• Aloisius (unregistered)

    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 (unregistered) in reply to brazzy
    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?

  • (cs) in reply to Ytram
    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 (unregistered) in reply to Russ
    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 (unregistered) in reply to German
    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).

  • (cs) in reply to Wayne
    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 (unregistered) in reply to mtu
    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.

  • (cs) in reply to Stang
    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 (unregistered) in reply to andrewbadera
    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 (unregistered)

    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.

  • (cs) in reply to operagost
    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 (unregistered)
    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.

  • (cs) in reply to foo
    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 (unregistered) in reply to real_aardvark
    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 (unregistered) in reply to Stephen E. Baker
    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.

  • (cs)

    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.)

  • (cs) in reply to Philippe
    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 (unregistered)

    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?

  • (cs) in reply to WebDevGuy
    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.
  • (cs) in reply to Flash
    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 (unregistered)

    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 (unregistered) in reply to Flash
    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.

  • (cs) in reply to Rboy
    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.

  • (cs)

    While I also don't agree with Scott's (over)reaction, it certainly was a dumb thing to say in a job interview.

  • WebDevGuy (unregistered) in reply to brazzy
    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.
  • (cs) in reply to Ozymandias
    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 (unregistered) in reply to James
    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.

  • (cs) in reply to ObiWayneKenobi
    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 (unregistered) in reply to real_aardvark
    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...

  • (cs) in reply to Russ
    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 (unregistered) in reply to Huf Lungdung
    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.

  • (cs) in reply to Rootbeer
    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 (unregistered)

    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 (unregistered)

    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 (unregistered) in reply to Kuba
    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.

  • (cs) in reply to 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. "

    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 (unregistered)

    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 (unregistered)

    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 (unregistered) in reply to Joe
    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 (unregistered) in reply to Schnapple
    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 (unregistered) in reply to taylonr

    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 (unregistered) in reply to Flash
    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 (unregistered) in reply to Joe
    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 (unregistered) in reply to lburch
    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 (unregistered) in reply to WebDevGuy
    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 (unregistered) in reply to Doesn't matter
    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.

  • (cs) in reply to KR
    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 (unregistered) in reply to Ozymandias

    [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 (unregistered) in reply to cparker
    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?

  • (cs) in reply to WebDevGuy
    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!)

Leave a comment on “Are You Cool, Man? and More”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article