that caused harm to yourself or others, or damage to property, that makes the company extremely vulnerable to lawsuits. Possibly even to criminal liability depending on the extent of damage caused.
  • Rboy 2008-06-18 11:16
    Forget the drug test, have you ever hired anyone who DJ'd? Even worse, one that DJ'ing is their first love? Expect someone to punch in every day, and not do a darn thing...

    But who puts an end date to their schooling when they are STILL IN SCHOOL? The correct way denote that is 'Current', and add in an expected graduation date.
  • The gang of four 2008-06-18 11:18
    Ya know I think the f*ckhead pattern is a much more apt name for the facade pattern.

    If somebody starts talking abaout the facade pattern as if it's an amazing architectural design they're using rather than just a wrapper you know they are a f*ckhead.

    Also if it's not completely obvious to you and needs explaining, you're a f*ckhead.
  • SuperousOxide 2008-06-18 11:21
    The Undroid:

    By the way, 'nisl' isn't a word that I know of. Num scripsi nisi?


    'Bloink' isn't a word either. What does this have to do with the story? Are you just typing in random letters to see if you get a real word?
  • ObiWayneKenobi 2008-06-18 11:23
    Wow this Scott character sounds like a real d-bag. And FWIW I'm not a drug user, but I think it should be legalized. Everyone knows that "Big Tobacco" pays the government to keep marijuana illegal, when it's been proven that A) Marijuana isn't more harmful than cigarettes, in fact it's probably less so since marijuana doesn't have POISONS in it like cigarettes, and B) That whole "gateway drug" stuff is a load of bullshit.
  • Comfortably Numb 2008-06-18 11:25
    snoofle:
    you gotta bring in entertainment on the company nickel.

    I guess, if you're a dick. The real WTF is that people like you and S.L. think that it's fun to mock people when they make a simple mistake.
  • Rboy 2008-06-18 11:26
    "Everyone knows that "Big Tobacco" pays the government to keep marijuana illegal"

    Do They?
  • mtu 2008-06-18 11:28
    The European Court of Justice and the Federal Labor Court of Germany have ruled it unlawful in a job interview to ask the question of wether or not a woman is planning to get pregnant in the future or is pregnant at the time the interview takes place, or to later challenge the employment contract on the grounds of these facts.

    Their reasons are that such a question both violates the principle of the equal treatment of the sexes and constitutes an unjustifiable intrusion into a woman's privacy.

    Of course an employer has the greatest business interest in knowing this, but it is seen as immoral for him to ask with the intention of basing his decision about an employment on it.

    I feel lucky to live here.
  • SQB 2008-06-18 11:30
    "I need you cool. Are you cool?"
  • Cheese 2008-06-18 11:33
    Sql Slave:
    --
    I had an Indian coworker a few years back who, when he meant to use the term "workaround" said "reacharound." Genius points to whomever managed to plant that in his head. On the plus side for him, all his reacharounds got a lot of attention in meetings.


    I had an Indian coworker a few years ago who, when trying to say "I made a mistake on [system] and my boss chewed me out" actually said "I made a mistake on [system] and my boss ate me out". We all held in our laughter pretty well but the 20-something young lady programmer in the group turned an incredible shade of red.
  • taylonr 2008-06-18 11:34
    Honestly can't remember the guys names, but yeah, Pella. Loved the town. Were you one of the interviewers?

  • brazzy 2008-06-18 11:35
    KR:
    Alan:

    I live in a country with free universal healthcare, and I havent seen a doctor in 12 years.


    Health care is free where you are? So tell me, do the doctors in your country enjoy being unpaid slaves?

    On the chance that this is a question born out of ignorance rather than sarcasm: the doctors are of course paid, basically by the government using tax money - the details vary between countries.

    Feel free now to remark how this is a pinko communist abomination that can only result in the total destruction of a country by the angered Free Market gods.
  • mathew 2008-06-18 11:36
    Anyone who thinks drug testing is a good idea, for liability reasons or otherwise, should read the ACLU info on the subject.

    http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/testing/10842res20021021.html
  • taylonr 2008-06-18 11:36
    Ie:
    "On the drive back to Des Moines and the flight back to Missouri, I meditated on what a waste of time and money the interview had been."

    Wow... travelling for an interview for a company that wasn't interested enough to compensate your travel expenses? TRWTF right there.


    Let me clarify, the waste of money was theirs. I wasted time (2 days of flying & driving.) They wasted money for a short notice (< 1 week) plane ticket, rental car, hotel, meals for me to come in.


    Also, as for the dates 1996-2000 let me say this. I talked to my school's career placement office (or whatever it was called). They said, if you have graduated, simply state the year (e.g. 2000). Or If you are still in class, list the start date and the expected end date. In this case 1996-2000. Much like you would on a job.

    It shouldn't have been confused for employment because it was very clearly under the "Education" label. However, what I suspect happened is that the reviewer saw "UMR - 1996" and stopped reading, assuming I had finished in 1996. Perhaps the WTF is how my school told me to put my dates down :)



    Addendum (2008-06-18 11:44):
    Or perhaps the recruiter is to blame (as I like to think) because she probably swore up and down I had graduated (you know how they are).
  • gp 2008-06-18 11:40
    I think that TRWTF of the first story is "Scott" itself. If the candidate was right for the job, and asked only a question (and said he's a DJ, if that matters) why dump him immediately? F*ck that.

  • Scotty 2008-06-18 11:44
    Scott is a FACADE
  • SQB 2008-06-18 11:46
    If "God is a DJ", does that mean that God uses drugs?
  • Russ 2008-06-18 11:46
    Alan:
    operagost:
    Quaint, I know; as once President Obama implements his universal health care, we'll have mandatory blood tests and invasive exams annually on pain of imprisonment.


    I live in a country with free universal healthcare, and I havent seen a doctor in 12 years.


    Still on the waiting list, huh?
  • lonewolf 2008-06-18 11:50
    ryan:
    KR:
    Alan:

    I live in a country with free universal healthcare, and I havent seen a doctor in 12 years.


    Health care is free where you are? So tell me, do the doctors in your country enjoy being unpaid slaves?


    DURRR HURRR

    pretending not to understand common English phrases is not an argument. It's also not funny


    It's not common phrase, it's f***ing common lie. What's a differance if you pay for it with you own money, you own insurance, or you will let a bunch of crooks known as goverment pay for you!?

    </rant>
  • taylonr 2008-06-18 11:52
    lonewolf:
    ryan:
    KR:
    Alan:

    I live in a country with free universal healthcare, and I havent seen a doctor in 12 years.


    Health care is free where you are? So tell me, do the doctors in your country enjoy being unpaid slaves?


    DURRR HURRR

    pretending not to understand common English phrases is not an argument. It's also not funny


    It's not common phrase, it's f***ing common lie. What's a differance if you pay for it with you own money, you own insurance, or you will let a bunch of crooks known as goverment pay for you!?

    </rant>


    QFT -- of course, the government employees all pay for that out of their own pockets right? WHAT? They use my tax dollars? That ain't freaking free
  • Kiss me I'm Polish 2008-06-18 11:54
    Mandatory drug tests are an insult and a potential violation of privacy.
    What if the tests are abused to check for alcohol, HIV, sexually transmitted deseases, cancer, or whatever? Companies are known to fire people before they get really ill to avoid paying them.
    I don't do drugs, but I'd refuse a drug test.
  • German 2008-06-18 11:55
    ryan:
    KR:

    Health care is free where you are? So tell me, do the doctors in your country enjoy being unpaid slaves?


    DURRR HURRR

    pretending not to understand common English phrases is not an argument. It's also not funny


    FWIW, I laughed my a** off with the unpaid slaves comment.
  • geordie 2008-06-18 11:56
    Right. Best to escort him off the premises _immediately_, before the DA's office get's wind of things.
  • Russ 2008-06-18 11:57
    taylonr:
    lonewolf:
    ryan:
    KR:
    Alan:

    I live in a country with free universal healthcare, and I havent seen a doctor in 12 years.


    Health care is free where you are? So tell me, do the doctors in your country enjoy being unpaid slaves?


    DURRR HURRR

    pretending not to understand common English phrases is not an argument. It's also not funny


    It's not common phrase, it's f***ing common lie. What's a differance if you pay for it with you own money, you own insurance, or you will let a bunch of crooks known as goverment pay for you!?

    </rant>


    QFT -- of course, the government employees all pay for that out of their own pockets right? WHAT? They use my tax dollars? That ain't freaking free


    There must be a better way to regulate these things though. There is no way that healthcare should cost as much as it does. Drugs are many times more expensive in the US then they are in other countries because insurance companies must make sure that people can't afford to pay for their medical care out of pocket. This keeps everyone paying their insurance premiums and make insurance companies billions and billions of dollars.

    It also makes doctors rich and a lot of other companies in the medical field.

    I'm not claiming that I have a solution to this, and the government is probably going to fuck it up too, but the way it is now is not right, is all I'm saying.
  • geordie 2008-06-18 12:01
    distineo:
    Seems like the drug testing issue is generating the most comments. What a lot of people fail to realize is that companies drug test for a reason. Liability.

    Let's say you are a functional drug user. By which I mean that most people wouldn't be able to tell if you were using or not. If it comes to pass that while performing your job duties you make a mistake that caused harm to yourself or others, or damage to property, that makes the company extremely vulnerable to lawsuits. Possibly even to criminal liability depending on the extent of damage caused.


    Right. Best to escort him off the premises _immediately_, before the DA's office get's wind of things.
  • Havstein 2008-06-18 12:01
    Scott is cool. Who would want to work with a DJ?
  • WebDevGuy 2008-06-18 12:04
    I only program in Python when I'm high...which is one of the main reasons I love Python, actually: It's intuitive. Nothing worse than working on a PHP project after smoking: 50% or more of your bugs are for missing semicolons, missing $ before variables, etc. etc.
  • JOhnny Bee Goode 2008-06-18 12:07
    Heck yeah dude, He KNOWS he is good and likes it.

    JT
    http://www.ULtimate-Anonymity.com
  • WebDevGuy 2008-06-18 12:08
    WebDevGuy:
    I only program in Python when I'm high...which is one of the main reasons I love Python, actually: It's intuitive. Nothing worse than working on a PHP project after smoking: 50% or more of your bugs are for missing semicolons, missing $ before variables, etc. etc.

    But note that this is on my free time, for spare projects. I'd never come to work under the influence of anything; I take my development too seriously to even consider that. Key word here is "recreational" use.
  • Stang 2008-06-18 12:09
    rboy:
    Everyone knows that "Big Tobacco" pays the government to keep marijuana illegal

    Do They?

    Of course they don't. It's the alcohol industry (Anheiser-Busch, I'm looking at you) that pays to keep marajuana illegal.
  • lonewolf 2008-06-18 12:11
    Russ:
    the government is probably going to fuck it up too, but the way it is now is not right, is all I'm saying.


    Trust me they're gonna fuck it..
    I live in a country with public healthcare managed by goverment agencies, and they are so inefficent that people are getting private healthcare anyway and end up paying twice... LOL

    Hail EU BTW!
  • Rootbeer 2008-06-18 12:13
    <i>The real WTF is that the original resume was improperly written.</i>

    Yeah? Which ISO standard is it that defines proper formatting for a resume?

    The submitter's use of "1996-2000" should not have been a major barrier to comprehension when read by any person fluent in English. Especially if, as is the case every resume I've ever read, there are separate sections of the document for "Education" and "Work Experience".
  • real_aardvark 2008-06-18 12:14
    WebDevGuy:
    I only program in Python when I'm high...which is one of the main reasons I love Python, actually: It's intuitive. Nothing worse than working on a PHP project after smoking: 50% or more of your bugs are for missing semicolons, missing $ before variables, etc. etc.
    Tabs???
  • Huf Lungdung 2008-06-18 12:15
    I'm surprised no one brought this up before...

    TRWTF is ditching your classes for that long, just to attend job interviews. That isn't to say landing an interview isn't important, but IMO it isn't worth it to risk low or failing grades in your classes.
  • WebDevGuy 2008-06-18 12:15
    Stang:
    rboy:
    Everyone knows that "Big Tobacco" pays the government to keep marijuana illegal

    Do They?

    Of course they don't. It's the alcohol industry (Anheiser-Busch, I'm looking at you) that pays to keep marajuana illegal.

    And they're very good at marketing. I know many people who think of smokers as "losers" because we don't start fights and make asses of ourselves (or crash nearly as many cars) as they do when enjoying their substance of choice. The alcohol industry is very interested in casting smokers as outcasts. By keeping the substance illegal, it also puts users into a subculture that is dominated by the more "eccentric types" as far as image goes. Ordinary smokers who like the occasional joint are looked at very differently from someone who likes a couple beers after work.
  • WebDevGuy 2008-06-18 12:16
    real_aardvark:
    WebDevGuy:
    I only program in Python when I'm high...which is one of the main reasons I love Python, actually: It's intuitive. Nothing worse than working on a PHP project after smoking: 50% or more of your bugs are for missing semicolons, missing $ before variables, etc. etc.
    Tabs???

    Auto-indentation! Vim, TextMate, Emacs, they all do it.
  • snoofle 2008-06-18 12:17
    Comfortably Numb:
    snoofle:
    you gotta bring in entertainment on the company nickel.

    I guess, if you're a dick. The real WTF is that people like you and S.L. think that it's fun to mock people when they make a simple mistake.

    There's a big difference between laughing at and laughing with... that candidate didn't seem offended, and (just guessing) seems like someone I'd like to work with as he's got a good sense of humor.

    Somewhat off topic on the drug test thing... About 15 years ago, a friend of mine, who never used drugs, accepted a job offer, resigned, and went to take the drug test, which came back positive. The offer was rescinded. He was caught between a rock and a hard place. He tracked it down: some clerk punched in the wrong social security number (his) for someone elses test. It took a few weeks, but the offer was subsequently reinstated and he was hired. I learned then and there to NEVER resign until AFTER all the tests/investigations come back clean - even if you have nothing to hide!


    Addendum (2008-06-18 12:24):
    In 25 years of working at places with mandatory drug testing, not one has ever done a "subsequent" test...
  • Mark 2008-06-18 12:17
    Back in the late 90s when I had a took a job that *promised* on the paerwork that every employee would be drug tested every six months. I worked there for eighteen months and while I was aware of folks in other departments being tested, not one person from IT was (to my knowledge) tested in all that time.

    I figured it was something akin to 'don't ask, don't tell' in the face of a tough market for finding talent.
  • Rootbeer 2008-06-18 12:20
    "What's a differance if you pay for it with you own money, you own insurance, or you will let a bunch of crooks known as goverment pay for you!?"

    The difference is in the amount you pay.

    A private insurer representing 100,000 patients could get more favorable pricing from healthcare providers than a single individual representing himself could.

    A government representing 100,000,000 patients could get even more favorable pricing from healthcare providers than a private insurer could.
  • andrewbadera 2008-06-18 12:21
    Top Cod3r:
    Yeah, I know what you mean with these stories. One time I got called into an interview, but it was over within minutes. I think I was overqualified for the job because with every question they asked me, I knew way more than they did and even offered them advice on what changes they should make in order to get better at programming.


    Wait, are you the technically-apt gentleman they decided not to offer, right before I came on-board, because you were a know-it-all douche that no one felt was a friendly fit for the team?
  • NotADrugUser 2008-06-18 12:21
    Scott is a dick. I refuse to work anywhere that thinks it has the right to own my private life. I haven't used drugs, but I think it is my right to do what I want outside of the office, as long as it does not reflect on my employer. And besides, drug testing is generally considered borderline illegal in many countries.

    I have, with the full support of my management, refused to consult with companies that drug test. They can go screw themselves.
  • real_aardvark 2008-06-18 12:22
    Rboy:
    Forget the drug test, have you ever hired anyone who DJ'd? Even worse, one that DJ'ing is their first love? Expect someone to punch in every day, and not do a darn thing...

    But who puts an end date to their schooling when they are STILL IN SCHOOL? The correct way denote that is 'Current', and add in an expected graduation date.
    Well, we did once hire a guy who OJ'd.

    We hired him on the basis that he lived a healthy, fruit lovin', pop-that-vita-pill sort of life.

    We had to let him go when we checked his downloads and realised that he was just another n00b who enjoyed sawing the head off his ex-wife's new boyfriend, though.
  • me 2008-06-18 12:25
    Top Cod3r:
    Yeah, I know what you mean with these stories. One time I got called into an interview, but it was over within minutes. I think I was overqualified for the job because with every question they asked me, I knew way more than they did and even offered them advice on what changes they should make in order to get better at programming.


    Sorry to break the news, but they didn't want you not because you were overqualified, but because you acted like a prick.
  • Ozymandias 2008-06-18 12:25
    Col.:

    Anyway, yeah, Scott is an uptight asshole. So what if a sysadmin likes a bit of fun at the weekends, what business is that of anyone's?


    Every sysadmin job I have ever held has had a degree of 'on call' to it. To top it off, it is not in an employers best interest to have employees arrested and unable to work.
  • andrewbadera 2008-06-18 12:25
    WebDevGuy:
    I only program in Python when I'm high...which is one of the main reasons I love Python, actually: It's intuitive. Nothing worse than working on a PHP project after smoking: 50% or more of your bugs are for missing semicolons, missing $ before variables, etc. etc.


    Drug use aside, perhaps you're simply a sloppy, lazy facade.
  • Stace 2008-06-18 12:26
    I have tattoo sleeves and happened to be wearing a short-sleeved shirt


    I died a little inside.

    And then I laughed. And I kept laughing.

    Tattoo sleeves are the ponytail hats of the '00s.
  • Bob from Toronto 2008-06-18 12:26
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    Wow this Scott character sounds like a real d-bag. And FWIW I'm not a drug user, but I think it should be legalized. Everyone knows that "Big Tobacco" pays the government to keep marijuana illegal, when it's been proven that A) Marijuana isn't more harmful than cigarettes, in fact it's probably less so since marijuana doesn't have POISONS in it like cigarettes, and B) That whole "gateway drug" stuff is a load of bullshit.


    Marijuana isn't more harmful cigarettes? We need to re-define harmful. Sure, no poisons, etc... but for a bunch of geeks who are basically paid for their mind, what about mental heath? Marijuana has been shown to increase your risk for psychosis. Maybe it doesn't kill you, but it sure does disable you. It must be the mental institutions paying to keep marijuana illegal then, right?

    http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070727/marijuana_psychosis_070727/20070727/
  • snoofle 2008-06-18 12:26
    real_aardvark:
    Rboy:
    Forget the drug test, have you ever hired anyone who DJ'd? Even worse, one that DJ'ing is their first love? Expect someone to punch in every day, and not do a darn thing...

    But who puts an end date to their schooling when they are STILL IN SCHOOL? The correct way denote that is 'Current', and add in an expected graduation date.
    Well, we did once hire a guy who OJ'd.

    We hired him on the basis that he lived a healthy, fruit lovin', pop-that-vita-pill sort of life.

    We had to let him go when we checked his downloads and realised that he was just another n00b who enjoyed sawing the head off his ex-wife's new boyfriend, though.

    Pun-tastic!
  • cellocgw 2008-06-18 12:27
    No, the real WTF is that we allow ourselves to be drug-tested for any job not involving the health and safety of others (e.g. airline pilot).
    Leaving aside the idiocy of making so many drugs illegal in the first place, it's not a corporation's damn job to do anti-drug police work.

    And,yes, I think the NFL/MLB/NBA/etc's policies about recreational drug testing is stupid and should be deep-sixed.
  • andrewbadera 2008-06-18 12:29
    Bob from Toronto:
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    Wow this Scott character sounds like a real d-bag. And FWIW I'm not a drug user, but I think it should be legalized. Everyone knows that "Big Tobacco" pays the government to keep marijuana illegal, when it's been proven that A) Marijuana isn't more harmful than cigarettes, in fact it's probably less so since marijuana doesn't have POISONS in it like cigarettes, and B) That whole "gateway drug" stuff is a load of bullshit.


    Marijuana isn't more harmful cigarettes? We need to re-define harmful. Sure, no poisons, etc... but for a bunch of geeks who are basically paid for their mind, what about mental heath? Marijuana has been shown to increase your risk for psychosis. Maybe it doesn't kill you, but it sure does disable you. It must be the mental institutions paying to keep marijuana illegal then, right?

    http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070727/marijuana_psychosis_070727/20070727/


    Marijuana exposed underlying psychoses just like alcohol does. Next?
  • real_aardvark 2008-06-18 12:29
    WebDevGuy:
    real_aardvark:
    WebDevGuy:
    I only program in Python when I'm high...which is one of the main reasons I love Python, actually: It's intuitive. Nothing worse than working on a PHP project after smoking: 50% or more of your bugs are for missing semicolons, missing $ before variables, etc. etc.
    Tabs???

    Auto-indentation! Vim, TextMate, Emacs, they all do it.
    Clearly you haven't seen Python code like I've seen Python code. (Unless we were both smokin', naturally.)

    When you do, I can send you the (Python) code to fix it. For a small fee, of course.

    Not that it matters, but I'm a huge fan of Python. As long as I can get rid of the GIL, of course.
  • Ozymandias 2008-06-18 12:29
    Blobster:
    so the presence or absence of drug use isn't relevant since it's already factored into the appraisal of ability.


    Incorrect. The presence of drug use implies poor decision making skills, an inability to follow the rules, and a criminal propensity that may not have come out otherwise.
  • Ozymandias 2008-06-18 12:31
    Flatline:
    akatherder:
    The Article:

    "They'd looked at my resume and where it had said "University of Missouri — Rolla 1996-2000," they only saw that I had graduated in 1996."


    Why did they think he graduated in 1996 when that was the year he started school? Did I miss something or did the interviewers just completely misread common English?


    I think it was you who misread common English. As they weren't expecting students still at school they assumed that the first entry on his resume would be his current (and first) place of employment, rather than study.


    In other words, the interviewie fails at writing a decent resume.
  • taylonr 2008-06-18 12:31
    Huf Lungdung:
    I'm surprised no one brought this up before...

    TRWTF is ditching your classes for that long, just to attend job interviews. That isn't to say landing an interview isn't important, but IMO it isn't worth it to risk low or failing grades in your classes.


    I wasn't one of those guys who sweated whether I'd graduate or not. I knew going in to finals I'd pass every class I had. The only question was, would I do good enough to graduate with honors? Ended up falling 1 class short, but it didn't really matter because I had already got a job.

    Oh, and I'd say if taken over the course of a semester, I'd probably have "average" attendance. Especially at a university. Just turns out I used all my sick days at once :)
  • andrewbadera 2008-06-18 12:32
    Ozymandias:
    Blobster:
    so the presence or absence of drug use isn't relevant since it's already factored into the appraisal of ability.


    Incorrect. The presence of drug use implies poor decision making skills, an inability to follow the rules, and a criminal propensity that may not have come out otherwise.


    One might think work product, life achievement and ability to demonstrate competency would be a higher value metric than your prejudices. Is alcoholism OK in a hire, since alcohol is legal?
  • Ozymandias 2008-06-18 12:34
    Sql Slave:
    The real WTF is that the original resume was improperly written. School graduation dates are given as a year and optionally a month; you do not list the dates of attendance. It is understandable that they made the mistake of thinking you were listing your experience at the school as a job you held for four years.


    Well, that date thing, and the whole "EDUCATION" and "EMPLOYMENT" sections being in different locations. They are two VERY different things and do NOT get mixed.
  • real_aardvark 2008-06-18 12:34
    Ozymandias:
    Blobster:
    so the presence or absence of drug use isn't relevant since it's already factored into the appraisal of ability.


    Incorrect. The presence of drug use implies poor decision making skills, an inability to follow the rules, and a criminal propensity that may not have come out otherwise.
    Very possibly; yes; and no.

    Your problem with the (estimated) 60% of SysAdmins who use recreational drugs to make their pitiful little lives a bit less painful, again?
  • Vlad Patryshev 2008-06-18 12:36
    Yes, this is the way we Russian say it (at least at times; I personally find it hard to respect someone who does not know how to pronounce "façade")... sorry about that. Now let's focus on our erratic spreadsheet (which, with Russian accent, sounds like "f*ck us on our erotic spreadsh*t")...

    "excetera", as so many software engineers use to say.
  • Aloisius 2008-06-18 12:36
    Being also a non-native english speaker, until recently I always thought that fuck-aid was the proper pronunciation. The problem is that english speakers are lazy when borrowing words from other languages. Before learning some french, and finding out that facade was just a lazy way of writing façade, I would never have guessed the correct pronunciation.

    Fac you, damn anglo-saxons!
  • Ozymandias 2008-06-18 12:36
    brazzy:
    KR:


    Health care is free where you are? So tell me, do the doctors in your country enjoy being unpaid slaves?

    On the chance that this is a question born out of ignorance rather than sarcasm: the doctors are of course paid, basically by the government using tax money - the details vary between countries.


    So in other words your health care is in no way free then, right?
  • Random832 2008-06-18 12:37
    Ytram:

    To be honest, none of it's my business until it starts affecting their work. Unfortunately, with some of the jacked up laws around employment, you pretty much have to give a drug test to new applicants if you ever want to fire them for failing at their job due to drugs.


    Are you required to continue employing someone who fails at their job for reasons other than drugs?
  • BlackSheep 2008-06-18 12:39
    Russ:
    There must be a better way to regulate these things though. There is no way that healthcare should cost as much as it does.


    Are you sure the problem in the USA is too little regulation in the health services? ;)
    Coming from a country with "universal" health care (Portugal), I can tell you that unless you're a young guy, you'll have to wait a long time for anything, especially more complicated procedures. Older people have more potential consequences and need more assistance after surgery and etc so doctors push you down the queue and try to pass you to some other doctor with less time of service.
    And you may not pay much as user fees, but it isn't free either, you're paying it in taxes all over the place, and in social problems like persistence high unemployment.
  • Ozymandias 2008-06-18 12:40
    German:
    ryan:
    KR:

    Health care is free where you are? So tell me, do the doctors in your country enjoy being unpaid slaves?


    DURRR HURRR

    pretending not to understand common English phrases is not an argument. It's also not funny


    FWIW, I laughed my a** off with the unpaid slaves comment.


    I laughed my a** off at the fact that someone actually thought something was free since they paid for it with their left hand (taxes) rather than their right (money or insurance).
  • Zonkers 2008-06-18 12:42
    Wayne:
    The real WTF is why Scott had the potential sysadmin escorted out. ALL Linus sysadmins are on drugs. you have to just to work on them.

    Same way that Windows admins are driven to drink.

    LinuS sysadmins. Not a pretty picture, no wonder they are on drugs.
  • Schnapple 2008-06-18 12:43
    mtu:
    The European Court of Justice and the Federal Labor Court of Germany have ruled it unlawful in a job interview to ask the question of wether or not a woman is planning to get pregnant in the future or is pregnant at the time the interview takes place, or to later challenge the employment contract on the grounds of these facts.

    Their reasons are that such a question both violates the principle of the equal treatment of the sexes and constitutes an unjustifiable intrusion into a woman's privacy.

    Of course an employer has the greatest business interest in knowing this, but it is seen as immoral for him to ask with the intention of basing his decision about an employment on it.


    It's worth pointing out that getting pregnant is legal, whereas most of the activities involved with drug addition (possession, procurement) are not.
  • SuperousOxide 2008-06-18 12:46
    Stang:

    Of course they don't. It's the alcohol industry (Anheiser-Busch, I'm looking at you) that pays to keep marajuana illegal.


    I thought it was the drug lords who enjoy the elevated prices the war on drugs creates.
  • Ozymandias 2008-06-18 12:47
    andrewbadera:
    Ozymandias:
    Blobster:
    so the presence or absence of drug use isn't relevant since it's already factored into the appraisal of ability.


    Incorrect. The presence of drug use implies poor decision making skills, an inability to follow the rules, and a criminal propensity that may not have come out otherwise.


    One might think work product, life achievement and ability to demonstrate competency would be a higher value metric than your prejudices. Is alcoholism OK in a hire, since alcohol is legal?


    I never said it was a do-not-hire condition, I simply stated that it was relevant. If they are a good enough *INSERT JOB ROLE HERE* an employer may wish to hire them and accommodate them. I know at my last few jobs, it would be enough not to get hired, as we were on call 24 hours a day for 2 weeks at a pop, and being drunk or hung over would prohibit you from reacting in a timely manner.

    That said, the boss kept the work fridge stocked with beer for us.
  • SRC 2008-06-18 12:47
    The facade story reminds me of a microeconomics course I had that was taught by a Kenyan. He spent the first 10 minutes of class explaining that microeconomics is the economics of assholes, and how each and every one of us was an asshole.

    Finally, he wrote it on the blackboard: Household.
  • FredSaw 2008-06-18 12:47
    operagost:
    ...once President Obama implements his universal health care, we'll have mandatory blood tests and invasive exams annually on pain of imprisonment.
    Hmm... well, I suppose that still beats being kidnapped, quietly whisked away to a prison in a foreign country, and subjected to torture with no formal charges, legal counsel, or hope of trial.
  • Stephen E. Baker 2008-06-18 12:48
    Health care is free where you are? So tell me, do the doctors in your country enjoy being unpaid slaves?


    No, the Doctors are paid quite well by the government, as well as through providing services which are not covered under universal healthcare, and by municipal gifts to persuade them to work there.

    Just because your money comes from everyone's taxes instead of insurance companies and unfortunate people without insurance when someone gets sick doesn't mean you are not paid, or paid well.
  • nilp 2008-06-18 12:48
    foo:
    Yeah, I know what you mean with these stories. One time I got called into an interview, but it was over within minutes. I think I was overqualified for the job because with every question they asked me, I knew way more than they did and even offered them advice on what changes they should make in order to get better at programming.


    I feel obligated to point out that you might have come off as a "know it all" instead of a mentor. Got to be careful on that one.


    Yeah, a couple of years ago, we got a highly recommended engineer transferred into our team (doing a WAP application). In his first meeting with us (the engineers and UI designer) he told us that although he had no experience with mobile applications he was going to shake things up, fix the UI design, show us how get everything working much better than it was already.

    In unspoken agreement within the original team, that was his fate sealed. It may have been childish - ok, it was childish - but he was totally frozen out after that.

    It turned out he wasn't that great an engineer anyway - his recommendation may have been inflated to get rid of him from his last team (yes, like in that episode of ST:TNG).
  • Ozymandias 2008-06-18 12:48
    real_aardvark:
    Ozymandias:
    Blobster:
    so the presence or absence of drug use isn't relevant since it's already factored into the appraisal of ability.


    Incorrect. The presence of drug use implies poor decision making skills, an inability to follow the rules, and a criminal propensity that may not have come out otherwise.
    Very possibly; yes; and no.

    Your problem with the (estimated) 60% of SysAdmins who use recreational drugs to make their pitiful little lives a bit less painful, again?


    I am not saying I have a problem with drug use, I am simply saying it is a relevant factor, and does imply additional things about the person -- contrary to the person I quoted's opinion.
  • Ozymandias 2008-06-18 12:51
    Stephen E. Baker:


    No, the Doctors are paid quite well by the government, as well as through providing services which are not covered under universal healthcare, and by municipal gifts to persuade them to work there.

    Just because your money comes from everyone's taxes instead of insurance companies and unfortunate people without insurance when someone gets sick doesn't mean you are not paid, or paid well.


    Just because you pay for it with taxes doesn't mean it is free.
  • Flash 2008-06-18 12:52
    I'm against drug use (yep, alcohol, too). I'm also against drug testing with the following exceptions:

    * Lives are on the line (airline pilot, railroad engineer)
    * Poor job performance or other reasonable cause to suspect drug use

    The case presented here is an interesting borderline case. I think that candidate gave me probable cause to suspect illegal drug use. I'd test that guy, and I would hire him only if he passed the test.

    If someone is doing just fine in a job and there's no cause for suspecting illegal drug use, then there's no need for me as an employer to break trust with the employee and invade that person's privacy. I made that my company's policy. (Even though one of our lawyers recommended blanket drug testing when we were forming the company.)
  • savar 2008-06-18 12:52
    Philippe:

    Other than that asking the question may be quite inappropriate, why is this considered a WTF? You said he was an honest and competent candidate. What company's business is it then if the guy recreationally uses drugs on weekends? Why not instead of escorting him off the premises give him a straight answer and say "Yes, we do test, so if you're going to work here, this part of your lifestyle would have to change. Will this be a problem?"


    The US has a different attitude towards drugs. Although I agree with you that it could be irrelevant to what he's actually *doing*, most US managers would not see it that way. Even if they liked to experiment in college themselves.
  • SRC 2008-06-18 12:54
    Regarding the drug question, I think the interviewee screwed up there. While I don't believe that "recreational" drug use is the same as drug abuse, by asking the question he implied that he used drugs, and thus would fail any drug test.

    I see it as similar to an interviewee asking "Are we alowed to have a drink at lunch?" - it just raises too many questions about why you would feel the need to ask that question. Do you regularly get plowed at lunch? Can you not go a whole day without a drink?

    Likewise with the drug testing. At the very least, can't the guy clean up long enough to get the job?
  • brazzy 2008-06-18 12:54
    WebDevGuy:
    real_aardvark:
    WebDevGuy:
    I only program in Python when I'm high...which is one of the main reasons I love Python, actually: It's intuitive. Nothing worse than working on a PHP project after smoking: 50% or more of your bugs are for missing semicolons, missing $ before variables, etc. etc.
    Tabs???

    Auto-indentation! Vim, TextMate, Emacs, they all do it.

    I kinda doubt that they're able to write your programs for you. Which they'd basically have to be able to do in order to generate or fix mistakes in syntactically significant Python whitespace.
  • SuperousOxide 2008-06-18 12:55
    Flash:
    I'm against drug use (yep, alcohol, too). I'm also against drug testing with the following exceptions:

    * Lives are on the line (airline pilot, railroad engineer)
    * Poor job performance or other reasonable cause to suspect drug use


    Poor job performance is ok if they're not using drugs?
  • Schnapple 2008-06-18 12:56
    OK, everyone's bagging on the first story but I think everyone is missing the point.

    - At no point was it ever answered if there was going to be a drug test. So for all the debate about whether or not drug tests are legal is besides the point.

    - Whether or not it is true, the interviewee basically just admitted that he is a drug user, if not an addict. The company probably has a policy against drug users. You may not like it but they can have it. Seeing as how he was barely making it to a short list anyway I don't think it's unreasonable to disqualify him based off of that. People have been disqualified in the interview because their suits don't look good or because they didn't shake the hand properly. I know a lot of geeks would prefer that their skillset take them all the way and forget everything else but that's not how the real world works.

    - More to the point, the "are you cool" comment basically implied that the interviewer was also a drug user, or at least hung in circles where drug use was accepted and tolerated, all based off of a visible tattoo. This is insanely stupid. It would be like seeing that your female interviewer has a cross necklace and getting into a discussion about religion. It would be like asking your interviewer, who is black, how "proud he was of his people now that Barack is the nominee". It's stupid, and part of the reason this person was escorted out.
  • Ozymandias 2008-06-18 12:56
    Flash:
    I'm against drug use (yep, alcohol, too). I'm also against drug testing with the following exceptions:

    * Lives are on the line (airline pilot, railroad engineer)
    * Poor job performance or other reasonable cause to suspect drug use

    The case presented here is an interesting borderline case. I think that candidate gave me probable cause to suspect illegal drug use. I'd test that guy, and I would hire him only if he passed the test.

    If someone is doing just fine in a job and there's no cause for suspecting illegal drug use, then there's no need for me as an employer to break trust with the employee and invade that person's privacy. I made that my company's policy. (Even though one of our lawyers recommended blanket drug testing when we were forming the company.)


    The thing is, in the US, you can't ask someone to take a drug test based on performance. That is considered discriminatory, possibly harrassment, and they can sue for slander for the implications.

    Our legal system is all kinds of messed up.

    Oh yeah, and if you test them after hiring them, they can get on a rehab program, and no matter how bad they are, you cannot fire them -- and if you try for any other reason they will sue and claim it is related to them being in rehab.
  • jMo 2008-06-18 12:58
    Rboy:
    Forget the drug test, have you ever hired anyone who DJ'd? Even worse, one that DJ'ing is their first love? Expect someone to punch in every day, and not do a darn thing...

    But who puts an end date to their schooling when they are STILL IN SCHOOL? The correct way denote that is 'Current', and add in an expected graduation date.


    stereotyping is lame... pun intended.
  • shadowman 2008-06-18 12:59
    While I also don't agree with Scott's (over)reaction, it certainly was a dumb thing to say in a job interview.
  • WebDevGuy 2008-06-18 13:04
    brazzy:
    WebDevGuy:
    real_aardvark:
    WebDevGuy:
    I only program in Python when I'm high...which is one of the main reasons I love Python, actually: It's intuitive. Nothing worse than working on a PHP project after smoking: 50% or more of your bugs are for missing semicolons, missing $ before variables, etc. etc.
    Tabs???

    Auto-indentation! Vim, TextMate, Emacs, they all do it.

    I kinda doubt that they're able to write your programs for you. Which they'd basically have to be able to do in order to generate or fix mistakes in syntactically significant Python whitespace.

    Not sure as to what you're getting at here. Python's one nit-picky thing is whitespace which is very easy to grok under most any circumstance. PHP has many features that are unintuitive and take a sharp, alert mind to overcome. But I'm still a big PHP fan for its usability, ubiquity, and speed, but it's very prickly when you're under the influence of anything.
  • Flash 2008-06-18 13:07
    Ozymandias:
    The thing is, in the US, you can't ask someone to take a drug test based on performance. That is considered discriminatory, possibly harrassment, and they can sue for slander for the implications.

    Our legal system is all kinds of messed up.

    Oh yeah, and if you test them after hiring them, they can get on a rehab program, and no matter how bad they are, you cannot fire them -- and if you try for any other reason they will sue and claim it is related to them being in rehab.


    If the poor performance is of the sort that makes me suspect drug use, then I'd ask for a drug test. I'd document the evidence. And yes, at that point, I'd recommend rehab. I'd give the employee a chance.

    Successful participation in rehab would allow the employee to keep the job, and I'd be happy with that. Failure to clean up would result in termination. You see, at that point, I have evidence of drug use and I need to protect the company, the working environment, and the other employees.

    When there's no evidence of drug use, I don't think there should be testing. (With the already-stated exception for lives-on-the-line.) It's unfortunate that so many companies just want to drug test everyone without cause.
  • SparkyRoosta 2008-06-18 13:09
    James:
    Given that the drug test guy was probably interviewing in America, maybe they're trying to make sure that their employees aren't going to take tens of thousands of dollars of training and experience to prison with them. I mean, if there was a way of testing if somebody goes out and steals cars on the weekend, I'm sure they'd do that too.

    Bottom line: if the dude is breaking the law and not getting caught (yet), the potential employer has a business interest in that information. Whether the employer thinks the activity in question *should* be legal or not doesn't really factor into it.


    Smokin dope (the most likely culprit) is nothing like stealing cars, that's just an unfair comparison, and in most states you're not likely to get sent to jail for having a little in your home for personal use.

    The only jobs that should be drug tested are safety critical jobs where you need insurance and you need to make sure that the guy working the wrecking ball has the least likelihood of being impaired... although, they should include daily alcohol tests for those types of jobs too.
  • FredSaw 2008-06-18 13:12
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    Everyone knows that "Big Tobacco" pays the government to keep marijuana illegal
    Don't be silly. The tobacco companies have their packaging and marketing all designed and ready. They're just waiting for legalization so they can start cashing in.
  • bla 2008-06-18 13:14
    real_aardvark:
    WebDevGuy:
    I only program in Python when I'm high...which is one of the main reasons I love Python, actually: It's intuitive. Nothing worse than working on a PHP project after smoking: 50% or more of your bugs are for missing semicolons, missing $ before variables, etc. etc.
    Tabs???


    Any developer reading this site should be smart enough to set his editor up for Python development... It's a non issue...
  • savar 2008-06-18 13:16
    Russ:

    There must be a better way to regulate these things though. There is no way that healthcare should cost as much as it does. Drugs are many times more expensive in the US then they are in other countries because insurance companies must make sure that people can't afford to pay for their medical care out of pocket.


    Keep in mind that -- contrary to world belief -- US health care is not "free market". If it were, we would pay the same price for drugs that they pay in other countries. But our country has laws prohibiting the re-importation of pharmaceutical drugs.

    The real difference between the US and other countries is how far we are willing to go to take care of those who can't take care of themselves. Most euro countries are very supportive of others -- to the point that they pay a lot of taxes in order to allow the government to redistribute wealth heavily. In the US the prevailing opinion is "fuck them, let them get a job"... I personally am somewhere in the middle. I think preventative care should be available whether you can pay for it or not, but at the same time we shouldn't be paying $200,000 in tax payer funds to support some guy who burned his kidneys out with heroin and meth.

    If you are unhappy with the way your own government represents you, you have 3 options:
    1) Write a letter to congress (lame, ineffective)
    2) Move (effective but costly)
    3) STFU (cheap and effective!)
  • Kuba 2008-06-18 13:21
    Huf Lungdung:
    I'm surprised no one brought this up before...

    TRWTF is ditching your classes for that long, just to attend job interviews. That isn't to say landing an interview isn't important, but IMO it isn't worth it to risk low or failing grades in your classes.


    Risk of low grades? Reality check: who the heck cares if you get a "bad" grade or two. Either you know your stuff or you don't. I usually get worse grades in quarters where "stuff happened" (illnesses, childbirths, whatnot) -- so what that I've got a B+ in Intro to Finite Elements, I still think I've got all I could out of the class. Jeez.
  • jpers36 2008-06-18 13:23
    Rootbeer:
    A private insurer representing 100,000 patients could get more favorable pricing from healthcare providers than a single individual representing himself could.

    A government representing 100,000,000 patients could get even more favorable pricing from healthcare providers than a private insurer could.


    A private insurer representing 100,000 patients is (theoretically) competing with dozens of other companies of similar size, so faces market pressures to reduce rates, reduce cost of business, and increase service.

    A government representing 100,000,000 patients is a monopoly, and is under no pressure to do any of those things.

    The solution isn't to hand insurance to the government. The solution is to find out why competition between insurers is breaking down, as well as look one step further up the chain to actual healthcare expenses.
  • ContraCorners 2008-06-18 13:27
    Wow Scott, that's a really inspiring story. Thank for sharing. One question, though. Are you a Fascist, or just an a**hole?
  • Contact Buzz 2008-06-18 13:28
    I'm surprised no-one has mentioned all the smoke floating around the clubs this guy DJs. It's at least conceivable that he doesn't do drugs himself but that he was exposed to so much smoke at clubs that he thought he'd fail a drug test.
  • WebDevGuy 2008-06-18 13:29
    Huf Lungdung:
    I'm surprised no one brought this up before...

    TRWTF is ditching your classes for that long, just to attend job interviews. That isn't to say landing an interview isn't important, but IMO it isn't worth it to risk low or failing grades in your classes.


    How about flat-out quitting college to start at a great job? Except I remained in my classes for the final month, willfully staying because if you withdraw, you have to leave the dorms within 24 hours. Not having the money to sign a lease anywhere, I commuted from my dorm. Grades for the semester (missed finals and all)? All Fs and a D (how? I guess my essays from the first three months were good enough to overcome missing a final and a paper). But I don't regret it, since I was done with college and was happy to move back into the professional world.
  • Gerhard 2008-06-18 13:32
    "But should that affect whether or not he receives a job offer? Any effects that drug use would have had on him would have already been reflected in his abilities, which is the basis for comparison - so the presence or absence of drug use isn't relevant since it's already factored into the appraisal of ability. "

    Mind altering substances seem to mess with your ability to react to situations and plan for the future more than they do technical ability.

    for just one example: I once worked with a sysadmin/programmer who turned out to be an alcoholic. He had a excellent technical skills but just couldn't plan for anything. He ended up working himself into a corner server wise and took short term fixes to work around the problem. The result? Reformatting the servers ended up being less work than trying to work around his undersized partitions followed by symlink hell.

    The programmer who had to clean up his work on that side had similar complaints. He was un pure awe of the language tricks this guy used but was cursing his lack of foresight.

    And that's not the only time I've seen that. Chemically altering your mind has unforeseen affects on your work and judgment. I've seen this with users of both alcohol and pot. And in a couple of cases have been able to watch the downward slide in ability.
  • Joe 2008-06-18 13:35
    Here's my take on the guy escorted out who may have been a drug user.

    There are plenty of competent people out there for the company to hire. Given 2 equal candidates, why hire the one who uses drugs. Whether he can "handle" them or not doesn't matter. They have more of a potential of becoming a problem than anything else. Why risk it? Even if he could still function, why not hire someone else with the same skills but who does NOT use drugs (or at least, not that they're aware of)?
  • lburch 2008-06-18 13:39
    The drug test question was reasonable, the reaction was inappropriate.

    He assumes right off two prejudicial things

    Asking if they drug test is an indication of drug use
    Lack of willingness to take a drug test is an indication of taking drugs

    And while that may be a safe way to bet, neither are a sure thing.

    Sometimes drug tests are required for reasons beyond the companies immediate control. When I have had to do certain types of government work drug tests were mandatory. Within some reason I get it and understood the need. What he should have done is explained the companies policy on drug testing and let the fellow decide on his own if this was the sort of place he was going to work or not.


    This is also aside from the fact that drug testing is by in large a huge scam. The overall number of drug tests given to "catch" a user place the cost of catching a drug user in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, money better spent elsewhere.

    Go ahead and test the airline pilots if you must but testing to work at McDonalds is just lawyer induced paranoia and excessive puritanical behavior.
  • WebDevGuy 2008-06-18 13:42
    Joe:
    Here's my take on the guy escorted out who may have been a drug user.

    There are plenty of competent people out there for the company to hire. Given 2 equal candidates, why hire the one who uses drugs. Whether he can "handle" them or not doesn't matter. They have more of a potential of becoming a problem than anything else. Why risk it? Even if he could still function, why not hire someone else with the same skills but who does NOT use drugs (or at least, not that they're aware of)?

    Take these as pros or cons:
    * He could be more tolerant of others
    * Less obedient to authority figures
    * More creative, depending on the drug
    * Willing to color outside the lines for the proper results
    * A more relaxed person in general
  • Doesn't matter 2008-06-18 13:49
    Schnapple:
    mtu:
    The European Court of Justice and the Federal Labor Court of Germany have ruled it unlawful in a job interview to ask the question of wether or not a woman is planning to get pregnant in the future or is pregnant at the time the interview takes place, or to later challenge the employment contract on the grounds of these facts.

    Their reasons are that such a question both violates the principle of the equal treatment of the sexes and constitutes an unjustifiable intrusion into a woman's privacy.

    Of course an employer has the greatest business interest in knowing this, but it is seen as immoral for him to ask with the intention of basing his decision about an employment on it.


    It's worth pointing out that getting pregnant is legal, whereas most of the activities involved with drug addition (possession, procurement) are not.


    Perhaps any hiring company should demand that you hand over all your personal accounts for the past 6 years before you're hired - I mean, dodging taxes is illegal, and if you're going to get arrested for some accounting inconsistencies, there's a significant business interest in knowing that.

    No? Invasion of privacy? Discriminatory? Of course it is.
    I don't see what the issue is - in jobs where public safety is not in question, a business has no right dabbling in the affairs of a private individual outside the workplace. If that private individual decides to break the law, well, that's what the police are for.

    If an individual cannot perform his work function and can't genuinely prove illness or extenuating circumstances, he/she should be encouraged to find other employment - I don't give a shit if he/she's incompetent, lazy OR on drugs, if the visible effect is dismal productivity, show them the door.
  • St. Mary's Hospital for the True Image of Colonic Diseases 2008-06-18 13:50
    In the UK, it is a democracy that decides how much medical care can be provided to anybody. In the US, it is the free market that decides who can get care at all.

    I would never change Switzerland for the US in that matter. It is a basic tenet of humanity that you guarantee medical care to everybody instead of letting commercial enterprises decide that question for you. When you seriously need treatment for cancer you cannot choose a cheaper treatment. Your life is at the stakes.
  • ContraCorners 2008-06-18 13:57
    Flash:

    The case presented here is an interesting borderline case. I think that candidate gave me probable cause to suspect illegal drug use. I'd test that guy, and I would hire him only if he passed the test.



    Probable Cause???!!! Are you mad? In what sense is this person demonstrating probable cause? Being a DJ? Asking a legitimate question about a potential employer's pre-employment policies?

    Be careful with your stereotypes. Or better yet, try going to court someday with that argument. You will not win.

    Frankly, it's been my experience that many people with tattoos are drug users. Does that give me "probable cause" to suspect Scott? NO! I need(and try) to recognize that

    1) I have no data or facts of any kind to back up my stereotype,
    and
    b) Acting on my stereotype is unfair and counter-productive.
  • Doesn't matter 2008-06-18 13:59
    Joe:
    Here's my take on the guy escorted out who may have been a drug user.

    There are plenty of competent people out there for the company to hire. Given 2 equal candidates, why hire the one who uses drugs. Whether he can "handle" them or not doesn't matter. They have more of a potential of becoming a problem than anything else. Why risk it? Even if he could still function, why not hire someone else with the same skills but who does NOT use drugs (or at least, not that they're aware of)?


    Here's my take on the girl escorted out who may have been pregnant.

    There are plenty of competent women out there for the company to hire. Given 2 equal candidates, why hire the one who is pregnant. Whether she can "handle" it or not doesn't matter. They have more of a potential of becoming a problem than anything else. Why risk it? Even if she could still function, why not hire someone else with the same skills but who is NOT pregnant(or at least, not that they're aware of)?
  • Ozymandias 2008-06-18 14:00
    lburch:


    Asking if they drug test is an indication of drug use
    Lack of willingness to take a drug test is an indication of taking drugs



    I think the real issue was the slang question that translates to "Hey do you do drugs? Because in my major hobby is one notoriously drug centric (at least as a hobby and not as a career) and I am concerned that I will be tested."


    I think given the way the question was asked, it is safe to assume they are a user.
  • ContraCorners 2008-06-18 14:00
    WebDevGuy:
    Joe:
    Here's my take on the guy escorted out who may have been a drug user.

    There are plenty of competent people out there for the company to hire. Given 2 equal candidates, why hire the one who uses drugs. Whether he can "handle" them or not doesn't matter. They have more of a potential of becoming a problem than anything else. Why risk it? Even if he could still function, why not hire someone else with the same skills but who does NOT use drugs (or at least, not that they're aware of)?

    Take these as pros or cons:
    * He could be more tolerant of others
    * Less obedient to authority figures
    * More creative, depending on the drug
    * Willing to color outside the lines for the proper results
    * A more relaxed person in general


    And better yet, you have NO LEGITMATE REASON to suspect the interviewee was a drug user.

    This is completely, totally, 175% separate from the question of drug testing. If you really want to avoid users, don't hire anyone who can't pass a drug test. But what right have you to assume that someone who asks about testing is unfit for employment?
  • Ozymandias 2008-06-18 14:03
    Doesn't matter:


    Here's my take on the girl escorted out who may have been pregnant.

    There are plenty of competent women out there for the company to hire. Given 2 equal candidates, why hire the one who is pregnant. Whether she can "handle" it or not doesn't matter. They have more of a potential of becoming a problem than anything else. Why risk it? Even if she could still function, why not hire someone else with the same skills but who is NOT pregnant(or at least, not that they're aware of)?


    I was not aware being pregnant was against the law.

    About time they worked to solve the damn breeder problem.
  • cparker 2008-06-18 14:03
    KR:
    Alan:

    I live in a country with free universal healthcare, and I havent seen a doctor in 12 years.


    Health care is free where you are? So tell me, do the doctors in your country enjoy being unpaid slaves?
    Who said the doctors were volunteers? Free universal healthcare is paid for with taxes, and the money is distributed where there is a need.
  • ContraCorners 2008-06-18 14:03
    [quote user="Ozymandias"][quote user="lburch"]

    Asking if they drug test is an indication of drug use
    Lack of willingness to take a drug test is an indication of taking drugs

    [/quote]

    Two wonderful statements, united by the fact that neither is true.
  • Ozymandias 2008-06-18 14:05
    cparker:
    KR:
    Alan:

    I live in a country with free universal healthcare, and I havent seen a doctor in 12 years.


    Health care is free where you are? So tell me, do the doctors in your country enjoy being unpaid slaves?
    Who said the doctors were volunteers? Free universal healthcare is paid for with taxes, and the money is distributed where there is a need.


    Having trouble with the definition of 'free', are we?
  • Huf Lungdung 2008-06-18 14:11
    WebDevGuy:
    Huf Lungdung:
    I'm surprised no one brought this up before...

    TRWTF is ditching your classes for that long, just to attend job interviews. That isn't to say landing an interview isn't important, but IMO it isn't worth it to risk low or failing grades in your classes.


    How about flat-out quitting college to start at a great job? Except I remained in my classes for the final month, willfully staying because if you withdraw, you have to leave the dorms within 24 hours. Not having the money to sign a lease anywhere, I commuted from my dorm. Grades for the semester (missed finals and all)? All Fs and a D (how? I guess my essays from the first three months were good enough to overcome missing a final and a paper). But I don't regret it, since I was done with college and was happy to move back into the professional world.


    Consistently maintaining high grades shows that you're truly dedicated to your work. Any future employer will appreciate that and it will put you ahead of everyone else.

    Not only that, but high grades often means you'll never have to take out student loans because you'll qualify for more grants and scholarships (I actually made about $2000 profit in my last year!)
  • WebDevGuy 2008-06-18 14:16
    Huf Lungdung:
    Consistently maintaining high grades shows that you're truly dedicated to your work. Any future employer will appreciate that and it will put you ahead of everyone else.

    Not only that, but high grades often means you'll never have to take out student loans because you'll qualify for more grants and scholarships (I actually made about $2000 profit in my last year!)

    Of course, so does a job well done. This is only a factor when looking for entry-level employment.
  • andrewbadera 2008-06-18 14:29
    WebDevGuy:
    Huf Lungdung:
    Consistently maintaining high grades shows that you're truly dedicated to your work. Any future employer will appreciate that and it will put you ahead of everyone else.

    Not only that, but high grades often means you'll never have to take out student loans because you'll qualify for more grants and scholarships (I actually made about $2000 profit in my last year!)

    Of course, so does a job well done. This is only a factor when looking for entry-level employment.


    100% AGREED!

    I don't remember the last time a potential employer asked to see a transcript ... I think it may have happened once in my entire life, and only then for a co-op job.

    And I certainly don't ask for transcripts when interviewing people for my day job. We go based on ability, and ability to demonstrate ability,, not artificial metrics or prejudices. That, and most people in the real world recognize the artifice of academia.
  • Steve 2008-06-18 14:33
    operagost:
    The real WTF is assuming that a person who is concerned about drug testing is a drug user. Some people think it's intrusive. Quaint, I know; as once President Obama implements his universal health care, we'll have mandatory blood tests and invasive exams annually on pain of imprisonment.
    One for two.
  • cklam 2008-06-18 14:34
    Here is my take on the case of Tattoo-Scott:

    TRWTF is that the company has an ex-con (because only ex-cons have tattoos) interviewing job applicants ....
  • Agent R 2008-06-18 14:42
    foo:
    Yeah, I know what you mean with these stories. One time I got called into an interview, but it was over within minutes. I think I was overqualified for the job because with every question they asked me, I knew way more than they did and even offered them advice on what changes they should make in order to get better at programming.


    I feel obligated to point out that you might have come off as a "know it all" instead of a mentor. Got to be careful on that one.


    I feel obligated to point out that you've just been had by a troll. Got to be careful on that one.
  • FredSaw 2008-06-18 14:42
    cklam:
    ...(because only ex-cons have tattoos)...
    Oh my goodness! My last three girlfriends have been ex-cons, and I never suspected! I feel so naive.
  • VAXcat 2008-06-18 14:44
    "the money is distributed where there is a need"...are you trying to say, from each according to their ability, to each according to their need?
  • WebDevGuy 2008-06-18 14:54
    Yes, the principles of welfare can and do often intersect with the tenets of communism. Because communism isn't engineered evil, this is to be expected.
  • Jason 2008-06-18 15:02
    The ACLU are a bunch of morons.
  • ContraCorners 2008-06-18 15:04
    cklam:
    Here is my take on the case of Tattoo-Scott:

    TRWTF is that the company has an ex-con (because only ex-cons have tattoos) interviewing job applicants ....


    Absolutely NOT TRUE. A good number of current convicts have tattoos.
  • Northerner 2008-06-18 15:06
    Refusing to take a drug test does not mean you use drugs. I won't work anywhere where I'm treated like a criminal even before I sit down for an interview. If you don't trust your people to act responsibly, then they shouldn't be working for you. If someone says they don't use drugs, then that should be enough, until their performance suffers.

    Of course, rating performance is hard, reading a drug test report is easy.

    Also, alcohol is a drug, should I be fired for having a beer on the weekends? Nicotene is a drug, should I be fired for smoking a cigar on my own time? Both are 'drugs of abuse' along with the usual suspects, and can have just as serious (if not more so) repercussions on one's livelihood.

    But, if thinking that everyone who has used a substance is therefore permanently branded as a bad person helps you sleep at night, go for it.
  • cparker 2008-06-18 15:07
    Ozymandias:
    cparker:
    KR:
    Alan:

    I live in a country with free universal healthcare, and I havent seen a doctor in 12 years.


    Health care is free where you are? So tell me, do the doctors in your country enjoy being unpaid slaves?
    Who said the doctors were volunteers? Free universal healthcare is paid for with taxes, and the money is distributed where there is a need.


    Having trouble with the definition of 'free', are we?
    Is that an admission? I take it you live in a totalitarian society and are not a free citizen.

    A publicly funded health care system would be free for everyone at the point of use. Nobody's saying there's no money involved.
  • anitra 2008-06-18 15:12
    Doesn't matter:
    Joe:
    Here's my take on the guy escorted out who may have been a drug user.

    There are plenty of competent people out there for the company to hire. Given 2 equal candidates, why hire the one who uses drugs. Whether he can "handle" them or not doesn't matter. They have more of a potential of becoming a problem than anything else. Why risk it? Even if he could still function, why not hire someone else with the same skills but who does NOT use drugs (or at least, not that they're aware of)?


    Here's my take on the girl escorted out who may have been pregnant.

    There are plenty of competent women out there for the company to hire. Given 2 equal candidates, why hire the one who is pregnant. Whether she can "handle" it or not doesn't matter. They have more of a potential of becoming a problem than anything else. Why risk it? Even if she could still function, why not hire someone else with the same skills but who is NOT pregnant(or at least, not that they're aware of)?


    In fact, pregnant women run into this form of discrimination all the time. It's technically illegal in the USA to fire an employee or refuse to hire a woman because she is pregnant... but the onus of proof is on the pregnant woman to prove the discrimination. The company can usually get around it simply by saying "She wasn't a good fit [because she was pregnant and another candidate wasn't]" or "She wasn't performing her job adequately [because we don't expect our employees to actually use their sick time]".
  • All-Beef Patty 2008-06-18 15:22
    Alan:


    I live in a country with free universal healthcare, and I havent seen a doctor in 12 years.


    I've heard all kinds of bad stuff about how long you have to wait, but I had no idea it was THAT bad.
  • Nutmeg Programmer 2008-06-18 15:28
    As I understand it, in the US, all questions about marriage and children are off limits until an offer of employment has been made.
  • SuperousOxide 2008-06-18 15:32
    Huf Lungdung:

    Consistently maintaining high grades shows that you're truly dedicated to your work. Any future employer will appreciate that and it will put you ahead of everyone else.

    Not only that, but high grades often means you'll never have to take out student loans because you'll qualify for more grants and scholarships (I actually made about $2000 profit in my last year!)


    Both of which are irrelevant when the student is a senior in his final semester looking for a job. He's hoping to get the offer before he graduates so his final grades won't be known yet (as long as he does well enough to graduate), and it's too late to be getting any more scholarships.
  • T604 2008-06-18 15:34
    Cheese:
    Sql Slave:
    --
    I had an Indian coworker a few years back who, when he meant to use the term "workaround" said "reacharound." Genius points to whomever managed to plant that in his head. On the plus side for him, all his reacharounds got a lot of attention in meetings.


    I had an Indian coworker a few years ago who, when trying to say "I made a mistake on [system] and my boss chewed me out" actually said "I made a mistake on [system] and my boss ate me out". We all held in our laughter pretty well but the 20-something young lady programmer in the group turned an incredible shade of red.



    I hope you guys explained to him/her what they said and what it means. I worked with a young woman from India and during a conversation about food she asked our boss (who is also female) if she liked cock. I just slowly turned my chair around to face a different direction. I excused myself from the room while my boss explained the double meaning of the word.
  • G 2008-06-18 15:39
    You c*nt understand engrish?!
  • brazzy 2008-06-18 15:46
    WebDevGuy:
    brazzy:
    WebDevGuy:
    real_aardvark:
    WebDevGuy:
    I only program in Python when I'm high...which is one of the main reasons I love Python, actually: It's intuitive. Nothing worse than working on a PHP project after smoking: 50% or more of your bugs are for missing semicolons, missing $ before variables, etc. etc.
    Tabs???

    Auto-indentation! Vim, TextMate, Emacs, they all do it.

    I kinda doubt that they're able to write your programs for you. Which they'd basically have to be able to do in order to generate or fix mistakes in syntactically significant Python whitespace.

    Not sure as to what you're getting at here. Python's one nit-picky thing is whitespace which is very easy to grok under most any circumstance. PHP has many features that are unintuitive and take a sharp, alert mind to overcome. But I'm still a big PHP fan for its usability, ubiquity, and speed, but it's very prickly when you're under the influence of anything.

    I'm getting at the fact that no editor in the world can get Python whitespace right for you when you can't do it yourself. I'll take your word that it's easier to get right yourself than $ variables and line ending semicolons while you're high, though I (as well as real_aardvark apparently) would have thought otherwise.
  • EvanED 2008-06-18 15:49
    Northerner:
    Also, alcohol is a drug, should I be fired for having a beer on the weekends? Nicotene is a drug, should I be fired for smoking a cigar on my own time? Both are 'drugs of abuse' along with the usual suspects, and can have just as serious (if not more so) repercussions on one's livelihood.

    To be "fair", some companies are starting to fire employees if they smoke. Hell, I just saw an article that spent a little time talking about a company that will fire employees if their *spouse* smokes. (Oh, and checks through random blood tests. Sounds like an awesome place to work.)

    Of course, I would argue that they are fixing the inequity in the wrong direction, but that's just me..
  • Physics Phil 2008-06-18 15:51
    KR:
    Alan:

    I live in a country with free universal healthcare, and I havent seen a doctor in 12 years.


    Health care is free where you are? So tell me, do the doctors in your country enjoy being unpaid slaves?
    Oh they tend to be very happy: you see the flogging continues until morale improves.
  • jpers36 2008-06-18 15:54
    savar:

    The real difference between the US and other countries is how far we are willing to go to take care of those who can't take care of themselves. Most euro countries are very supportive of others -- to the point that they pay a lot of taxes in order to allow the government to redistribute wealth heavily. In the US the prevailing opinion is "fuck them, let them get a job"... I personally am somewhere in the middle. I think preventative care should be available whether you can pay for it or not, but at the same time we shouldn't be paying $200,000 in tax payer funds to support some guy who burned his kidneys out with heroin and meth.


    I disagree (with your characterization of the US, not necessarily your post as a whole). I think the prevailing opinion of those Americans who oppose government health care is "It's not the government's job, find someone else to help you". Americans are willing to go pretty far to take care of those who can't help themselves, but many (myself included) would prefer this be done through charitable organizations, religious institutions, or individual generosity rather than the government. The whole "let them get a job" spiel is mostly a straw man.
  • WebDevGuy 2008-06-18 15:55
    Further, it's much easier to unindent when ending a block than it is to deal with braces. Your mind's often already onto the next idea, and when the only language "cruft" is indentation and a colon after control statements, it's uncommon to make dumb mistakes as you code. In PHP, you have braces, semicolons, inconsistent naming conventions, and $ prepending variables, amongst other conventions. And as many Python people say, a good developer indents code anyway, and I'm very precise with indentation in languages for which it doesn't matter beyond readability.
  • Shakespeare 2008-06-18 15:56
    I work with a ESL guy (Indian) who pronounces GUID "Jew ID". It brings to mind concentration camps. I can't figure out if I should tell him or not...
  • Jeff Bell 2008-06-18 16:03
    If you follow the French pronunciation rules, he was saying facade instead of façade.

  • LEGO 2008-06-18 16:09
    cparker:
    Ozymandias:
    cparker:
    KR:
    Alan:

    I live in a country with free universal healthcare, and I havent seen a doctor in 12 years.


    Health care is free where you are? So tell me, do the doctors in your country enjoy being unpaid slaves?
    Who said the doctors were volunteers? Free universal healthcare is paid for with taxes, and the money is distributed where there is a need.


    Having trouble with the definition of 'free', are we?
    Is that an admission? I take it you live in a totalitarian society and are not a free citizen.

    A publicly funded health care system would be free for everyone at the point of use. Nobody's saying there's no money involved.


    Don't be a F-A-C-A-D-E. In this context Free has nothing to do with the ultimate cost of the service or who pays. Free means freely available, as in unfettered by f*ckhead beancounting HMO trolls who override the best judgement of doctors as to who will receive treatment and who won't.

    Socialized medicine is also not without its faults but there are far fewer people who are bankrupted by the cost of their healthcare or die because treatment was not approved by some corporate troll.

    -Lego
  • Bappi 2008-06-18 16:11
    Jeff Bell:
    If you follow the French pronunciation rules, he was saying facade instead of façade.

    Surely you mean "Freedom pronunciation rules?" Why do you hate America?
  • BobB 2008-06-18 16:19
    Not sure if this is on topic but a friend of mine who occasionally smokes pot was interviewing for a position as a secretary at a car insurance (not sayin who) office in town. She was worried about a drug test even though she hadn't smoked in a while and was wondering if the offices tested but didn't want to ask outright "Do you test for drugs?"

    What I suggested is after her final interview she simply ask, "I'm not sure if I've asked prior but is there anything else I must submit to your offices to begin employment?" And usually there is a week to two week window after beginning employment (at least in Oklahoma) that you have of when a piss test must be taken.
  • Maciej 2008-06-18 16:21
    Gerhard:


    for just one example: I once worked with a sysadmin/programmer who turned out to be an alcoholic. He had a excellent technical skills but just couldn't plan for anything. He ended up working himself into a corner server wise and took short term fixes to work around the problem. The result? Reformatting the servers ended up being less work than trying to work around his undersized partitions followed by symlink hell.


    Perhaps the guy was just bad at planning? Alcoholism isn't a prerequisite for that.
  • dmh2000 2008-06-18 16:42
    mtu:
    The European Court of Justice and the Federal Labor Court of Germany have ruled it unlawful in a job interview to ask the question of wether or not a woman is planning to get pregnant in the future or is pregnant at the time the interview takes place, or to later challenge the employment contract on the grounds of these facts....
    I feel lucky to live here.


    its the same in the US for health issues including pregnancy. Just not for criminal activities.
  • WebDevGuy 2008-06-18 16:43
  • SomeCoder 2008-06-18 16:43
    Joe:
    Here's my take on the guy escorted out who may have been a drug user.

    There are plenty of competent people out there for the company to hire. Given 2 equal candidates, why hire the one who uses drugs. Whether he can "handle" them or not doesn't matter. They have more of a potential of becoming a problem than anything else. Why risk it? Even if he could still function, why not hire someone else with the same skills but who does NOT use drugs (or at least, not that they're aware of)?


    This is absolutely true. Given two candidates that are identical, why take the one that could be arrested for drugs? Whether you think that drugs are good or bad is not relevant - they are still illegal in the United States. I'd rather not deal with that.

    As for drugs making you more "creative", I've seen tons of people who are just as creative and not on drugs.
  • Matt 2008-06-18 16:51
    > School graduation dates are given as a year and optionally a > month; you do not list the dates of attendance

    You do if you haven't graduated yet.
  • AT 2008-06-18 16:57
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    Everyone knows that "Big Tobacco" pays the government to keep marijuana illegal


    Evidence for this? It doesn't even make sense since American tobacco companies are probably best-positioned of any companies in the world to make and sell joints to the mass-market. It would be a nice expansion opportunity for them, so why would they fight to keep it illegal?
  • Alex 2008-06-18 16:59
    Actually, some companies are starting to invade potential employee's privacy. Many companies do credit checks and full background checks on potential employees. but, as long as it is not illegal and you need a job what are you going to do, say no?
  • C 2008-06-18 17:02
    There might be 3 WTFs in that one middle story:

    Going to a 4 year school, only having one class that covered resistors.

    Only having one class that covered resistors, and applying for a job where (I'm assuming) knowledge of resistors was important.

    Not discussing the fact that you are grossly unqualified for the job with the potential employer before traveling to see them for a face to face interview and wasting their time and money.
  • sas 2008-06-18 17:18
    distineo:
    Seems like the drug testing issue is generating the most comments. What a lot of people fail to realize is that companies drug test for a reason. Liability.

    Let's say you are a functional drug user. By which I mean that most people wouldn't be able to tell if you were using or not. If it comes to pass that while performing your job duties you make a mistake that caused harm to yourself or others, or damage to property, that makes the company extremely vulnerable to lawsuits. Possibly even to criminal liability depending on the extent of damage caused.

    IANAL, but bullshit. Yes, your employer is liable for your actions as an employee, including any harm you may cause. But whether or not you had any detectable drugs in your system one day in the past has no bearing on that liability.
  • operagost 2008-06-18 17:20
    Alan:
    operagost:
    Quaint, I know; as once President Obama implements his universal health care, we'll have mandatory blood tests and invasive exams annually on pain of imprisonment.


    I live in a country with free universal healthcare, and I havent seen a doctor in 12 years.

    1. Unless you're broke, it isn't "free"
    2. In the USA, people have been conditioned to accept invasive tests for employment and insurance.
  • operagost 2008-06-18 17:22
    cparker:
    Ozymandias:
    cparker:
    KR:
    Alan:

    I live in a country with free universal healthcare, and I havent seen a doctor in 12 years.


    Health care is free where you are? So tell me, do the doctors in your country enjoy being unpaid slaves?
    Who said the doctors were volunteers? Free universal healthcare is paid for with taxes, and the money is distributed where there is a need.


    Having trouble with the definition of 'free', are we?
    Is that an admission? I take it you live in a totalitarian society and are not a free citizen.

    A publicly funded health care system would be free for everyone at the point of use. Nobody's saying there's no money involved.

    Saying universal healthcare is "free" is like saying internet access is free. After all, you don't have to keep feeding dollar bills into the cable modem while you're using it.
  • Rboy 2008-06-18 17:34
    Stang:
    rboy:
    Everyone knows that "Big Tobacco" pays the government to keep marijuana illegal

    Do They?

    Of course they don't. It's the alcohol industry (Anheiser-Busch, I'm looking at you) that pays to keep marajuana illegal.


    I thought it was the travel agencies, so they can keep booking trips to places that were much more 'cool'.

    CAPTCHA = similis
  • JackBlack 2008-06-18 17:34
    James:
    Given that the drug test guy was probably interviewing in America, maybe they're trying to make sure that their employees aren't going to take tens of thousands of dollars of training and experience to prison with them. I mean, if there was a way of testing if somebody goes out and steals cars on the weekend, I'm sure they'd do that too.

    Bottom line: if the dude is breaking the law and not getting caught (yet), the potential employer has a business interest in that information. Whether the employer thinks the activity in question *should* be legal or not doesn't really factor into it.


    You're an idiot James.

    Health & Safety: Drug testing should only be performed for roles in which someone's impairment would significantly increase the risk of accident or injury to themselves or others.

    e.g. if you drive busses, forklifts, work with big body mangling machines in a factory, then yes, it's probably a good idea to be sober. On the balance of invasion of privacy versus public safety, drug testing tips the scale, but only barely.

    So retards, please tell me how code monkeys or sysadmins need drug testing. You have code reviews and testing right? Oh forgot .. you're a god and can code production on the fly. Let me bow to your greatness James.

    People, and Americans in particular, allow themselves to be subjected to all sorts of crap. Freedom my ass. Silly me I forgot that America throws people in jail for small possession (well only of you're black).

    With respect to businesses, they only need to know if you're qualified for the role they are hiring you for. Whatever you do in your own time is your own business. Protect their investment??. They train you so you can do a better job for them, and to retain you (it's a bonus). They don't own you. You're not a chattel. You do work. They pay you. Show up for work pissed or stoned then they have a right to fire your ass because you're in breach of contract.
  • punissuer 2008-06-18 17:36
    WebDevGuy:
    real_aardvark:
    WebDevGuy:
    I only program in Python when I'm high...which is one of the main reasons I love Python, actually: It's intuitive. Nothing worse than working on a PHP project after smoking: 50% or more of your bugs are for missing semicolons, missing $ before variables, etc. etc.
    Tabs???

    Auto-indentation! Vim, TextMate, Emacs, they all do it.
    Do they do auto-outdentation, too? With my coding style, I find that auto-indentation is wrong close to half the time.
  • Schnapple 2008-06-18 17:44
    Northerner:
    Nicotene is a drug, should I be fired for smoking a cigar on my own time? Both are 'drugs of abuse' along with the usual suspects, and can have just as serious (if not more so) repercussions on one's livelihood.


    At least in Texas you sure can - my wife's first job out of college was at this place that did computer systems for car dealerships and they had a zero smoking policy. You couldn't smoke, at all. Not even on your own time. If your boss saw you in public smoking you were fired first thing the next day. All completely legal - there are no safeguards against smoking.

    The theory was that they could get cheaper health insurance rates by refusing to hire smokers. Also smokers need fewer work breaks than non-smokers. The company was located near a college so they always had fresh recruits as soon as they needed them every year. Of course they did employ some number of ninja smokers who could hide it well. They also hired almost no black people so my personal theory was that they liked how this was a nice legal way to discriminate.
  • FredSaw 2008-06-18 17:58
    SomeCoder:
    As for drugs making you more "creative", I've seen tons of people who are just as creative and not on drugs.
    I got these little things here I take
    Get me playin' licks I never thought I ever knew!
    - Super Sideman, Kenny Price
  • cian 2008-06-18 17:59
    I'm surprised no-one has mentioned all the smoke floating around the clubs this guy DJs. It's at least conceivable that he doesn't do drugs himself but that he was exposed to so much smoke at clubs that he thought he'd fail a drug test.


    The drugs, or more specifically, drug a DJ would be likely to be using isn't smoked...
  • Paul 2008-06-18 18:00
    Good question asked by the interviewee in the first one. Great way to determine whether a potential employer is uncool (clearly, yes) and/or has no respect for privacy (clearly, yes). I must remember to ask the same question in my future interviews. I won't ask in the same way, but it's a sensible question to ask.
  • cian 2008-06-18 18:10
    Actually, as goes the DJing thing, I think I've mentioned the fact that I do (which carries an automatic assumption of "ahh, pillhead" in Ireland, despite that not being the case) in every job interview I've ever done.

    And I've been offered every job I've ever interviewed for, all IT but in a range of employer sectors. Drug testing just isn't done here, and nobodies even seemed concerned about the possibility that I could be dropping more MDMA than most of Holland every weekend... wouldn't prevent me being able to do my job, whereas alcohol consumption would.
  • FredSaw 2008-06-18 18:12
    JackBlack:
    You're an idiot James.
    *snip*
    So retards, please tell me how code monkeys or sysadmins need drug testing.
    Therac-25 Medical Accelerator
  • Paul 2008-06-18 18:13
    Nonsense. I call bullsh*t. There is not one iota of evidence to support your assertion. You must first prove cause and effect, which is extremely difficult. In fact, no-one has proven it.

    People who perpetuate this kind of rubbish should get a clue.
  • Doesn't matter 2008-06-18 18:50
    FredSaw:
    JackBlack:
    You're an idiot James.
    *snip*
    So retards, please tell me how code monkeys or sysadmins need drug testing.
    Therac-25 Medical Accelerator


    No, that particular fiasco was caused by a rushed development schedule, poor communication, woefully inadequate testing, and when it was discovered internally, criminal corporate negligence as they attempted to cover it up.

    Then again, I might be mistaken, and it might have all been caused by a software developer they failed to drug test.
  • real_aardvark 2008-06-18 18:56
    WebDevGuy:
    brazzy:
    WebDevGuy:
    real_aardvark:
    WebDevGuy:
    I only program in Python when I'm high...which is one of the main reasons I love Python, actually: It's intuitive. Nothing worse than working on a PHP project after smoking: 50% or more of your bugs are for missing semicolons, missing $ before variables, etc. etc.
    Tabs???

    Auto-indentation! Vim, TextMate, Emacs, they all do it.

    I kinda doubt that they're able to write your programs for you. Which they'd basically have to be able to do in order to generate or fix mistakes in syntactically significant Python whitespace.

    Not sure as to what you're getting at here. Python's one nit-picky thing is whitespace which is very easy to grok under most any circumstance. PHP has many features that are unintuitive and take a sharp, alert mind to overcome. But I'm still a big PHP fan for its usability, ubiquity, and speed, but it's very prickly when you're under the influence of anything.
    What, like PHP?

    Damn those horse tranquilisers.

    Actually, <snake-oil salesman>I have what both of you need right here</snake-oil salesman>.

    This is the best thing since the invention of sex, although admittedly that was twenty five years ago in my case.

    I'm not kidding, really. Well, yes, I am. But it's definitely the best thing since the invention of emacs.

    Are you cool, man?

    And more.
  • real_aardvark 2008-06-18 19:00
    bla:
    real_aardvark:
    WebDevGuy:
    I only program in Python when I'm high...which is one of the main reasons I love Python, actually: It's intuitive. Nothing worse than working on a PHP project after smoking: 50% or more of your bugs are for missing semicolons, missing $ before variables, etc. etc.
    Tabs???


    Any developer reading this site should be smart enough to set his editor up for Python development... It's a non issue...
    And it's not like you ever have to work with some other cretin's "Python" code, typically written in naked vi as I recall, that has an arbitrary mix of single spaces and tabs and God knows what else, is it?

    You lucky non-issue, you.
  • real_aardvark 2008-06-18 19:06
    St. Mary's Hospital for the True Image of Colonic Diseases:
    In the UK, it is a democracy that decides how much medical care can be provided to anybody. In the US, it is the free market that decides who can get care at all.

    I would never change Switzerland for the US in that matter. It is a basic tenet of humanity that you guarantee medical care to everybody instead of letting commercial enterprises decide that question for you. When you seriously need treatment for cancer you cannot choose a cheaper treatment. Your life is at the stakes.
    Roughly 30,000 years of humanity.

    Roughly 250 years of citizen-based democracy.

    Roughly 50 years of free health-care for all.

    Not, I think, "a basic tenet of humanity."

    An extremely good idea, but a dementedly bad argument.
  • real_aardvark 2008-06-18 19:17
    Contact Buzz:
    I'm surprised no-one has mentioned all the smoke floating around the clubs this guy DJs. It's at least conceivable that he doesn't do drugs himself but that he was exposed to so much smoke at clubs that he thought he'd fail a drug test.
    Well, at the risk of sounding like a dweeb, that's actually a very fair point.

    The excellent Roy Castle, who could beat Sammy Davis into the floor as a tap-dancer and was a superb jazz trumpeter, actually died of lung cancer (being a non-smoker) presumably because of the atmosphere of the clubs he played in.

    No idea as to whether he'd have been hired or not based on a hair test.

    I don't believe it's a question of whether one can take Presbyterian righteousness too far. I believe that it's a question of whether you should let it take the passenger seat at all.
  • real_aardvark 2008-06-18 19:19
    jMo:
    Rboy:
    Forget the drug test, have you ever hired anyone who DJ'd? Even worse, one that DJ'ing is their first love? Expect someone to punch in every day, and not do a darn thing...

    But who puts an end date to their schooling when they are STILL IN SCHOOL? The correct way denote that is 'Current', and add in an expected graduation date.


    stereotyping is lame... pun intended.
    Plz send teh punz...
  • real_aardvark 2008-06-18 19:22
    Steve:
    operagost:
    The real WTF is assuming that a person who is concerned about drug testing is a drug user. Some people think it's intrusive. Quaint, I know; as once President Obama implements his universal health care, we'll have mandatory blood tests and invasive exams annually on pain of imprisonment.
    One for two.
    Not that I'm American, but I'd settle for "invasive exams annually."

    For a moment there, I had to cross my legs. Backwards.
  • Not Insured 2008-06-18 19:23
    jpers36:
    savar:

    The real difference between the US and other countries is how far we are willing to go to take care of those who can't take care of themselves. Most euro countries are very supportive of others -- to the point that they pay a lot of taxes in order to allow the government to redistribute wealth heavily. In the US the prevailing opinion is "fuck them, let them get a job"... I personally am somewhere in the middle. I think preventative care should be available whether you can pay for it or not, but at the same time we shouldn't be paying $200,000 in tax payer funds to support some guy who burned his kidneys out with heroin and meth.


    I disagree (with your characterization of the US, not necessarily your post as a whole). I think the prevailing opinion of those Americans who oppose government health care is "It's not the government's job, find someone else to help you". Americans are willing to go pretty far to take care of those who can't help themselves, but many (myself included) would prefer this be done through charitable organizations, religious institutions, or individual generosity rather than the government. The whole "let them get a job" spiel is mostly a straw man.


    If it's such a straw man and Americans are willing to go pretty far then everyone should already be insured through their employer or through charitable organizations, etc. blah blah blah. Then how come they aren't doing it right now?

    But currently many people aren't insured, so you're already paying for services that are provided to uninsured people through increased premiums and increased hospital costs. Nothing is "free".

    People complain about the inefficiency of government run health care, but they don't realize that the US is already past the 50% point, since the majority of health care is consumed by the elderly who are taken care of by Medicare and similar government programs.
  • real_aardvark 2008-06-18 19:28
    brazzy:
    I'm getting at the fact that no editor in the world can get Python whitespace right for you when you can't do it yourself. I'll take your word that it's easier to get right yourself than $ variables and line ending semicolons while you're high, though I (as well as real_aardvark apparently) would have thought otherwise.
    Well, you know, this is odd.

    On principle, I'd agree with you. I mean, it's obvious (at least to somebody who programs in Python).

    However, having nicked something off the Web and re-written it, I seem to have something that does exactly what seems to be intuitively impossible.

    I'm pretty damn sure that it doesn't cope with edge cases. I'm pretty damn sure that it copes with all the idiocies I've seen so far (rare, in Python, but by no means extinct).

    I think it's time to releash the hounds of Python.
  • Has Dictionary and Understands Context 2008-06-18 19:32
    operagost:
    cparker:
    Ozymandias:
    cparker:
    KR:
    Alan:

    I live in a country with free universal healthcare, and I havent seen a doctor in 12 years.


    Health care is free where you are? So tell me, do the doctors in your country enjoy being unpaid slaves?
    Who said the doctors were volunteers? Free universal healthcare is paid for with taxes, and the money is distributed where there is a need.


    Having trouble with the definition of 'free', are we?
    Is that an admission? I take it you live in a totalitarian society and are not a free citizen.

    A publicly funded health care system would be free for everyone at the point of use. Nobody's saying there's no money involved.

    Saying universal healthcare is "free" is like saying internet access is free. After all, you don't have to keep feeding dollar bills into the cable modem while you're using it.



    God! This whole free/unpaid-slave discussion is so irritating! Anyone with at least a room temperature IQ would understand what is meant by "free" in the context it was used.

    Either, you're following the American media's example of what passes for discussion and examination of ideas or this was well TROLLED.

    Otherwise, I can't see what that original reply added to this discussion.
  • real_aardvark 2008-06-18 19:41
    Huf Lungdung:
    Not only that, but high grades often means you'll never have to take out student loans because you'll qualify for more grants and scholarships (I actually made about $2000 profit in my last year!)

    (1) Collect underpants
    (2) High grades and scholarships.
    (3) ???
    (4) $2000 profit!
    (5) A thousand pairs of Calvin Klein underpants.

    I think I'm missing something here.
  • real_aardvark 2008-06-18 19:47
    BobB:
    Not sure if this is on topic but a friend of mine who occasionally smokes pot was interviewing for a position as a secretary at a car insurance (not sayin who) office in town. She was worried about a drug test even though she hadn't smoked in a while and was wondering if the offices tested but didn't want to ask outright "Do you test for drugs?"

    What I suggested is after her final interview she simply ask, "I'm not sure if I've asked prior but is there anything else I must submit to your offices to begin employment?" And usually there is a week to two week window after beginning employment (at least in Oklahoma) that you have of when a piss test must be taken.
    Well, there's ya problem.

    Never take a job in Oklahoma.

    I mean, what're y'all smokin'?
  • The Fake WTF 2008-06-18 20:17
    The gang of four:
    Ya know I think the f*ckhead pattern is a much more apt name for the facade pattern.

    If somebody starts talking abaout the facade pattern as if it's an amazing architectural design they're using rather than just a wrapper you know they are a f*ckhead.

    Also if it's not completely obvious to you and needs explaining, you're a f*ckhead.


    We can't change the pronunciation like that. Otherwise, how will we describe the management pattern that already has that name?
  • Tomato Queen 2008-06-18 20:29
    It's also illegal to ask those questions in the US.
  • Robert 2008-06-18 20:35
    Reminds me of a co-worker who was going to be sending me a bunch of "piles" and reading data from "piles". I was curious about this new data structure.

    --Robert
    s/p/f/g for those who haven't worked with people from certain regions of india before.
  • WebDevGuy 2008-06-18 20:35
    real_aardvark:
    brazzy:
    I'm getting at the fact that no editor in the world can get Python whitespace right for you when you can't do it yourself. I'll take your word that it's easier to get right yourself than $ variables and line ending semicolons while you're high, though I (as well as real_aardvark apparently) would have thought otherwise.
    Well, you know, this is odd.

    On principle, I'd agree with you. I mean, it's obvious (at least to somebody who programs in Python).

    However, having nicked something off the Web and re-written it, I seem to have something that does exactly what seems to be intuitively impossible.

    I'm pretty damn sure that it doesn't cope with edge cases. I'm pretty damn sure that it copes with all the idiocies I've seen so far (rare, in Python, but by no means extinct).

    I think it's time to releash the hounds of Python.

    Dude, I'm just a smoker who likes to code. I think that Python's very chill. Perl is chill too, but he's sort of like that burned-out stoner...a little too lax and eccentric. PHP is mostly drunks, but in such numbers as to produce some great stuff. Lisp guys are clearly on acid. Java guys are the sober ones, and seem quite serious. Microsoft guys are always drunk off Natty Light and Milwaukee's Best.
  • Tomato Queen 2008-06-18 20:45
    There are plenty of competent women out there for the company to hire. Given 2 equal candidates, why hire the one who is pregnant. Whether she can "handle" it or not doesn't matter. They have more of a potential of becoming a problem than anything else. Why risk it? Even if she could still function, why not hire someone else with the same skills but who is NOT pregnant(or at least, not that they're aware of)?

    Where to begin:
    I hope you're being sarcastic. All of the sentences after the first one express sentiments and judgments that if used to make hiring decisions are against the law. You WILL lose.

    The language you use is degrading and abusive to women. They have more of a potential for becoming a problem? WTF planet do you live on, in what century? Why risk it? Why risk hiring anyone? Still function? Pregnant women function just fine asshole, except obviously the poor idiot stuck with you.

    The last question: you don't get to base your hiring decision on pregnancy. It is against the law. And you are a Neanderthal fuckhead for even thinking, let alone posting such garbage.
  • Konrad 2008-06-18 21:01
    A contractor I once worked with used to regularly invoice the company for debuggering code.
  • Diogo 2008-06-18 21:01
    Health care is free where you are? So tell me, do the doctors in your country enjoy being unpaid slaves?

    Are you joking?
    (In my country healthcare is also free, and trust me doctors are no slaves here)
  • The Enterpriser 2008-06-18 22:19
    Sarge!:
    To this day (5 years later) I fail to see *ANY* use in those drug test policies... I actually think they are bad. Sure way to loose some really creative people on your team!




    public static void main(String [] yellowSubmarine) {
    ...
    }
  • Bob 2008-06-18 22:34
    Sarge!:
    Sure way to loose some really creative people on your team!


    Too bad it's lose and not loose.

    Captcha: eros (isn't that the new "dwarf plant"?
  • Some Guy Who Never Posts Comments (Well, Not Usually Anyway) 2008-06-18 22:41
    Has Dictionary and Understands Context:
    operagost:
    cparker:
    Ozymandias:
    cparker:
    KR:
    Alan:

    I live in a country with free universal healthcare, and I havent seen a doctor in 12 years.


    Health care is free where you are? So tell me, do the doctors in your country enjoy being unpaid slaves?
    Who said the doctors were volunteers? Free universal healthcare is paid for with taxes, and the money is distributed where there is a need.


    Having trouble with the definition of 'free', are we?
    Is that an admission? I take it you live in a totalitarian society and are not a free citizen.

    A publicly funded health care system would be free for everyone at the point of use. Nobody's saying there's no money involved.

    Saying universal healthcare is "free" is like saying internet access is free. After all, you don't have to keep feeding dollar bills into the cable modem while you're using it.



    God! This whole free/unpaid-slave discussion is so irritating! Anyone with at least a room temperature IQ would understand what is meant by "free" in the context it was used.

    Either, you're following the American media's example of what passes for discussion and examination of ideas or this was well TROLLED.

    Otherwise, I can't see what that original reply added to this discussion.


    Okay, so which definition of "free" are you using? It most certainly isn't "free as in beer" and it also isn't "free as in speech". In fact, there are a lot of definitions for free and none seem to fit. There are a lot of correct ways to say "socialized health care" but "free" isn't one of them.

    Free health care is free in the same way that credit cards let you buy things for free. Except that some other guy is using your credit card and sending you the bill.

    Oh, and M-M-M-M-M-M-MONSTER QUOTE!!
  • Anonymous 2008-06-18 22:42
    Just to add to the whole drug test debate...

    Many companies that deal with any type of sensitive information automatically disqualify drug users on grounds that they would be susceptible to divulging said information. I work with national security IT and we are routinely tested for this reason. But the same can be applied down the line through many industries. What is to say that a drug user won't sell government secrets, trade secrets, sensitive data, etc. for that "fix" if he/she needs it? It goes much further than just looking out for the performance of the employee.
  • The Enterpriser 2008-06-18 22:54
    Ozymandias:
    I laughed my a** off at the fact that someone actually thought something was free since they paid for it with their left hand (taxes) rather than their right (money or insurance).


    It _is_ free if you aren't paying tax. Which includes a suprisingly large number of people.
  • J 2008-06-18 22:55
    Where to begin:
    I hope you're being sarcastic. Blah blah blah, panties in a bunch, my comprehension skills are poor.


    You, madam, are 1 of two possible things.

    1) An exceptional troll, in which case I've been sucked in hook, line, sinker and copy of Angling Times.

    2) Someone who doesn't understand a counter example/extension of a poor argument to highlight its invalidity.

    Regardless of where anyone stands on the extremely complicated and morally murky issues that have been discussed in this thread, nobody is advocating discrimination of recruitment based on someone being pregnant.

    If you were actually getting all upset because you thought someone was saying that, you may start feeling embarrassed now.

    If, however, you were trolling, well played. I totally fell for it.
  • DavidTC 2008-06-18 22:56
    Ozymandias:
    cparker:
    KR:
    Alan:

    I live in a country with free universal healthcare, and I havent seen a doctor in 12 years.


    Health care is free where you are? So tell me, do the doctors in your country enjoy being unpaid slaves?
    Who said the doctors were volunteers? Free universal healthcare is paid for with taxes, and the money is distributed where there is a need.


    Having trouble with the definition of 'free', are we?


    Man, I just had the same discussion. I was at a park, and they were trying to tell me the restrooms were free. I was like 'Oh, so slaves are employed to keep them clean', and they looked at me like I was crazy and insisted that people were paid to keep them clean. Yeah, paid by me!

    Likewise, I once got in a shouting match with some fool who tried to give me a 'free' sample at Sam's Club. The dumbass didn't realize that I had to have a membership to get in the door.

    Oh, and don't get me started by stores offering 'buy one, get one free' deals. If it was free, I wouldn't have to pay them money, would I?

    Man, there are so many idiots out there that don't know what 'free' means. 'Free' means that, at no point in time has any of my time, effort, or money gone into that item.

    And everyone misuses that word...I can't think of a single thing I've ever gotten in my entire life that actually meets my definition of 'free' except air. (Well, I am providing CO2 for the plants to produce air, so maybe not.) At minimum, I have to go get the thing.

    ...wait, there's some sort of grammar rule about when I use a word one way, and every other person in existence uses it the other way, and I can't think of it at the moment.


    Oh, wait, now I remember. If I think a word logically means one thing, and every other person disagrees with me and uses it a different way, the rule is I'm wrong.
  • ChiefCrazyTalk 2008-06-18 23:03
    operagost:
    The real WTF is assuming that a person who is concerned about drug testing is a drug user. Some people think it's intrusive. Quaint, I know; as once President Obama implements his universal health care, we'll have mandatory blood tests and invasive exams annually on pain of imprisonment.

    (premier)

    Yeah. The real WTF was that the interviewer apparently WASN'T cool and dismissed the candidate so readily.
  • TravelingWTF 2008-06-18 23:10
    "Wow... travelling for an interview for a company that wasn't interested enough to compensate your travel expenses? TRWTF right there."

    Not always. Depending on circumstances, it might be a smart gamble. Worked out OK for me when I spent around $600 a little over two years ago to interview for a job I was well-suited for and knew the hiring manager. Got the job, and have since gotten raises of 25%, 30%, and just under 25%. The last one, admittedly, as a result of the startup shutting down and my getting picked up by a (much more stable) company the startup worked closely with :). This company also has stock options that aren't totally worthless...

    You spend money almost anytime you go to an interview, even if it's just for gas and the hassle of driving across town. Risk vs. reward, and the only person able to make the choice for you is you.
  • phx 2008-06-18 23:11
    The Free Market gods must be a lot more angry at the US than Australia (which has free universal healthcare). Our economy is going great thanks! :)
  • CJ 2008-06-18 23:15
    Tomato Queen:
    There are plenty of competent women out there for the company to hire. Given 2 equal candidates, why hire the one who is pregnant. Whether she can "handle" it or not doesn't matter. They have more of a potential of becoming a problem than anything else. Why risk it? Even if she could still function, why not hire someone else with the same skills but who is NOT pregnant(or at least, not that they're aware of)?

    Where to begin:
    I hope you're being sarcastic. All of the sentences after the first one express sentiments and judgments that if used to make hiring decisions are against the law. You WILL lose.

    The language you use is degrading and abusive to women. They have more of a potential for becoming a problem? WTF planet do you live on, in what century? Why risk it? Why risk hiring anyone? Still function? Pregnant women function just fine asshole, except obviously the poor idiot stuck with you.

    The last question: you don't get to base your hiring decision on pregnancy. It is against the law. And you are a Neanderthal fuckhead for even thinking, let alone posting such garbage.


    You must be under the impression that companies don't take illegal risks, or that no illegal action goes unpunished. For example, how would you prove you were brushed aside because of a pregnancy and not your hot-headed personality? Most hiring managers aren't dumb enough to admit their illegal prejudices, so you won't have any evidence.

    In my experience, being a woman is a red flag. Women tend to be bossy and mean, especially to us passive geek types. They win arguments by ignoring logic, and they screw over employers by being whores. I didn't always think this way, but two decades of being run over by the XX express have changed my perspective.
  • Joe Rai 2008-06-19 02:40
    Scotty:
    Scott is a FACADE


    Brilliant!
  • fbjon 2008-06-19 02:50
    KR:
    Alan:

    I live in a country with free universal healthcare, and I havent seen a doctor in 12 years.


    Health care is free where you are? So tell me, do the doctors in your country enjoy being unpaid slaves?


    "Free" has nothing to do with funding. Everyone over here knows that health care costs, and a lot, but it's still free.

    If you buy e.g. a car, and get a pair of sunglasses free with the purchase, would you say "no it isn't free, someone's gotta pay for it"?

    Free in the monetary sense always means free-for-me, no other meaning is sensible or even possible. Thus, even if health care is funded by taxes, it's still free, because if I don't pay any taxes, I still get health care.
  • TheDesi 2008-06-19 04:02
    Cheese:

    I had an Indian coworker a few years ago who, when trying to say "I made a mistake on [system] and my boss chewed me out" actually said "I made a mistake on [system] and my boss ate me out". We all held in our laughter pretty well but the 20-something young lady programmer in the group turned an incredible shade of red.


    I can identify with that, being Indian myself. Most of us grow up learning the Queen's English and speak a creole of our regional languages mixed with it. Coming to America for the first time, I realized that people here spoke American, not quite English.

    My first manager once asked me about status on a module I was working on and how soon I'd be done.

    My reply - "I'm at the fag end of it".

    I've never quite seen someone double up with laughter so quickly! :D
  • SQB 2008-06-19 04:11
    fbjon:
    If you buy e.g. a car, and get a pair of sunglasses free with the purchase, would you say "no it isn't free, someone's gotta pay for it"?


    TANSTAAFL. Or TANSTAAFPOS, for that matter.
  • Thomas 2008-06-19 04:56
    "Recently I (a Java architect) and one of our IT managers were interviewing a guy for a Java developer position."

    Java architect. Boy, can Sun's marketing come up with bullshit on par with Apple's.

    Since Java's a "technology" and not, god forbid, a "programming language", it's only natural you'd need a "Java architect."

    Bullshit for clueless corporate suits who like to feel important.
  • Dieselmachine 2008-06-19 05:09
    Scott is a worthless sack of shit.

    Fuck you.
  • Cian 2008-06-19 05:15
    The guy was a DJ - if you need to sell trade secrets for a $2 fix of a non-addictive drug, you're not being paid enough and have other serious problems.
  • Suitless 2008-06-19 05:33
    No drug testing at your company I assume.
  • Chestnut 2008-06-19 05:49
    SparkyRoosta:

    The only jobs that should be drug tested are safety critical jobs where you need insurance and you need to make sure that the guy working the wrecking ball has the least likelihood of being impaired... although, they should include daily alcohol tests for those types of jobs too.


    And driving cars. Drug-users should not be allowed to drive a car. In 99% of the U.S., that further prohibits them from working.
  • SQB 2008-06-19 06:02
    WTF's:

    The interviewee using his DJ'ing as an explanation to the question (even though there's probably a fair correlation).

    Scott's reaction (if not an embellishment by Jake).
  • Alan 2008-06-19 06:35
    Ozymandias:


    Just because you pay for it with taxes doesn't mean it is free.


    Do you have to pay to call the police? No. Does that make it free to call the Police? Yes. Do you pay for the Police? Yes - through taxes.

    "Free" is shorthand for "Free at the point of use". I pay National Insurance which (in theory) pays for my healthcare. If I was not paying National Insurance (too old, too young, too poor) then my healthcare would, actually, be free.
  • loki 2008-06-19 06:35
    Sarge!:
    I'm from Canada, but worked in California for 6 years. When a small company I was working for was bought out by a big one they had all the employees take drug tests.

    One of the best guy on our team did test positive. He was *really* *really* good at his job, plus I never ever even think he could be the kind of guy to use drugs. (And I worked there for 3 years with him) So needless to say, not only it wasn't an issue with his ability to do his job... if it wouldn't be for the test, you wouldn't know he used it.

    He was let go.. just because of that. When I asked him, he just plainly said, that yes... he smoked once in a while during week-ends.

    To this day (5 years later) I fail to see *ANY* use in those drug test policies... I actually think they are bad. Sure way to loose some really creative people on your team!

    Way to go US... freedom loving country ;-)

    hahaha.


    Yes, we are a freedom-loving country. And you are missing the point - "smoking" a controlled substance is ILLEGAL in the US; (whether it should be or not is a subject for a different forum). Employers do not want to hire someone who may be going to jail soon, as that defeats the purpose of the hiring. Employers also do not want to hire pedophiles (hey, man, he is a super coder - he just likes to rape little girls on his own time) or murderers (he's a super sysadmin, and he only kills those he feels deserve it). I'm sure that with a little thought (and you are apparently only capable of a little thought) that you can understand that an employer may not want the company's image to be associated with illegal actions of any kind - it makes sales more difficult, even to Canadian companies...

    hahaha
  • loki 2008-06-19 06:36
    Sarge!:
    I'm from Canada, but worked in California for 6 years. When a small company I was working for was bought out by a big one they had all the employees take drug tests.

    One of the best guy on our team did test positive. He was *really* *really* good at his job, plus I never ever even think he could be the kind of guy to use drugs. (And I worked there for 3 years with him) So needless to say, not only it wasn't an issue with his ability to do his job... if it wouldn't be for the test, you wouldn't know he used it.

    He was let go.. just because of that. When I asked him, he just plainly said, that yes... he smoked once in a while during week-ends.

    To this day (5 years later) I fail to see *ANY* use in those drug test policies... I actually think they are bad. Sure way to loose some really creative people on your team!

    Way to go US... freedom loving country ;-)

    hahaha.


    Yes, we are a freedom-loving country. And you are missing the point - "smoking" a controlled substance is ILLEGAL in the US; (whether it should be or not is a subject for a different forum). Employers do not want to hire someone who may be going to jail soon, as that defeats the purpose of the hiring. Employers also do not want to hire pedophiles (hey, man, he is a super coder - he just likes to rape little girls on his own time) or murderers (he's a super sysadmin, and he only kills those he feels deserve it). I'm sure that with a little thought (and you are apparently only capable of a little thought) that you can understand that an employer may not want the company's image to be associated with illegal actions of any kind - it makes sales more difficult, even to Canadian companies...

    hahaha
  • Coke freak 2008-06-19 06:38
    Perfectly legitimate question, cunt.
  • Hard core tattoo of a fairy 2008-06-19 06:45
    Are you scared of drugs because you probably have hep-c?
  • Sebastian 2008-06-19 07:11
    Some Guy Who Never Posts Comments (Well, Not Usually Anyway):

    Okay, so which definition of "free" are you using? It most certainly isn't "free as in beer" and it also isn't "free as in speech". In fact, there are


    Of COURSE he's using the "free as in beer definition". Even free beer has been paid by someone at some point of time, but right now, it's free to me. If, say, a state-run agency threw a party with free beer, would you not call it free beer since tax payer money is involved?

    No need to get all philosophical about it...


    Free health care is free in the same way that credit cards let you buy things for free. Except that some other guy is using your credit card and sending you the bill.


    Well, then it's free to him, right?
  • VP 2008-06-19 07:25
    Huf Lungdung:
    I'm surprised no one brought this up before...

    TRWTF is ditching your classes for that long, just to attend job interviews. That isn't to say landing an interview isn't important, but IMO it isn't worth it to risk low or failing grades in your classes.

    Work experience = means something.
    Education = means close to nothing if you have experience.
  • SQB 2008-06-19 07:36
    loki:
    Yes, we are a freedom-loving country. And you are missing the point - "smoking" a controlled substance is ILLEGAL in the US; (whether it should be or not is a subject for a different forum). Employers do not want to hire someone who may be going to jail soon, as that defeats the purpose of the hiring. Employers also do not want to hire pedophiles (hey, man, he is a super coder - he just likes to rape little girls on his own time) or murderers (he's a super sysadmin, and he only kills those he feels deserve it).


    But unless the job requires it, companies do not normally check police records. It's just that drugs are illegal AND relatively easy to test for. Alcohol is even easier to test for, but not illegal. Murder and rape are even more illegal than drugs -- assuming one can identify degrees of legality -- but pretty hard to test for. So drug use gets singled out.
  • Man 987876980 2008-06-19 07:38
    Firstly, what are "tattoo sleeves"?

    Secondly, why did he ask about drug checks in the context of being a DJ?



    ps: my auto-complete suggests I'm getting captchas I've had before, which is odd considering I post rarely.
  • SQB 2008-06-19 08:00
    Man 987876980:
    Firstly, what are "tattoo sleeves"?
    Firstly, the name should be self-explanatory enough.

    Secondly, Google is your friend.
  • dan 2008-06-19 08:04
    My team is fairly international. We were working through a design for a GUI, and a Spanish colleague of mine announced that a button should be "f*cksy". My english colleagues and I looked blankly at her and asked her to repeat herself, and she did. An Italian colleague turned to us and said "you know, f*cksy".
    Eventually, we worked out she was trying to describe a colour, and we quickly realised she meant 'fuchsia'.
    But, unfortunately, the description had stuck.
  • Man 987876980 2008-06-19 08:47
    SQB:
    Man 987876980:
    Firstly, what are "tattoo sleeves"?
    Firstly, the name should be self-explanatory enough.

    What kind of jackass takes the time to respond to a question just to tell you the answer is obvious, without actually answering it?

    3 captchas in a row I've had before now. Doesn't seem great from a security view?
  • donniel 2008-06-19 08:55
    foo:
    Yeah, I know what you mean with these stories. One time I got called into an interview, but it was over within minutes. I think I was overqualified for the job because with every question they asked me, I knew way more than they did and even offered them advice on what changes they should make in order to get better at programming.


    I feel obligated to point out that you might have come off as a "know it all" instead of a mentor. Got to be careful on that one.


    I think that's sarcasm (Can't be sure, though).
  • The Heretic 2008-06-19 09:27
    The drug testing issue can go both ways. I don't use recreational drugs (I have some chronic pain issues due old spinal injuries, so I occasionally have to take some prescription pain killers and muscle relaxants) but for the most part I don't have a problem with their use off the job.

    However, I have witnessed the repercussions of recreational drug use while in the military where I had to depend on these drug users in life threatening situations and it wasn't pretty. So in a job where financial data/calculations is at stake, or where the failure of the product might cause loss of life or harm to people or property, or where the project is a government project requiring a clearance - I can see a drug test as being part of the requirements to get a job.

    I can also see drug use as being an indicator of possible attendance problems, including those caused by being incarcerated. But if you are going to test then maybe also test for excessive alcohol usage as that has been known to cause very similar problems (I had a boss once that was an alcoholic - not very pleasant at all).

    Still, escorting someone out just for asking a valid question seems extreme. As already pointed out it could be a philosophical issue, or it could be that because someone is around drug users they could test positive; some drug tests that use hair samples will show positives from second hand smoke.

    In the end analysis, it is up to the company whether they want to hire someone who uses any kind of recreational drug or not.
  • Dean 2008-06-19 09:32
    taylonr:
    Honestly can't remember the guys names, but yeah, Pella. Loved the town. Were you one of the interviewers?


    Nope. But I used to work for the company & department you were interviewing for. And taking people around town and the whole lunch thing was what we always did. And I can just imagine how Hans misread the resume and the look on his face when he realized the mistake.

    Pella is only cool for about 2 months or so. Then you start wishing you lived somewhere else...

    I think it worked out best for you in the end.
  • rawsteak 2008-06-19 09:53
    the real WTF is that "the f*ckhead pattern." has a star in it. like we're not fucking mature enough to handle the word "fuck" or "republican" or "intercourse." i know you got tired of telling your family, "I run the Daily What The Fuck," but I don't think they would hold it against you if they read someone else's story online that just happened the word "fuck."

    even though your pubes haven't grown in yet, i think if you've ever compiled something only to get a segmentation fault, you're granted the permission and privilege to yell "fuck" as loud as you can. maybe that's just me.
  • Ben Smith 2008-06-19 10:28
    "I had to bite my tongue not to laugh. You couldn't make up stuff like this."

    HAHA. I get it! Someone who can speak two (or three) languages mispronouces something! Hilarity!

    Why didn't you talk to him in his first (or second) language then to avoid this misunderstanding? What? You only speak English?
  • Steve 2008-06-19 10:37
    the fundamental problem is that it is absurd that in a supposedly free country you are a criminal for doing something that is harmless (marijuana) -- harmless to the person using it and harmless to society at large. a lot of disinformation has been put out about it and it is all a bunch of BS.

    they need to keep marijuana illegal to keep the colossal money black hole going known as the war on drugs.

    but this aside, on the issue of drug testing, the cops are not allowed to enter your home or search your person or papers without a warrant. more than probable cause is supposed to be necessary for a warrant -- you need the sworn statement of a witness that specifid contraband was seen at a specific location.

    if the cops can't enter your home without a warrant, how can a potential employer search your bodily fluids? (which i would argue is a much greater violation of a person's privacy than having your home searched.) a potential employer does not have police powers, yet they are allowed to conduct more invasive searches of a person than the police are allowed. the police are granted the powers they have by the people for the benefit of the people.

    another problem is that marijuana is the only thing that stays in the body for more than a few days, and you almost always know you will be tested a few days in advance.

    another problem is that it is a logical fallacy to imply that if a person has metabolites from marijuana in thier system, that they will show up to work under the influence. one simply does not imply the other. granted, there is a higher probability, but we don't prosecute people on probabilities, we require proof that a crime has been comitted.
  • smokey 2008-06-19 10:38
    Ozymandias:
    Blobster:
    so the presence or absence of drug use isn't relevant since it's already factored into the appraisal of ability.


    Incorrect. The presence of drug use implies poor decision making skills, an inability to follow the rules, and a criminal propensity that may not have come out otherwise.


    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    you are hilarious!!!!

    Thank you man, you made my day.
  • LKM 2008-06-19 10:39
    Okay, maybe I'm missing something here since I'm not American, but I really don't see the big issue with the drug question.
  • Someone You Know 2008-06-19 11:07
    Steve:

    if the cops can't enter your home without a warrant, how can a potential employer search your bodily fluids? (which i would argue is a much greater violation of a person's privacy than having your home searched.) a potential employer does not have police powers, yet they are allowed to conduct more invasive searches of a person than the police are allowed. the police are granted the powers they have by the people for the benefit of the people.


    While I agree with you in principle, I don't think this analogy works. You're confusing the issue.

    Police can absolutely search your home without having a search warrant if you give them permission to do so. Likewise, a potential employer can conduct a drug test if you consent to it.

    They can't force you to take a drug test against your will, just like the police can't search your house against your will.
  • real_aardvark 2008-06-19 11:24
    Steve:
    another problem is that it is a logical fallacy to imply that if a person has metabolites from marijuana in thier system, that they will show up to work under the influence. one simply does not imply the other. granted, there is a higher probability, but we don't prosecute people on probabilities, we require proof that a crime has been comitted.
    I believe you are confusing the criteria of criminal law ("beyond reasonable doubt") with the criteria of civil law ("on the balance of probabilities").

    This may be due either to your excessive inhalation of harmful toxins, or simply because your shift key doesn't seem to work.

    On a different note: I enjoyed the comment (which I can't be arsed to track down) that "employers are justified in not hiring employees who may subsequently involve them in legal proceedings."

    After Sarbanes-Oxley, I would think that this nostrum would prevent hiring anybody at all -- certainly not at the management level, or anywhere near the cash till.

    At last! A business world staffed and run by toilet cleaners!*

    * With the necessary permits from the Eco bunnies, of course.
  • Ben 2008-06-19 11:44
    Blobster:
    But should that affect whether or not he receives a job offer? Any effects that drug use would have had on him would have already been reflected in his abilities, which is the basis for comparison - so the presence or absence of drug use isn't relevant since it's already factored into the appraisal of ability.


    If a drug using employee is involved in an accident that costs someone their life, you can be certain that in addition to the other lawsuits the Company will be faced with, they will also be sued for negligence for employing a drug user.

    Not to mention how much their health insurance will skyrocket if they are forced to pay for drug treatment at some point.

    If you want to point a finger at someone, try a lawyer. They are the ones who have jacked litigation up to the point where companies are forced to make these decisions (and malpractice suits raise the cost of health insurance by at least 50%).

    If you want to see things change - then stop voting lawyers into Congress (assuming there is a non-lawyer choice on the ballot). Otherwise, don't be surprised when a room full of lawyers passes 50 laws where one law would have sufficed.
  • Ozymandias 2008-06-19 12:00
    JackBlack:
    James:
    Given that the drug test guy was probably interviewing in America, maybe they're trying to make sure that their employees aren't going to take tens of thousands of dollars of training and experience to prison with them. I mean, if there was a way of testing if somebody goes out and steals cars on the weekend, I'm sure they'd do that too.

    Bottom line: if the dude is breaking the law and not getting caught (yet), the potential employer has a business interest in that information. Whether the employer thinks the activity in question *should* be legal or not doesn't really factor into it.


    You're an idiot James.

    Health & Safety: Drug testing should only be performed for roles in which someone's impairment would significantly increase the risk of accident or injury to themselves or others.

    e.g. if you drive busses, forklifts, work with big body mangling machines in a factory, then yes, it's probably a good idea to be sober. On the balance of invasion of privacy versus public safety, drug testing tips the scale, but only barely.

    So retards, please tell me how code monkeys or sysadmins need drug testing. You have code reviews and testing right? Oh forgot .. you're a god and can code production on the fly. Let me bow to your greatness James.

    People, and Americans in particular, allow themselves to be subjected to all sorts of crap. Freedom my ass. Silly me I forgot that America throws people in jail for small possession (well only of you're black).

    With respect to businesses, they only need to know if you're qualified for the role they are hiring you for. Whatever you do in your own time is your own business. Protect their investment??. They train you so you can do a better job for them, and to retain you (it's a bonus). They don't own you. You're not a chattel. You do work. They pay you. Show up for work pissed or stoned then they have a right to fire your ass because you're in breach of contract.


    Evidently you are not a system administrator. In every company I have worked, we had things where production downtime would be bad. At one company, for every 15 minutes of downtime on a customers server we paid out $5000. A prolonged outage due to improper responses, or an impaired admin-on-call would very likely destroy the company, costing everyone thier jobs.
  • ClaudeSuck.de 2008-06-19 12:22
    Hey, what do you smoke and where can I get some? would have been a much better question
  • Mitur Binesderty 2008-06-19 13:08
    Scott is a facade.
  • Shill 2008-06-19 14:22
    Blobster:
    "Scott"s reaction to the interviewee's question seems a bit extreme. Technically asking the question doesn't indicate that he is a drug user though from the context it appears to be likely.


    Given the way the question was phrased and the idiocy of admitting drug use to a potential employer, I'm thinking that the guy wasn't a drug user. I'm thinking that in his job as a DJ, he ends up in the occasional smoke-filled room. He was concerned that the contact high might trip the drug tests.
  • smokey 2008-06-19 14:26
    Shill:
    Blobster:
    "Scott"s reaction to the interviewee's question seems a bit extreme. Technically asking the question doesn't indicate that he is a drug user though from the context it appears to be likely.


    Given the way the question was phrased and the idiocy of admitting drug use to a potential employer, I'm thinking that the guy wasn't a drug user. I'm thinking that in his job as a DJ, he ends up in the occasional smoke-filled room. He was concerned that the contact high might trip the drug tests.


    we have a winner - a user would never ask that question
  • Ric 2008-06-19 15:08
    Response to the F*ckhead Pattern: The candidate shouldn't be assumed to speak French, especially as English is already a foreign language to him, right?
  • Shill 2008-06-19 15:30
    The Enterpriser:
    Ozymandias:
    I laughed my a** off at the fact that someone actually thought something was free since they paid for it with their left hand (taxes) rather than their right (money or insurance).


    It _is_ free if you aren't paying tax. Which includes a suprisingly large number of people.


    Most countries with universal health care provided by the government have VAT taxes which means everyone pays tax. Secondly, some number of those people not paying tax might be earning more money if not for the extra drag the taxes other pay place on the economy.
  • JackBlack 2008-06-19 16:30
    I think you need to prefix your grasp of the law with IANAL.

    It seems you can sue anything for anything (in America), but unless the company supplied or demanded drug use, I really doubt it would stick.

    Which is why the better policy is don't ask - don't tell. As I blathered on before, 99.999% of code monkey and sysadmin jobs will not be affected by recreational drug use.
  • real_aardvark 2008-06-19 16:38
    Shill:
    The Enterpriser:
    Ozymandias:
    I laughed my a** off at the fact that someone actually thought something was free since they paid for it with their left hand (taxes) rather than their right (money or insurance).


    It _is_ free if you aren't paying tax. Which includes a suprisingly large number of people.


    Most countries with universal health care provided by the government have VAT taxes which means everyone pays tax. Secondly, some number of those people not paying tax might be earning more money if not for the extra drag the taxes other pay place on the economy.
    Sigh.

    Not that it's remotely important, but:

    (1) VAT is not usually charged on essentials such as food. It is perfectly possible to live in a First World country without paying tax. Unless the First World country in question is America, and as long as you are prepared to live off cans of Kattomeat.
    (2) I kind of lost your second point as you stumbled over that huge great hairy tongue slopping out of your mouth. I'm sure it was a boffo one, though.

    Taxes, in and of themselves, do not provide a drag on "the economy."

    The manner in which (your government) chooses to use those taxes may well do so, however.

    Your choice: universal health care, or two million people in jail.

    (Note that I have skipped the easy alternative of not spending a trillion dollars on the war in Iraq, because I actually support the war in Iraq.)
  • Steve 2008-06-19 16:49
    To those who say that you aren't required to take the job so you're not being forced to do it:

    How about if they made you sign a waiver saying that they can come into your house at any time and snoop around (and maybe grope your wife while they are at it)? Would you have a problem with that? They are both invasions of privacy.

    As far as being on call, would you rather have a person on call who had been smoking marijuana or drinking alcohol? Noone would debate whether a drinking would affect one's ability to perform technical tasks, with marijuana the argument is not so cut-and-dried (no pun intended).
  • JackBlack 2008-06-19 16:58
    Ozymandias:
    JackBlack:
    James:
    Given that the drug test guy was probably interviewing in America, maybe they're trying to make sure that their employees aren't going to take tens of thousands of dollars of training and experience to prison with them. I mean, if there was a way of testing if somebody goes out and steals cars on the weekend, I'm sure they'd do that too.

    Bottom line: if the dude is breaking the law and not getting caught (yet), the potential employer has a business interest in that information. Whether the employer thinks the activity in question *should* be legal or not doesn't really factor into it.


    You're an idiot James.

    Health & Safety: Drug testing should only be performed for roles in which someone's impairment would significantly increase the risk of accident or injury to themselves or others.

    e.g. if you drive busses, forklifts, work with big body mangling machines in a factory, then yes, it's probably a good idea to be sober. On the balance of invasion of privacy versus public safety, drug testing tips the scale, but only barely.

    So retards, please tell me how code monkeys or sysadmins need drug testing. You have code reviews and testing right? Oh forgot .. you're a god and can code production on the fly. Let me bow to your greatness James.

    People, and Americans in particular, allow themselves to be subjected to all sorts of crap. Freedom my ass. Silly me I forgot that America throws people in jail for small possession (well only of you're black).

    With respect to businesses, they only need to know if you're qualified for the role they are hiring you for. Whatever you do in your own time is your own business. Protect their investment??. They train you so you can do a better job for them, and to retain you (it's a bonus). They don't own you. You're not a chattel. You do work. They pay you. Show up for work pissed or stoned then they have a right to fire your ass because you're in breach of contract.


    Evidently you are not a system administrator. In every company I have worked, we had things where production downtime would be bad. At one company, for every 15 minutes of downtime on a customers server we paid out $5000. A prolonged outage due to improper responses, or an impaired admin-on-call would very likely destroy the company, costing everyone thier jobs.


    Thank f*** I'm not. I'd be so bored I'd probably want to shoot up. No really! Production downtime is bad? Wow that's an observation.

    Aaaand you just said impairment, not recreational drug use. Like alcohol, there is a definite difference between recreational use on your own time and having dependancy problems. Not everyone who touches a joint also spikes heroin into their veins and shares needles under their desk. Not everyone who has a beer is an alcoholic.

    Nobody ever thinks being impaired at work is cool. It's the testing for trace amounts of the metabolised byproducts of drugs that linger in your system (ie drugs gone - body used them already). It's a logical f***ink fallacy to say that smoke a joint = you will be stoned at work and kill people. You might as well say smoke a joint = going to rape babies.

    F*** you guys seem to believe everything the news tells you. Waaaaaake up.

    PS $5000 every 15 min is peanuts. 5 years ago the website I used to work on made $1000 USD (profit) per minute. Places I've worked since would lose millions in that time. Yes, my d1ck is bigger than yours.

    Muppets. They should ban fat people instead.


  • T. Totaller 2008-06-19 17:40
    No kidding! Doing drugs does not make someone a bad employee, or a security risk, or a bad person. Plenty of people I know work very to keep their s*** in order, despite the occasional indulgence. They focus on the job during the week so they can do whatever they want on the weekends.

    Get off your high horse already. Just 'cuz nobody ever offered you a puff doesn't make this guy a drug fiend.
  • incassum 2008-06-19 17:43
    TRWTF is UMR and the new name.
  • T. Totaller 2008-06-19 17:48
    My guess would be that the interviewee was probably talking about ecstasy, which is usually detectable for 3-5 days.

    Just sayin' is all...
  • Spartan 2008-06-19 19:03
    Omg, The real wtf has got to be America's attitude towards drugs. For those asking from sane countries: America has a senseless, psychotic obsession for the impossible goal of ending all drug use. The vibe I usually get is that torturing kittens would be a small price to prevent a single joint from getting smoked.

    It's beyond my comprehesion why I'd ever care how strangers choose to live their lives, and yet people are always dumbstruck by my claims to support legalization without doing illegal drugs myself. (yet every firsthand account assures me that the alchohol I drink is far worse than weed)
  • potsmoker 2008-06-19 19:23
    It's been said lots of times but once more won't hurt. Scott is a d-bag. But on the bright side, the DJ figured out quickly that he wouldn't want to work there with a bunch of jackasses who can't answer a simple question. There is no reason to escort someone out of the office for asking a reasonable question. I nominate Scott for Biggest Douche in the Universe.
  • Anon 2008-06-19 20:35
    Yep Scott is definitely a facade pattern... And the real WTF is that the WTF in the story isn't Scotts overt prejudice!

    God America is a facaded place, with facaded attitudes and facade load of prejudice.

    Go facade yourselves, facaders.
  • Action Man 2008-06-19 20:58
    Spartan:
    For those asking from sane countries: America has a senseless, psychotic obsession for the impossible goal of ending all drug use. The vibe I usually get is that torturing kittens would be a small price to prevent a single joint from getting smoked.

    Correction: ...ending all drug use, except drugs sold by pharmaceutical companies, caffeine (and other "safe stimulants"), tobacco (and all the drugs it contains these days), and most importantly, alcohol.

    It should also be noted that for some reason, they also have an obsession with getting as many people as possible hooked on "anti-depressants" (usually amphetamines) and other horrible drugs peddled by the corporate dealers.


    I for one would much rather work with someone who smokes pot or drops some home-made pills on the weekends rather than work with an alcoholic or someone on anti-depressants.
  • Monique 2008-06-19 23:35
    I don't smoke at all, but what about catching contact from people who are smoking?

    I used to work as a cocktail waitress at this night club. There people would smoke cigarettes as well as other things. I don't smoke, but I couldn't help but inhale the cigarette smoke. Of course, I couldn't help but inhale the other stuff, too. Would being in contact with the smoke be enough to test positive on a test?

    I'm guessing the part time DJ didn't -have- to be a druggie. He just had to work around it. Hey, that's why the no smoking laws went into effect, because of servers and second hand smoke.
  • Steve 2008-06-19 23:58
    What a bunch of dope head morons posting on this thread. All this dickhead had to do was keep his damn mouth shut but he was too stupid to even do that. I don't care if he gets high but if he's so fucking stupid as to ask that question in an interviews then I sure wouldn't hire him...
  • Steve 2008-06-20 00:04
    Having your entire arm from wrists to shoulders covered in tattoos.
  • Anon 2008-06-20 01:08
    Steve:
    What a bunch of dope head morons posting on this thread.
    Thank you, Steve, for giving an example of the very prejudice that inspired all the "moronic" posts... facadetard...
  • DC 2008-06-20 01:11
    Monique:
    I don't smoke, but I couldn't help but inhale the cigarette smoke. Of course, I couldn't help but inhale the other stuff, too. Would being in contact with the smoke be enough to test positive on a test?
    Yes it is - Possibly for up to a few months afterwards if you're unlucky...
    I have a mate who got refused entry into the Army because he went to a party a month beforehand where people were smoking.
  • Dude! 2008-06-20 01:37
    Steve:
    Having your entire arm from wrists to shoulders covered in tattoos.
    Are you replying to the question posted on page 5 of the comments, without using the quote button??

    Moron!
  • Dave 2008-06-20 02:29
    "F-A-C-A-D-E. F*ckhead." he replied.


    Hmm, with that pronuciation I'm guessing the interviewee would have been Polish, or at least a speaker of a related west slavic language.
  • koni 2008-06-20 03:18
    FredSaw:
    cklam:
    ...(because only ex-cons have tattoos)...
    Oh my goodness! My last three girlfriends have been ex-cons, and I never suspected! I feel so naive.


    You are not naive, just stupid. Who the hell would date a bitch with a whore-brand?
  • katastrofa 2008-06-20 03:31
    "I just left the room and had him escorted out."

    As long as he didn't get high while at work, what problem does his drug habit pose to the company?

    What hypocrisy. People may get piss drunk after work and that's OK, but one shot of marijuana and you're unemployable.
  • ClaudeSuck.de 2008-06-20 03:54
    real_aardvark:
    Shill:
    The Enterpriser:
    Ozymandias:
    I laughed my a** off at the fact that someone actually thought something was free since they paid for it with their left hand (taxes) rather than their right (money or insurance).


    It _is_ free if you aren't paying tax. Which includes a suprisingly large number of people.


    Most countries with universal health care provided by the government have VAT taxes which means everyone pays tax. Secondly, some number of those people not paying tax might be earning more money if not for the extra drag the taxes other pay place on the economy.
    Sigh.

    Not that it's remotely important, but:

    (1) VAT is not usually charged on essentials such as food. It is perfectly possible to live in a First World country without paying tax. Unless the First World country in question is America, and as long as you are prepared to live off cans of Kattomeat.
    (2) I kind of lost your second point as you stumbled over that huge great hairy tongue slopping out of your mouth. I'm sure it was a boffo one, though.

    Taxes, in and of themselves, do not provide a drag on "the economy."

    The manner in which (your government) chooses to use those taxes may well do so, however.

    Your choice: universal health care, or two million people in jail.

    (Note that I have skipped the easy alternative of not spending a trillion dollars on the war in Iraq, because I actually support the war in Iraq.)


    Do you also support the fact that the US seems to be running out of money?
    The dollar isn't worth a lot anymore since the beginning of the war. And imagine they would spend this trillion on health care, education, social security, unemployment, etc...
  • koni 2008-06-20 03:57
    fbjon:
    KR:
    Alan:

    I live in a country with free universal healthcare, and I havent seen a doctor in 12 years.


    Health care is free where you are? So tell me, do the doctors in your country enjoy being unpaid slaves?


    "Free" has nothing to do with funding. Everyone over here knows that health care costs, and a lot, but it's still free.

    If you buy e.g. a car, and get a pair of sunglasses free with the purchase, would you say "no it isn't free, someone's gotta pay for it"?

    Free in the monetary sense always means free-for-me, no other meaning is sensible or even possible. Thus, even if health care is funded by taxes, it's still free, because if I don't pay any taxes, I still get health care.


    That's the point, exactly! Why the hell should YOU get free anything (free as in paid for by taxes) when you don't pay taxes? Go to Australia if you want free, otherwise, go fuck yourself - YOU are NOT my responsibility.
  • ClaudeSuck.de 2008-06-20 04:00
    Steve:
    To those who say that you aren't required to take the job so you're not being forced to do it:

    How about if they made you sign a waiver saying that they can come into your house at any time and snoop around (and maybe grope your wife while they are at it)? Would you have a problem with that? They are both invasions of privacy.

    As far as being on call, would you rather have a person on call who had been smoking marijuana or drinking alcohol? Noone would debate whether a drinking would affect one's ability to perform technical tasks, with marijuana the argument is not so cut-and-dried (no pun intended).


    I'd prefer the pothead. Somebody having 2 grams of alcohol in his blood wil certainly not be able speak correctly anymore and even maybe fall on the ground sleeping. With pot you can practically never have too much as there is a kind of saturation. Smoking 5 or 10 joints doesn't make a difference, having 5 or 10 beers surely does.
  • neurol23 2008-06-20 04:09
    precisely. i know personally at least eight it professionals, who do some drugs from time to time in their free time (just like "ordinary" people have a drink or two) and it has no influence on their work performance, so why should anyone care?

    problem with drug testing is that most of the drugs can be detected days or even weeks after the drug was consumed. i wonder how would scott feel, if he was fired, because he had a glass of beer during weekend
  • ClaudeSuck.de 2008-06-20 04:19
    JackBlack:
    Waaaaaake up.

    PS $5000 every 15 min is peanuts. 5 years ago the website I used to work on made $1000 USD (profit) per minute. Places I've worked since would lose millions in that time. Yes, my d1ck is bigger than yours.

    Muppets. They should ban fat people instead.




    You should smoke less or how do make millions in 15 minutes out of 15 x $1000?
  • /dev/null 2008-06-20 05:28
    well...its better than being called a F*&kface directly...tho its not that far off.
  • ClaudeSuck.de 2008-06-20 08:20
    real_aardvark:
    At last! A business world staffed and run by toilet cleaners!*


    Well, they could still be smoking shit, no? Not the most secure solution.
  • Sebastian 2008-06-20 08:46

    That's the point, exactly! Why the hell should YOU get free anything (free as in paid for by taxes) when you don't pay taxes? Go to Australia if you want free, otherwise, go fuck yourself - YOU are NOT my responsibility.


    Now you're turning a semantic argument -- about the meaning of the word 'free' -- into a political argument.

    Whether universal free healthcare is a good thing or not wasn't really at issue. I think the question was if one is allowed to call it 'free' albeit someone paying somehow for it.

    Bye,
    Sebastian

  • John T 2008-06-20 08:57
    Yeah dude, were cool. Its all good how about you?

    Word
    http://www.Privacy-center.net
  • jk 2008-06-20 10:57
    Ozymandias:
    Col.:

    Anyway, yeah, Scott is an uptight asshole. So what if a sysadmin likes a bit of fun at the weekends, what business is that of anyone's?


    Every sysadmin job I have ever held has had a degree of 'on call' to it. To top it off, it is not in an employers best interest to have employees arrested and unable to work.


    Right. Like Bear Stearns.
  • jk 2008-06-20 11:04
    Ozymandias:
    real_aardvark:
    Ozymandias:
    Blobster:
    so the presence or absence of drug use isn't relevant since it's already factored into the appraisal of ability.


    Incorrect. The presence of drug use implies poor decision making skills, an inability to follow the rules, and a criminal propensity that may not have come out otherwise.
    Very possibly; yes; and no.

    Your problem with the (estimated) 60% of SysAdmins who use recreational drugs to make their pitiful little lives a bit less painful, again?


    I am not saying I have a problem with drug use, I am simply saying it is a relevant factor, and does imply additional things about the person -- contrary to the person I quoted's opinion.


    absolutely correct. other relevant factors include religion, sexual proclivity, weight, marital status - all matters of choice which imply additional things about a candidate's character and which should be carefully considered.
  • jk 2008-06-20 11:10
    lburch:

    Go ahead and test the airline pilots if you must but testing to work at McDonalds is just lawyer induced paranoia and excessive puritanical behavior.


    geeze, i sure as hell would not want some pothead working near the deepfat fryer. or worse, making a burger with a bun between two patties, special sauce all over the place.

    qv http://www.marijuana.com/urine-testing/30250-does-mcdonalds-drug-test.html

  • Anon 2008-06-20 11:18
    loki:
    Yes, we are a freedom-loving country. And you are missing the point - "smoking" a controlled substance is ILLEGAL in the US; (whether it should be or not is a subject for a different forum).


    It's also against the law and potentially dangerous to other motorists to exceed the speed limit. Perhaps all employers should check driving records as well while we're black-listing.

    loki:
    Employers do not want to hire someone who may be going to jail soon, as that defeats the purpose of the hiring.


    Brilliant assumption: recreational drug use == going to jail soon. Nearly every office has recreational drinkers. I suppose we can use your logic to assume they will all get behind the wheel and kill a bus-load of nuns, babies, and very cute kittens soon.

    loki:
    Employers also do not want to hire pedophiles [more ridiculous crap snipped]


    And to think you may have been hired over a clear-thinking dope smoker.
  • AdT 2008-06-20 12:08
    Jason:
    The ACLU are a bunch of morons.


    Jason is a moron.

    Wow, I just found out that ad hominem argumentation is incredibly easy!
  • real_aardvark 2008-06-20 12:48
    AdT:
    Jason:
    The ACLU are a bunch of morons.


    Jason is a moron.

    Wow, I just found out that ad hominem argumentation is incredibly easy!
    No, no, no.

    Getting the lyrics of classic Punk songs wrong is incredibly easy.

    Ad hominem argumentation is incredibly difficult.

    To start with, you have to remember the name of the hominem in question.

    Next, you have to understand that "argumentation" is not a real word.

    Next, ???

    Profit may or may not ensue.
  • Thunder 2008-06-20 13:01
    Ytram:
    I've worked with an alcoholic or two in my day, and that's not really pleasant. However, I've known a few potheads/ex-heads, and I'd take them any day over an alcoholic.

    To be honest, none of it's my business until it starts affecting their work. Unfortunately, with some of the jacked up laws around employment, you pretty much have to give a drug test to new applicants if you ever want to fire them for failing at their job due to drugs.

    THis is why you would fire them due to incompetence, and not due to drug use.
  • Wayne 2008-06-20 16:14
    "In my experience, being a woman is a red flag. Women tend to be bossy and mean, especially to us passive geek types. They win arguments by ignoring logic, and they screw over employers by being whores. I didn't always think this way, but two decades of being run over by the XX express have changed my perspective."

    How does being a whore screw over your employer?

    "It should also be noted that for some reason, they also have an obsession with getting as many people as possible hooked on "anti-depressants" (usually amphetamines)"

    What? "Anti-depressants" are most certainly not amphetamines. They're not stimulants of any kind. Whole different animal.

    "I for one would much rather work with someone who smokes pot or drops some home-made pills on the weekends rather than work with an alcoholic or someone on anti-depressants."

    And I'd work with any of those than someone who isn't on anti-depressants but should be.

  • TomatoQueen 2008-06-20 17:32
    Wayne:
    "In my experience, being a woman is a red flag. Women tend to be bossy and mean, especially to us passive geek types. They win arguments by ignoring logic, and they screw over employers by being whores. I didn't always think this way, but two decades of being run over by the XX express have changed my perspective."

    How does being a whore screw over your employer?

    "It should also be noted that for some reason, they also have an obsession with getting as many people as possible hooked on "anti-depressants" (usually amphetamines)"

    What? "Anti-depressants" are most certainly not amphetamines. They're not stimulants of any kind. Whole different animal.

    "I for one would much rather work with someone who smokes pot or drops some home-made pills on the weekends rather than work with an alcoholic or someone on anti-depressants."

    And I'd work with any of those than someone who isn't on anti-depressants but should be.



    I'd rather work with Wayne than the guy who can't handle the ride on the XX Express.
  • CJ 2008-06-20 23:12
    Wayne:
    "In my experience, being a woman is a red flag. Women tend to be bossy and mean, especially to us passive geek types. They win arguments by ignoring logic, and they screw over employers by being whores. I didn't always think this way, but two decades of being run over by the XX express have changed my perspective."

    How does being a whore screw over your employer?


    Whore => pregnant => loss of production. Yeah, probably too much of a stretch.
  • CJ 2008-06-20 23:16
    TomatoQueen:

    I'd rather work with Wayne than the guy who can't handle the ride on the XX Express.


    And I'd prefer to not work with a PMS'ing bitch. To each their own.
  • hitmouse 2008-06-21 00:41
    I had a call from a London IT recruiting agency last year where they asked why I had a 10yr blank period in my employment history. They hadn't figured out that it was in the usual reverse chronological order.
  • Experiments 2008-06-21 09:12
    Quite honestly, I think the guys question was totally legitimate, and Scott's response was extremely rude. Admitting drug use is NOT the same thing as being stoned AT WORK. To simply assume that the interviewer wouldn't be a good worker just because he admitted to using drugs is shallow and rude. Do you also fire people for taking prescription Vicodin?
  • ContraCorners 2008-06-21 15:25
    Experiments:
    Quite honestly, I think the guys question was totally legitimate, and Scott's response was extremely rude. Admitting drug use is NOT the same thing as being stoned AT WORK. To simply assume that the interviewer wouldn't be a good worker just because he admitted to using drugs is shallow and rude. Do you also fire people for taking prescription Vicodin?


    I hate to keep harping on this, but could point to where, exactly, in the story the interviewee "admitted to using drugs"? Perhaps you could illustrate your point with a quote from the original post.
  • CptPicard 2008-06-21 15:49
    Uh... right. Like here in Europe... I very much prefer our system thank you very much, and prevention is always better than late intervention when situation is catastrophic...
  • real_aardvark 2008-06-21 18:18
    hitmouse:
    I had a call from a London IT recruiting agency last year where they asked why I had a 10yr blank period in my employment history. They hadn't figured out that it was in the usual reverse chronological order.
    Well, like Leary said -- if you can remember the '60s, you weren't really there.
  • Vertigo 2008-06-22 21:19
    scott, i hope youre reading this - youre an absolute cock. i hope someone fires you because of your personal habit/religion/sexual orientation.
  • Vertigo 2008-06-22 21:22
    also, this is just another problem with recreation drugs being illegal - companies can either claim liability because of it, or deny an otherwise qualified and dependable worker from a decent job.

    and re: working with dj's; my boss was a dj :p
  • Dude! 2008-06-22 23:54
    jk:
    lburch:

    Go ahead and test the airline pilots if you must but testing to work at McDonalds is just lawyer induced paranoia and excessive puritanical behavior.


    geeze, i sure as hell would not want some pothead working near the deepfat fryer. or worse, making a burger with a bun between two patties, special sauce all over the place.

    qv http://www.marijuana.com/urine-testing/30250-does-mcdonalds-drug-test.html


    What on earth makes you think that a stoner is going to get meat and bread confused with each other?
    I think you've been watching too many Hollywood portrayals of what the effects of drugs are... The only people I've ever seen that resemble hollywood's "stoners" are arrogant rich-kids *pretending* to be stoned.

    Even if you pumped me full of pot to the point where I was physically sick, I'd still be able to assemble a freaking maccas burger (with extra vomit of course), but if I did that with beer you'd probably end up with my roasted thumb instead of a meat-patty!
  • barf 4eva 2008-06-25 02:25
    Blobster:
    "Scott"s reaction to the interviewee's question seems a bit extreme. Technically asking the question doesn't indicate that he is a drug user though from the context it appears to be likely.

    But should that affect whether or not he receives a job offer? Any effects that drug use would have had on him would have already been reflected in his abilities, which is the basis for comparison - so the presence or absence of drug use isn't relevant since it's already factored into the appraisal of ability.


    damn...

    Will you be my project manager? That has to be the most precise and well thought out answer to this situation ever!
  • John 2008-06-25 05:37
    Sounds like Scott is the real WTF. I hope that guy dies of the pancreatic cancer that I'm wishing upon him right now.
  • Charlie 2008-06-25 17:48
    I have a prescription for Vicodin. I am allowed to be totally hammered at work.

    I'm allowed to drive hammered, too, right up to the point where I hit somebody. As long as I drive safely, my state of intoxication is not relevant, because you can't punish me for taking a legally prescribed drug unless you can prove I also did something else that was actually illegal.

    It's sort of like I get to take personal responsibility for my choices and their results, instead of being automatically guilty for things I might have done (even if I didn't do them) because of my blood chemistry.

    But you, you don't have the magic signature. So your drug use is unholy, and that makes the baby Jesus cry. (It would be even worse if you were a DJ, though, that the baby Jesus vomit.)
  • chx 2008-06-25 19:17
    people are whining over drug tests but write stuff like MMPI or CPI happily...
  • Yosemite Sam 2008-06-26 19:27
    Actually (if I understand what my lawyer told me a few years ago), in the state of Oregon, it is illegal to "drive under the influence" of *any* intoxicating substance.

    The question the officer will ask is "Do you feel any effects from the beer/wine/pot/....?" The only legal answer is "None." As in, "None at all, sir."

    Even if the substance is legally prescribed.

    Incidentally, we've been having fun breaking new legal ground with medical marijuana, employment law, and (yee-haw!) gun laws!. ;-)
  • shedseven 2008-06-29 10:52
    ClaudeSuck.de:

    JackBlack:

    PS $5000 every 15 min is peanuts. 5 years ago the website I used to work on made $1000 USD (profit) per minute. Places I've worked since would lose millions in that time. Yes, my d1ck is bigger than yours.

    You should smoke less or how do make millions in 15 minutes out of 15 x $1000?

    HTH.
  • grokspawn 2008-07-10 13:48
    Everyone seems to be assuming that the guy was a drug user, then overlaying their personal feelings all over like a Jackson Pollock piece.

    What if the guy was concerned about second-hand smoke from the venues in which he DJed?

    A perfectly reasonable request for information which would be directly pertinent to his life.

    Plus, this should be the kind of thing which is indicated far in advance (the policy, not the actual testing instance).

  • nowInEurope 2008-07-16 04:38
    Me too (in reply to mtu).
    What a fcuk'ed up place the US seems to have become.
    I even considered accepting a job offer in the US a few years ago. As I prefer to live in a country where individual freedom and privacy is respected, I thank god that I decided against it.
  • PanteroBlanco 2008-07-17 20:54
    I would have answered "yes" to the DJ's question and let him finish the interview, but he probably wouldn't have gotten the job after that.

    nowInEurope:
    Me too (in reply to mtu).
    What a fcuk'ed up place the US seems to have become.
    I even considered accepting a job offer in the US a few years ago. As I prefer to live in a country where individual freedom and privacy is respected, I thank god that I decided against it.


    Good luck, pretty much every European country screws over individual freedom too, just in different ways.

    Americans freak out over sex and drugs and overregulate them; Europeans freak out over guns and "hate speech" and overregulate them.
  • Marco (UK) 2008-07-22 06:13
    Absolute garbage. It amazes me to hear this kind of polarised rubbish from the Republican camp.
    Saying that, I do agree with the point that the Interviewer was somewhat hasty in his assumptions. Surely, if the man was qulified and wasn't obnoxious and his "supposed" drug habit didn't affect his performance/personality, it shouldn't make a difference?
  • Kuba 2008-08-07 12:25
    jk:
    lburch:

    Go ahead and test the airline pilots if you must but testing to work at McDonalds is just lawyer induced paranoia and excessive puritanical behavior.


    geeze, i sure as hell would not want some pothead working near the deepfat fryer. or worse, making a burger with a bun between two patties, special sauce all over the place.
    Most fast-food joints have procedures in place which ensure food safety. I wouldn't worry about the pothead injuring him/herself. I would worry more about a customer dying from a food-borne illness. Robin Cook used that theme in a book once; the title escapes me now.

    Cheers, Kuba
  • TO 2008-08-08 00:07
    [quote=akatherder ]Why did they think he graduated in 1996 when that was the year he started school? Did I miss something or did the interviewers just completely misread common English?[/quote]

    I'm guessing he graduated high school in 1996 and that's what they saw. Entry-level candidates are more likely to include this information on their resume.
  • TO 2008-08-08 00:09
    akatherder:

    The Article:

    "They'd looked at my resume and where it had said "University of Missouri — Rolla 1996-2000," they only saw that I had graduated in 1996."


    Why did they think he graduated in 1996 when that was the year he started school? Did I miss something or did the interviewers just completely misread common English?


    I'm guessing he graduated high school in 1996 and that's what they saw. Entry-level candidates are more likely to include this information on their resume.
  • Strawberry Blonde 2008-10-02 17:23
    As horribly late as I am posting on this...

    In a lot of companies, drug testing policy has nothing to do with "liability" issues or the dangers of drugs. It's a simple matter of being backed into a corner.

    Let's say that John Q. gets hired on with Big Corp. He does his little recreational thing on the side for 6 months without it impacting his work in any way. Great. Then something happens in his personal life and he ends up showing up to work one day - just once - stoned, messes up on his work, and costs Big Corp a contract or a project, or just a pile of money. Now, thanks to all this liberal "drug abuse is a disease" bull, not only can Big Corp not demand reparations from John Q because of a screw up that was FULLY his choice, they can't even fire him AND they have to pay for his drug treatment. Why would any company want to deal with that when they can just drug-test and, to a decent extent, rule out the possibility?

    It's not such an issue in other parts of the world because, unlike North America, most of the rest of the world still has some concept of personal responsibility. YOU screw up, YOU pay for it.
  • ceex3 2008-10-05 14:48
    Everyone seems to be assuming that the candidate was worried about testing positive for pot. Maybe he's using something more serious, like heroin or crystal meth. Maybe he's not using anything at all, but his question was pretty stupid.
  • Drambuie 2008-10-13 11:04
    lonewolf:
    ryan:
    KR:
    Alan:

    I live in a country with free universal healthcare, and I havent seen a doctor in 12 years.


    Health care is free where you are? So tell me, do the doctors in your country enjoy being unpaid slaves?


    DURRR HURRR

    pretending not to understand common English phrases is not an argument. It's also not funny


    It's not common phrase, it's f***ing common lie. What's a differance if you pay for it with you own money, you own insurance, or you will let a bunch of crooks known as goverment pay for you!?

    </rant>


    Because everyone gets taken care of, rich or not, and this is better/cheaper for society as a whole?

    Bear in mind that healthcare in the USA costs the government MORE than in other countries AND delivers far less to the few people who can afford it and nothing to those who can't. In the free system, hospitals, doctors, and drug companies are prevented from practising blatant exploitation on mandatory commodities and letting people die for the sake of greed.

    "It's nice that the US wants to introduce democracy to Iraq - but shouldn't they implement it in the USA first?
    "
  • Drambuie 2008-10-13 11:25
    jpers36:
    Rootbeer:
    A private insurer representing 100,000 patients could get more favorable pricing from healthcare providers than a single individual representing himself could.

    A government representing 100,000,000 patients could get even more favorable pricing from healthcare providers than a private insurer could.


    A private insurer representing 100,000 patients is (theoretically) competing with dozens of other companies of similar size, so faces market pressures to reduce rates, reduce cost of business, and increase service.


    In practice, insurance goes up because 'increased service' and 'competition' means paying for any quackery that clients are perceived to desire, such as osteopathy, chiropractry, iridology, color therapy, etc. In the hands of government, only real medicine gets paid for.
  • Drambuie 2008-10-13 11:38
    Konrad:
    A contractor I once worked with used to regularly invoice the company for debuggering code.


    A lot of the code I have had to debug was completely buggered...
  • Drambuie 2008-10-13 11:45
    loki:
    Sarge!:
    I'm from Canada, but worked in California for 6 years. When a small company I was working for was bought out by a big one they had all the employees take drug tests.

    One of the best guy on our team did test positive. He was *really* *really* good at his job, plus I never ever even think he could be the kind of guy to use drugs. (And I worked there for 3 years with him) So needless to say, not only it wasn't an issue with his ability to do his job... if it wouldn't be for the test, you wouldn't know he used it.

    He was let go.. just because of that. When I asked him, he just plainly said, that yes... he smoked once in a while during week-ends.

    To this day (5 years later) I fail to see *ANY* use in those drug test policies... I actually think they are bad. Sure way to loose some really creative people on your team!

    Way to go US... freedom loving country ;-)

    hahaha.


    Yes, we are a freedom-loving country. And you are missing the point - "smoking" a controlled substance is ILLEGAL in the US; (whether it should be or not is a subject for a different forum). Employers do not want to hire someone who may be going to jail soon, as that defeats the purpose of the hiring. Employers also do not want to hire pedophiles (hey, man, he is a super coder - he just likes to rape little girls on his own time) or murderers (he's a super sysadmin, and he only kills those he feels deserve it). I'm sure that with a little thought (and you are apparently only capable of a little thought) that you can understand that an employer may not want the company's image to be associated with illegal actions of any kind - it makes sales more difficult, even to Canadian companies...

    hahaha


    The problem is, these tests are arbitrary - no companies are mandatory testing employees home computers for illegal downloads to make sure they are not pedophiles... why draw the line at an arbitrary point (when the money spent is large for bugger-all gain)?
  • Drambuie 2008-10-13 11:47
    dan:
    My team is fairly international. We were working through a design for a GUI, and a Spanish colleague of mine announced that a button should be "f*cksy". My english colleagues and I looked blankly at her and asked her to repeat herself, and she did. An Italian colleague turned to us and said "you know, f*cksy".
    Eventually, we worked out she was trying to describe a colour, and we quickly realised she meant 'fuchsia'.
    But, unfortunately, the description had stuck.


    Well, it is pronounced 'fooksya', so she was closer than most people (who came up with 'fooshia' anyway?)
  • Drambuie 2008-10-13 11:57
    koni:
    fbjon:
    KR:
    Alan:

    I live in a country with free universal healthcare, and I havent seen a doctor in 12 years.


    Health care is free where you are? So tell me, do the doctors in your country enjoy being unpaid slaves?


    "Free" has nothing to do with funding. Everyone over here knows that health care costs, and a lot, but it's still free.

    If you buy e.g. a car, and get a pair of sunglasses free with the purchase, would you say "no it isn't free, someone's gotta pay for it"?

    Free in the monetary sense always means free-for-me, no other meaning is sensible or even possible. Thus, even if health care is funded by taxes, it's still free, because if I don't pay any taxes, I still get health care.


    That's the point, exactly! Why the hell should YOU get free anything (free as in paid for by taxes) when you don't pay taxes? Go to Australia if you want free, otherwise, go fuck yourself - YOU are NOT my responsibility.


    And, you would be first to volunteer to go without life-saving medical procedures should you become unemployed through no fault of your own?

    Most people don't realise the amount of blind chance involved in their prosperity. They think they are wealthy because they 'got it right' - a comforting illusion in a scary world.
  • Dan 2009-05-28 11:04
    "Free in the monetary sense always means free-for-me, no other meaning is sensible or even possible. Thus, even if health care is funded by taxes, it's still free, because if I don't pay any taxes, I still get health care."
    Wrong. There is really only one sense in which "free" is meaningful - when no human work was involved. Examples would be wind and sunshine - these are 'free' energy sources.

    Pretty much every use of the word "free" in political & economic arguments is fraudulent - there really is no free lunch.

    Gullible fools like to be comforted by the notion that provided it is 'free' to them (ie. they pay nothing personally), it is good overall. They dare not allow the inkling that they are complicit in theft to disturb their adolescent haze.
  • blah 2010-01-27 12:06
    what makes you say that? our NHS isn't intrusive; it doesn't have my DNA and i only go there if i feel shit. I don't understand how people see a public health service as a bad thing, it's saved millions of lives in Enlgand.
  • Baktru 2010-09-05 08:02
    Rboy:
    Forget the drug test, have you ever hired anyone who DJ'd? Even worse, one that DJ'ing is their first love? Expect someone to punch in every day, and not do a darn thing...

    But who puts an end date to their schooling when they are STILL IN SCHOOL? The correct way denote that is 'Current', and add in an expected graduation date.


    Meh. I used to be a DJ, when I was still living in Europe I did the occasional weekend joint and I never got anything but good scores on my Performance Reviews. With the exception of a single year, which was ermm. A long story.

    Anyway, I think that in back in Europe, drug testing would not even be legal.
  • AnAmateur 2012-02-11 04:52
    He may have felt that drug testing itself was invasive.

    However there was a clear implication is actually not that he was using drugs, but as a DJ could be exposed to e.g. smoke, and potentially be a borderline failure on a blood test or show as badly as a user on a contamination test (hair, skin) despite not ever being under the influence of drugs.

    A bit perverse. Anyone with any management skills or nous would have told him what the policy was, and then asked if that would be a problem. It's strange that this would be considered unacceptable instant.

    Would asking if employee insurance covers winter sports be OK?
  • Mike 2012-10-05 12:36
    Exactly, I realize posting on an old thread but ... an employer has no business trying to enforce laws. Does the employee have the skills to do the job? Do they get the work done or does their personal life affect their work? Who (should care) if a snort a kee of coke and bang 20 hookers everynight as long as I'm smart and get my work done during the day?
  • Emperor_Z 2014-03-12 14:59
    I don't even use any drugs, but the narrator in #1 is a jerk. The guy asked you an honest question, and you treated him like crap.