Marijuana testing of job applicants is barred by NYC

I told them I’d sign the NDA if all my interviewers also signed one from me, nice way to end the discussion.

My point is, if there is something you don’t like and it isn’t common, a way to decline is to decline the job. If it is a widespread practice, and unfair, then we need legislation.

I know it's a tongue-in-cheek comment, but this is part of the stigma needs to end too. If they wanted to have a toke with some friends at a bucks night the week before or some such, and then have it detected on a test, that doesn't really mean they're a drug addict...

But let me give you an example of how these sort of laws have severe unintended consequences:

In some states it is illegal to ask a potential hire if they have a felony. The reasoning was that this would force employers to be less discriminatory. The result? More discrimination of black people and lower wages. Why, you might ask? Because the less information you have as an employer, the more you are going to rely on the information you do have: what the applicant looks like, how they act, etc. Also the wages are lower becauase you have to price in the risk of them being a felon.

Employers should be able to choose whoever they think is best through whatever metrics they want. After all, it’s their business, and hiring and firing who you want is absolutely integral to freedom and free markets. And laws imposed by the government just make things worse, and more discriminatory.

Let’s say a teenage boy who looks like a stoner wants a job at WalMart. He’s not a stoner though, he just has long hair or whatever. If WalMart could have made him pee in a cup, they would have hired a dependable and honest employee. But because they can’t, they judge him on his hair and don’t give him the job.

Like only hiring whites, or blacks, or Christians, or felons, or gays, or people who went to Harvard? Really, the government doesn't regulate this kind of thing at all. Companies can do whatever they want.

I actually like the NYC law and think it is reasonable regulation, but your argument makes no sense (imo).

So... how about skin color^W^W culture fit test?

Or, perhaps there's some hidden classifiers that out protected statuses that can be used in AI/ML interviewing black boxes? By the time someone sues, the ML logic will have mutated with more input thus invalidating the previous decisions.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2018/02/26/artificia...

Long story short, hiring practices need to be transparent AND understandable. Because right now we're going down a very bad path.

Companies want information from you that they won't share. They have economies of scale with many employees, yet employees have one source of income. Employees might relocate while the company just readies a desk.

I would say that a company that wants a drug test should give me the results from the management chain as well as HR.

You can choose to work in an organization that has strict testing policies, including the hiring managers. Or you can ask your recruiter to take a test. I'll admit its a weird request, but considering the commissions on finding an employee are so high (1 to 2 months annual salary) and tight labor market, I wouldn't be surprised if they did it. I would take a drug test for much less. I don't see the asymmetry here.

That being said, I believe that weed usage not being comparable to alcohol usage outside of the workplace doesn't make sense. I think it only makes sense to test for harder drugs e.g. opiates and amphetamines.

Cannabis should be far more acceptable to use in modern society than alcohol. Persons having cannabis are much less likely to cause violence than those with alcohol, and are much more likely to think calmly about ways to improve the world.

I can think of 1000s more reasons why cannabis should be treated differently than alcohol by our governments and societies!

The exception here is probably with edibles. It would be far easier to OD on marijuana by ingesting concentrated edibles than it would be to OD on alcohol by ingesting shots. The irony is that edibles are probably a safer way to ingest cannabis (e.g. compared to smoking the flowers) assuming you take a normal dose.

If your question is, "can we trust Z to show up 20 days a month", an alcohol test might not be a bad one. If your candidate can't be sober for a pre-defined period of a few days, that might merit following up on.

But let's be honest, the laws requiring these tests are usually pork-barrel horseshit anyways.

In my experience, you already get $20 to $40 per month for going to the gym a certain number of times or doing a certain number of steps per month.

In Switzerland there are some exceptions for people who may operate trains or buses, but even then, the test has to be performed by a doctor and the employer only gets told if the employee is able to perform the task or not.

As an intern I wasn't really in a place to turn down a test, but letting a company examine my bodily fluids is pretty insane.

But, there's rampant amphetamine abuse in the industry among workers, because that metabolizes in a matter of hours-days as opposed to weeks. So the anti drug policy that bans workers from using cannabis on their time off has had the inverse effect of increasing harder substance abuse.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/ice-the-drug-of-ch...

If you are ever tested positively for an Amphetamine-like substance, and you know you didn't take it -- you should insist on a second test right there on the spot.