January 18, 2008 at 6:43 am
Lie detector tests are horrendously unreliable. This has been shown repeatedly in controlled scientific studies. Hiring or not hiring someone based on that is little better than doing based on their horoscope.
The debate is not about whether a drug test is just, but whether one has a right to privacy. Corporations are acting too much like governments. ....
I agree. Privacy is trampled in many of these requirements (hell, why not search the home of the prospective applicant to see if there is anything suspicious--is that any different than searching his body?). Especially since the distinction between legal and illegal drugs is not related to the effect that the drug can have on performance (being drunk or hungover can affect people just as badly as 'weed'). Being 'addicted' to gaming can cause people to arrive poorly performing because of insufficient sleep. On the other hand being hungover does not necessarily affect your honesty.
Certainly there are specific types of jobs where this is more critical (operating machinery or vehicles) but the criteria should be limited only the specific identifiable job requirements. Otherwise it's not the employer's business (as is the person's social life)
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
January 18, 2008 at 6:57 am
I have submitted to pre-employment drug and criminal background checks and have no problem with either. I also have been randomly drug tested as well.
I personally think drug testing is realistic within IT because we are usually given greater access to data than other employees, thus need to be held to higher standards. This includes determining if I am taking part in illegal activities.
Jack Corbett
Consultant - Straight Path Solutions
Check out these links on how to get faster and more accurate answers:
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Need an Answer? Actually, No ... You Need a Question
January 18, 2008 at 7:02 am
I have had to submit to drug testing (a cut of hair) and the background checks. I missed getting a job at a bank because my credit history wasn't exemplary. I one time had to take a lie detector test when I went to work as an installer for cable TV.
My opinion is the only thing an employer needs to know is can I do the job being asked of me. Drug testing is a way of being forced to prove your innocence. A drug test can be failed because a person has eaten poppy seed muffins. It can be failed because you've taken prescription meds. I've never failed one but having to take one is insulting.
As for criminal record checks, I think that's a bigger issue. First, if someone did something that landed them in jail once, that's a one time mistake. They did their time, paid the price for that mistake and are back to living life. If they did it again or something else that landed them in jail a second time, it may be the beginning of a trend. If there's 3, it's a habit and the applicant should be passed on. An employer probably needs to know this to see if they're going to have a reliability problem.
Basically, test my knowledge, test my skills that apply to the job I'm trying to get, that's important. Talking about family - whether or not I have a wife, kids is conversation. Whether or not I own or rent a home, what kind of car I drive, whether or not I paid my credit card bill on time is not anyones business. Or if 6 months ago I took a chemically induced vacation or if I had a poppy seed muffin earlier in the week. Or had a painful injury weeks or months ago and needed a narcotic pain killer. No one's business buy my own.
January 18, 2008 at 7:09 am
There is a lot of generalizing going on here. I'm in the US (Florida) and I've been employed at companies with no testing except for a crminial background check (totally warranted, IMHO). I've had drug screenings for a job also. That's about the extent of it. These jobs were working for large corporations.
An employer has a right to ASK you to do a lot of tests. You have the righht to refuse. I'm sure it varies from company to company, and that there are companies in other countries with onerous pre-employment testing policies as well.
January 18, 2008 at 7:09 am
I can see why sometime it's needed, but as a manager when I had the choice it was to only get into the testing if I had someone that was obviously and repetively impaired at work due to what appeared to be some mood enhancing substance. I can see needing a higher standard where heavy machinery, explosives, driving, etc, is required, but just passing the test once doesn't mean they won't do it later (though I would still advocate up front testing to weed out the obvious bad candidates). Background and credit checks make a lot of sense if an employee is in a position to do bad things - cash from the register, handling credit cards (or numbers in our case), or might be susceptible to blackmail (not as uncommon as you might think).
On the lighter side, being someone who doesnt touch any of that stuff it's always been amusing to recommend those 'home remedies' to others that are worried about the test. My favorite? Worried about THC? Nothing that 3 8oz glasses of vinegar won't fix!
January 18, 2008 at 7:22 am
Oh boy, you pushed my buttons with this one.
I think drug testing is stupid, immoral, and just plain Nazi. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
If I was at a party last week where the people were smoking joints and I wasn't, I would still come up dirty in a drug screen. So I should miss out on a job opportunity because of whom I hang around with? Or maybe it's whom the host of the party hangs around with.
Also, as Kevin well explained, the drugs that make people steal and do crazy things can be out of your body in 48 hours. It's the cannabis that sticks, and I've never heard of anyone committing crimes for cannabis. Plus, every good druggie knows how to beat a drug screen.
So, test my skills, do a criminal background check, and keep me on a probationary status for 6 months if you hire me. If I'm performing up to snuff, that's all you need to know.
I would not work for a company that does mandatory pre-employment drug tests. That's just too negative an attitude. I can live with "for cause" testing if someone starts acting erratically on the job.
It sounds like our European friends are lots more sane about this than we are. We Americans are destroying ourselves with paranoia.
If drug testing is OK, then should we test for alchohol, AIDS, a high fat diet, and cigarettes? Where does it end? Think about it.
January 18, 2008 at 7:41 am
Andy Warren (1/18/2008)
...if I had someone that was obviously and repetively impaired at work due to what appeared to be some mood enhancing substance...
How about the folks who are obviously and repetively impaired at work due to answering their cellphones all the time, subjecting the team to annoying ringtones that bring analytic thought to a crashing halt (and cannot speak in a subdued tone, but have to shout)?
Drugs are politically incorrect, but is not the basic problem that which you mentioned, obviously and repetively impaired at work? Doesn't matter what it's due to. They can either function in a culture of ever-increasing distraction, bureaucratism and information overload, or they cannot.
Today it's drugs; tomorrow, will they want to test me for my addiction to an occasional glass of Burgundy, Bourdeaux or Malbec? With all the religious crazies shaping elections, that seems to be where the culture is heading.
January 18, 2008 at 7:58 am
While the background check has the most potential for spotting problems, there is a very serious danger in this CYA world that ANY blemish will serve as silent justification to move on to the next candidate. Was it a one-time event? Was it a long time ago? Is there any real reason to expect a repeat? These questions will probably not be properly evaluated.
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
January 18, 2008 at 8:23 am
As far as I'm concerned the only testing that should be performed is whether or not you possess the skills you say you have. If you are a DBA you should be able to answer simple questions related to DB Administration. If a developer, language-specific questions can easily be created.
Perhaps I'm naive, but I think that most of us are professional. I have been known to have a beer or two more than I should but when I do it is NOT on a work night.
It seems that we are all so ready to give up our RIGHTS of privacy at the drop of a hat ... there was a similar discussion on the radio this morning (KZOK, Seattle) re: drug testing of High School athletes. It seemed to me that the athletes were not the problem, it was the kids who don't have anything to do after school.
Yet we don't ask these questions of the myriad of people we invite into our homes (carpet cleaners, utility company employees, various types of repair people, etc). Seems to me our society is getting too paranoid for the freedoms we all have to remain. Sad situation.
Personally, I will not submit to testing of any kind other than that which is relevant to the issue at hand. Period.
January 18, 2008 at 8:46 am
Deciding to not submit to certain testing, at the employers discression, would likely mean you won't be considered for employment. This is fine when you're independently wealthy or don't have a Wife, Kids, a mortgage and car payments. When you DO have these obligations, it becomes much harder to stand by these principals.
When I was 30, I could say "I won't submit to these intrusive tests" but now that I'm 46 and I DO have a Wife, kids, another on the way, a mortgatge and a new minivan to pay for, I no longer have that luxury. It may be giving up freedoms but if we (I) don't submit to these types of intrusions into my privacy, I wouldn't get the job. Something else to consider is the job market. If you're living in a city where there are more jobs than people, an employer may make these types of tests optional. I live in southeast Michigan and work near Detroit. There are MANY more people than jobs right now.
Another fortunate point for me, I believe I have the last job I'll ever have and (with some luck) this won't be an issue again. With some luck....
January 18, 2008 at 8:54 am
Hi BensDad ... I guess you could call me ScottsDad as well 🙂
I hear you, as I am in the same situation. I certainly understand having to question whether or not you can compromise your own values and beliefs for the allmighty dollar.
I too, have car pmts, kids, mortgage, etc and am far from independently wealthy. An unexpected turn of events took me from someone at age 47 who had cash, etc to bankruptcy last year. It's rough to have to start over. Lucklily I was able to save my home and one car. But I still stand by my previous post. What would really present the problem is NOT whether the employer required such testing, it would be the grumping from my wife/family over loss of such a job (hear that whip crack?). In my case, I was self-employed for 5 years but in recent years costs rose and clients were slow-pay. Needless to say I am now again working as a FT employee working my business only part time.
So, in a nutshell, I agree compromising your values is a tough decision. It's too bad that some employers believe they should do so. A good employer is one that trusts and encourages their employees. If you have an employee that is not acting professionally then you did not do your job in pre-employment screening. A professional employee will do the job correctly and professionally regardless of their off the job chosen lifestyle.
January 18, 2008 at 8:59 am
I appreciate your concerns about privacy, but there are plenty of people that aren't professional or that will have too many beers on a work night, or engage in illicit drugs.
Whether they affect your ability to do the job depends on the job and who you are, but as someone that pays for work, I wouldn't want someone being paid who cannot do the job. If a carpet cleaner showed up drunk, would you let him in your house? I'd hope not.
Like many things, there's a line here, one that needs to be drawn somewhere about what's acceptable.
Drug test? I'd probably accept this for many jobs.
Background check for criminal record? For every person that made a mistake when they were a kid or because of poor judgment, there are quite a few that aren't trustworthy. Want them in your cash register? Want them selling your database backups? My vote would be the ability to submit someone's name to the local authorities along with a job description and let them give you some type of rating, maybe a 1-5 scale that would be one more input into your hiring decision.
Personality test? I've taken one, not sure I'd do it again.
Credit check? Depends on the job. Work in a bank, probably required. Work as a DBA for a manufacturer, probably not. Might depend on whether you were bonded.
There's probably more to think about.
January 18, 2008 at 9:10 am
Steve, you make some good and valid points. But so does "SingToMe". I have to say that I'm somewhere in the middle, likely closer to "SingToMe".
True, I would not let an obviously drunk/drugged carpet cleaner into my home and (in the past) I have submitted to pre-employment drug testing. I've even worked for companies that have random test policies. However, like the Social Security Number that was never ever to be used as an ID, things don't always turn out as planned.
I would err on the side of freedom and privacy each and every time. And having to submit yourself to random "unreasonable search and seizure" at the whim of your employer seems draconian to me. A business, by its very nature, takes on risk. Businesses have been taking these risks for a very long time. Sure, they are probably tired of it and as any good business will do they will look for ways to minimize this risk. But when it comes to invading their employee's privacy (and chosen lifestyle if one is so inclined) then that has gone too far. Should they test to see if you have kids? Are homosexual? Have a particular political party affiliation? Where are these lines drawn? To me, it stops at step 1 ... no tests, etc unless they are relevent to the job at hand.
A public bus driver likely has to pass random screenings, but what about private cab drivers? Teachers probably have random screenings, but what about politicians? I would think it would have to be an "all or nothing" attitude pervading our society. Or, if we leave it "as is", just as an employer can choose who to hire the employee can choose who to work for.
Interesting discussion that does seem to push peoples' buttons though!
-Brad
January 18, 2008 at 9:15 am
Personally, I think it's about relevance.
I live in the UK, so it seems we have more restrictions placed on employers than in the US. Not sure that's a bad thing. However, if a company wants to perform a test to evaluate my suitability for working with them, I'd ask what the test was and why they believed it relevant. If it doesn't infringe my statutory rights or my privacy, they can go ahead in my opinion. If it does infringe my statutory rights, they'll get reported. If it does affect my privacy, I'll weigh up whether or not I believe the information they want is reasonable for the purpose they've put forward (Drink related tests for a job that involves a car? No problem. Background checks just to find what'll turn up? Not a chance).
I know myself the pressures of having a family, and so the need to maintain an income. However, I also put a high value on my and my family's privacy, and I'm not likely to fit in well in any company that rides roughshod over that, so accepting a job there would only be delaying for a short time the need to go through the whole jobhunting process all over again anyway.
Semper in excretia, suus solum profundum variat
January 18, 2008 at 9:42 am
I think we're confusing the testing itself, and what happens in the bigger scope of a positive result. Companies certainly have the right to know if someone might be indulging in illegal substances, but GOOD companies make sure that the testing process itself doesn't make a mistake AND usually offer some form of process (like EAP counseling, etc...) should they discover the issue.
I have yet to work anywhere that has a "you're fired on first offense with no recourse" policy on substance issues. At very least - there's the potential for a re-test/secondary more reliable tests, a probationary period, etc... in short - the company trying to work with someone who might have the issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 44 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply