Seen that job listing for a while, its no coincidence • Hacker News Board

Re: Seen that job listing for a while, its no coincidence

#81

Post by Lawtonfogle » Fri, Jun 19, 2015, 3:25 PM UTC

joezydeco wrote: post #56

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drug use is a seen as a moral failing. A morally weak person is seen as someone who will be a bad employee (steal, not put in a good day's work, cheat the clock, etc.). Does it make sense? Often it makes none at all.

If I'm running a factory or warehouse and I need sober, alert workers that will not destroy merchandise with equipment and/or kill themselves or others around them, you can be damned sure I'm going to eliminate any risk of their personal time seeping into their work time. Screening for recreational drug markers doesn't mean I'm judging their morals, but I'm zeroing out my risk factors.

Do you screen for cigarettes and alcohol use as well? Smoke breaks take up a lot of time, and someone with a hung over or slight buzz can be a safety issue.

What I've seen is that most companies don't care about those. They only care about illegal drugs. Even legal prescriptions that could have nasty effects are not judged harshly.

In short, there are more defensible reasons to drug test than what I listed, but they don't show up often in practice.

Re: Seen that job listing for a while, its no coincidence

#82

Post by vonmoltke » Fri, Jun 19, 2015, 3:32 PM UTC

spacemanmatt wrote: post #74

tbomb wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure they can test for alcohol since it is federally legal (I know that most places would test for on the job incidents however. I'm meaning it in a "drug test" style screening). Aside from that, I'm not sure how long you can find traces of it in your system. I wouldn't guess it to be longer than 48 hours. EDIT: parentheses content.

CO allowed a company to fire an employee for testing positive for THC. It's fully legal there.

Also, health care companies have been allowed to prohibit employees from using tobacco.

Re: Seen that job listing for a while, its no coincidence

#83

Post by mattLummus » Fri, Jun 19, 2015, 3:38 PM UTC

mjbellantoni wrote: post #20

Hiring velocity is one area where small companies can use their agility to advantage when competing against larger companies for talent. As a hiring manager, I always endeavor to make this process as streamlined as possible. A couple of anecdotes: I was able to hire an outstanding candidate simply because I got them through the process and extended them an offer. Our competition was a reasonably high-profile company…

I know this was a major factor in joining the company I work at currently. They were quick, they didn't waste my time, they were open and answered questions that I usually would have to push back to get info for.

Re: Seen that job listing for a while, its no coincidence

#84

Post by skolor » Fri, Jun 19, 2015, 3:43 PM UTC

bsbechtel wrote: post #41

skolor wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work for a pretty large company, and the more involvement I have with the hiring process the more painful it is to see. We just move so incredibly slowly, with frequent false starts, and we've lost a number of good candidates because of it. I'm fairly concerned we're going to lose someone I referred because of it, but there's only so much prodding I can do and that doesn't serve to fix the problem.

This sounds like a major cost that maybe isn't really considered when studies are done that evaluate the cost of potentially hiring a bad employee.

I've been making some grumblings, and would really like data to back things up. Would anyone who was recently hired (past year or so) mind sharing information about the process?

I'm mostly interested in the length of time from first contact->first day on the job, whether you think that is a reasonable amount of time, and the rough size of the company (or the name, but I understand people not wanting to share that)

Re: Seen that job listing for a while, its no coincidence

#85

Post by ufmace » Fri, Jun 19, 2015, 3:48 PM UTC

s_dev wrote: post #2

I personally have little confidence in job postings that I've seen available for at least three months. Similarly with apartments rentals - in a market where developers and apartments are high in demand I usually see it as a red flag if a job or apartment has been available for three or more months. It begs the questions - why didn't others take it? I never considered that the average interview process is getting lon…

I have thought that too - if they keep the same listing up for too long, I may wonder if there's some reason why they can't hire and/or keep employees.

If your company is actually trying to fill multiple identical positions, it's probably best to make that clear somehow - that they're growing rapidly and the listing isn't for a specific position so much as that they're always open to hiring anybody who has the right qualifications.

Re: Seen that job listing for a while, its no coincidence

#86

Post by rwallace » Fri, Jun 19, 2015, 3:49 PM UTC

jackgavigan wrote: post #28

auxym wrote: post #15

As a fresh grad interviewing for (real, non-internship) jobs for the first time, I'm really surprised at how long the hiring process is. The article mentions 23 days average. I'm currently interviewing for a BigCo where I already had done an internship, so they knew me. After I contacted my former supervisor, it took him 2 weeks of wrestling bureaucracy to open a position, then HR insists on collecting CVs for 4 week…

HR are a major problem in many large companies. Oftentimes, they're lazy (outsourcing most of their job to expensive recruiters and agencies), obstructive (creating all manner of stupid, bureaucratic, red-tape hoops you have to jump through before they'll approve whatever it is you're trying to do), and add zero value to the actual process of recruiting an employee. My hat of HR know no limit.

Agreed, but when it comes down to it, that's laziness or incompetence at the executive level. The personnel department should not be given that sort of power; that's not what they're for. It's the CEO's job to make sure they aren't.

Re: Seen that job listing for a while, its no coincidence

#87

Post by ufmace » Fri, Jun 19, 2015, 3:57 PM UTC

southphillyman wrote: post #67

culturestate wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You tend to see drug tests a lot in retail, fast food, and many other low-wage low-skill jobs. I truthfully have no idea how effective that is in weeding out people who would be generally unreliable, but that's often the justification given by managers. I'm sure there are some ultraconservative companies that drug test everyone — including developers and senior managers — but those are few and far between in comparis…

Unfortunately, drug tests are yet another hurdle poor people have to clear in order to earn a living wage. Outside of the red tape domains, like banking and government, I've never been drug tested as a developer. The idea that a low skill worker is more likely to be on drugs is classism. Low skill workers really get no autonomy. They are drug tested, have to clock in and out, and even have monitored lunch/bathroom br…

There certainly is some of that, but there's also different requirements for customer service positions where being in a specific place at a specific time is a core part of the job.

Re: Seen that job listing for a while, its no coincidence

#88

Post by bediger4000 » Fri, Jun 19, 2015, 4:00 PM UTC

poikniok wrote: post #63

bediger4000 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To avoid having to actually do some real human thinking. Fail a "drug" test, you can just treat those people as scum, not worth your time, disgusting pariahs. You don't have to look at them as human, and actually use your wits to decide. People who, for example, smoke marijuana, will fail a drug test. Will they miss work because they're hungover from a Big Weekend? No, mostly not. Will some straight arrow call in sic…

I am confused by your point. Would you rather sick people come into work and get even more people sick?

My point is that potheads probably don't call in "sick" from a weekend bender hangover, but we know alcoholics do. We test for marijuana use, we don't test for alcohol use. We know for a fact that even a teetotalling, cautious person calls in real sick every once in a while. So the reason for drug testing being "to avoid absences" is logically inconsistent.

Re: Seen that job listing for a while, its no coincidence

#89

Post by JoeAltmaier » Fri, Jun 19, 2015, 4:05 PM UTC

bediger4000 wrote: post #88

poikniok wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am confused by your point. Would you rather sick people come into work and get even more people sick?

My point is that potheads probably don't call in "sick" from a weekend bender hangover, but we know alcoholics do. We test for marijuana use, we don't test for alcohol use. We know for a fact that even a teetotalling, cautious person calls in real sick every once in a while. So the reason for drug testing being "to avoid absences" is logically inconsistent.

Its incomplete; still useful if we assert that potheads will miss work.

Re: Seen that job listing for a while, its no coincidence

#90

Post by ufmace » Fri, Jun 19, 2015, 4:07 PM UTC

aidos wrote: post #9

23% of interviews have a drug test. What's the incentive behind that?

I think it's mostly an insurance thing. Certain industries apparently can't get or can't afford insurance without requiring drug tests for everyone. Maybe more CYA policies at large companies.

I used to work for a company that would regularly send employees into refineries and chemical plants that we were consulting for. They required anyone who would go on-site to submit to drug tests, even though they weren't directly employed by the plant operator. So thanks to their requirement, most of our company had to be drug tested routinely.

I do wonder if any of these insurance companies have ever actually proven that drug tests make the plant safer. I suppose it makes more sense when you consider that it's an environment where a routine screw-up could easily cause catastrophic destruction. But do they know for sure, or are they just assuming or protecting themselves from lawsuits or something?