• Man 987876980 (unregistered) in reply to SQB
    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?

  • (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.

    I think that's sarcasm (Can't be sure, though).

  • The Heretic (unregistered)

    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 (unregistered) in reply to taylonr
    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.

  • (cs)

    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 (unregistered)

    "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 (unregistered)

    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 (unregistered) in reply to Ozymandias
    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 (unregistered)

    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.

  • (cs) in reply to Steve
    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.

  • (cs) in reply to Steve
    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 (unregistered) in reply to Blobster
    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 (unregistered) in reply to JackBlack
    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.

  • (cs)

    Hey, what do you smoke and where can I get some? would have been a much better question

  • Mitur Binesderty (unregistered)

    Scott is a facade.

  • Shill (unregistered) in reply to Blobster
    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 (unregistered) in reply to Shill
    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 (unregistered)

    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 (unregistered) in reply to The Enterpriser
    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 (unregistered) in reply to Ben

    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.

  • (cs) in reply to Shill
    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 (unregistered)

    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 (unregistered) in reply to Ozymandias
    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 (unregistered) in reply to Alan

    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 (unregistered)

    TRWTF is UMR and the new name.

  • T. Totaller (unregistered) in reply to Steve

    My guess would be that the interviewee was probably talking about ecstasy, which is usually detectable for 3-5 days.

    Just sayin' is all...

  • (cs)

    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 (unregistered)

    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 (unregistered)

    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 (unregistered) in reply to Spartan
    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 (unregistered)

    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 (unregistered)

    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 (unregistered) in reply to Man 987876980

    Having your entire arm from wrists to shoulders covered in tattoos.

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to Steve
    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 (unregistered) in reply to Monique
    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! (unregistered) in reply to Steve
    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 (unregistered)
    "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 (unregistered) in reply to FredSaw
    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 (unregistered)

    "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.

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

  • (cs) in reply to Steve
    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 (unregistered) in reply to Col.

    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

  • (cs) in reply to JackBlack
    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 (unregistered)

    well...its better than being called a F*&kface directly...tho its not that far off.

  • (cs) in reply to real_aardvark
    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 (unregistered) in reply to koni
    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

  • jk (unregistered) in reply to Ozymandias
    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 (unregistered) in reply to Ozymandias
    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 (unregistered) in reply to lburch
    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

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