In that case I want to have the power to determine my own job acceptance practices. I want my hiring manager to take a drug test too. After all, I don't wanna end up working for a drug edict.
The asymmetry of employer/employee relationship is just astonishing.
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.
This is the asymmetry the OP of this thread is talking about. Employers want to screw the applicant on wages, paying him market value for his "specifications" rather than paying what the job is worth to the company.
Did you expect gentlemen and scholars to apply for warehouse jobs at Wal-Mart? Do you really think it's right to practically push your job positions to halfway houses and then discriminate against felons?
One man's wasteful spending is another man's prosperity. You get what you pay for.
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.
It's easier said than done.
Can you, for example, think of a transparent and understandable way of telling a cat from a dog?
An exceptional case isn't applicable to most jobs in the world.
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.
In idealistic world where everybody has the same leverage - perhaps. In real world refusing a job is a luxury most cannot afford. It is asymmetric precisely because negotiation positions are widely unequal.
You're talking like being offered a job is some unique luxury. Maybe for extremely desirable jobs, but if a job is extremely desirable you generally just precluded the possibility of the employer being some dysfunctional drug addict - which makes your argument a nonstarter.
So many companies in so many industries are just starving for good employees.
> So many companies in so many industries are just starving for good employees.
Perhaps we should consider the possibility that qualified candidates are not willing to work for sub-standard compensation.
It is also a generic test, kind of like a credit check, to avoid general mayhem. Things are correlated.
Why? Why is it any of my employer's business what I do outside of work?
I’m not sure you could agree that one group is “harder” than the other.
I think you would be shocked to learn how many of your co-workers take prescription opiates and amphetamines, and aren't punished at all for it.
I used to be addicted to the stuff and ended up starting becauase an analyst gave me some when we were working on a model late at night.