Time for me to move on from Webroot
-
@art_of_shred said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@John-Nicholson said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Jason said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
Our company just made it against the rules to smoke even if it's legal in your state. No matter if you are doing it for recreation or medical reasons (on or off the clock)
Is that legal?
In Colorado it is. If I was going to do a masters thesis in economics it would be fun to track, if his employer has to pay more per hour for the same skill of work because of this (or if they just end up with shittier workers).
I think the general consensus is that workers that are pot-heads ARE the lower quality workers.
That may or may not be true on average. But the real consensus is that filtering by any factor other than the actual quality and quantity of work is both bad for business and signals low qualify managers. As an investor, how would you feel if you found out that a manager's personal agenda to "weed out" smokers took precedence over your ability to make profits? What if the best staff were fired and replaced with people who needed expensive training and possibly the best replacements refused to even interview with you?
Ruling out smoking doesn't only stop you from hiring those that smoke, it also stops you from hiring those that will consider it, sympathizers and anyone who is interested in working for the best or with the best people. That's a lot of "ruling out" over a personal agenda not tied to corporate value.
-
@art_of_shred said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@John-Nicholson said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Jason said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
Our company just made it against the rules to smoke even if it's legal in your state. No matter if you are doing it for recreation or medical reasons (on or off the clock)
Is that legal?
In Colorado it is. If I was going to do a masters thesis in economics it would be fun to track, if his employer has to pay more per hour for the same skill of work because of this (or if they just end up with shittier workers).
I think the general consensus is that workers that are pot-heads ARE the lower quality workers.
But in reality it can be very far from the truth...
-
I know people that are more tolerable while smoking pot. They can calm down and focus and be a productive person.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@art_of_shred said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@John-Nicholson said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Jason said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
Our company just made it against the rules to smoke even if it's legal in your state. No matter if you are doing it for recreation or medical reasons (on or off the clock)
Is that legal?
In Colorado it is. If I was going to do a masters thesis in economics it would be fun to track, if his employer has to pay more per hour for the same skill of work because of this (or if they just end up with shittier workers).
I think the general consensus is that workers that are pot-heads ARE the lower quality workers.
That may or may not be true on average. But the real consensus is that filtering by any factor other than the actual quality and quantity of work is both bad for business and signals low qualify managers. As an investor, how would you feel if you found out that a manager's personal agenda to "weed out" smokers took precedence over your ability to make profits? What if the best staff were fired and replaced with people who needed expensive training and possibly the best replacements refused to even interview with you?
Ruling out smoking doesn't only stop you from hiring those that smoke, it also stops you from hiring those that will consider it, sympathizers and anyone who is interested in working for the best or with the best people. That's a lot of "ruling out" over a personal agenda not tied to corporate value.
It was just plain illegal until recently, and so I would imagine that the firing of already employed staff is all but irrelevant. I understand your point that it, in and of itself, is not an attribute related in any way to job performance. I wouldn't say that I agree 100%, but I'll concede that point. In any event, it doesn't make a manager a lousy, incompetent manager who is willing to put the company at risk just because you see it that way. Profiling of any sort is employed all over the place for one good reason: it works as intended more than it fails, by a large margin. It's the same as stereotyping. People wouldn't do it if it didn't prove to be overwhelmingly accurate. If I were a manager in a large corporation and was told that the company was screening out any drug users, I would have no issue with that. It's to be expected.
-
@art_of_shred said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@art_of_shred said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@John-Nicholson said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Jason said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
Our company just made it against the rules to smoke even if it's legal in your state. No matter if you are doing it for recreation or medical reasons (on or off the clock)
Is that legal?
In Colorado it is. If I was going to do a masters thesis in economics it would be fun to track, if his employer has to pay more per hour for the same skill of work because of this (or if they just end up with shittier workers).
I think the general consensus is that workers that are pot-heads ARE the lower quality workers.
That may or may not be true on average. But the real consensus is that filtering by any factor other than the actual quality and quantity of work is both bad for business and signals low qualify managers. As an investor, how would you feel if you found out that a manager's personal agenda to "weed out" smokers took precedence over your ability to make profits? What if the best staff were fired and replaced with people who needed expensive training and possibly the best replacements refused to even interview with you?
Ruling out smoking doesn't only stop you from hiring those that smoke, it also stops you from hiring those that will consider it, sympathizers and anyone who is interested in working for the best or with the best people. That's a lot of "ruling out" over a personal agenda not tied to corporate value.
It was just plain illegal until recently, and so I would imagine that the firing of already employed staff is all but irrelevant. I understand your point that it, in and of itself, is not an attribute related in any way to job performance. I wouldn't say that I agree 100%, but I'll concede that point. In any event, it doesn't make a manager a lousy, incompetent manager who is willing to put the company at risk just because you see it that way. Profiling of any sort is employed all over the place for one good reason: it works as intended more than it fails, by a large margin. It's the same as stereotyping. People wouldn't do it if it didn't prove to be overwhelmingly accurate. If I were a manager in a large corporation and was told that the company was screening out any drug users, I would have no issue with that. It's to be expected.
It's lazy managing at best and sabotage at worst. Any intentionally culling of staff regardless of their value to the company is bad management and IS putting the company at risk. Whether it is a manager just trying to get away without actually doing his job correctly or someone with an agenda to hurt people at the expense of the company or someone only seeking to hurt the company and willing to hurt workers as a byproduct, the source is the same - a manager doing something bad and hurting others.
That it is a commonly accepted lazy / bad manager thing to do makes it expected, but in no way excuses it from being bad practice or worse.
-
Apply it to a real world example, in which situation would you as an investor, owner or CEO be happy...
- Firing your top performing staff... just because?
- Not being able to hire the people that you want.
- Not having many of the best people even bother to apply with your company any longer?
- Generating ill will with your customers?
- Making your company look like personal agendas are more important than customer or investor value?
- Making workers less happy and therefore, less productive?
- Making good workers consider or actually quit?
- Not evaluating the value of employees but randomly selecting unrelated criteria to cover up management shortcomings?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@art_of_shred said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@art_of_shred said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@John-Nicholson said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Jason said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
Our company just made it against the rules to smoke even if it's legal in your state. No matter if you are doing it for recreation or medical reasons (on or off the clock)
Is that legal?
In Colorado it is. If I was going to do a masters thesis in economics it would be fun to track, if his employer has to pay more per hour for the same skill of work because of this (or if they just end up with shittier workers).
I think the general consensus is that workers that are pot-heads ARE the lower quality workers.
That may or may not be true on average. But the real consensus is that filtering by any factor other than the actual quality and quantity of work is both bad for business and signals low qualify managers. As an investor, how would you feel if you found out that a manager's personal agenda to "weed out" smokers took precedence over your ability to make profits? What if the best staff were fired and replaced with people who needed expensive training and possibly the best replacements refused to even interview with you?
Ruling out smoking doesn't only stop you from hiring those that smoke, it also stops you from hiring those that will consider it, sympathizers and anyone who is interested in working for the best or with the best people. That's a lot of "ruling out" over a personal agenda not tied to corporate value.
It was just plain illegal until recently, and so I would imagine that the firing of already employed staff is all but irrelevant. I understand your point that it, in and of itself, is not an attribute related in any way to job performance. I wouldn't say that I agree 100%, but I'll concede that point. In any event, it doesn't make a manager a lousy, incompetent manager who is willing to put the company at risk just because you see it that way. Profiling of any sort is employed all over the place for one good reason: it works as intended more than it fails, by a large margin. It's the same as stereotyping. People wouldn't do it if it didn't prove to be overwhelmingly accurate. If I were a manager in a large corporation and was told that the company was screening out any drug users, I would have no issue with that. It's to be expected.
It's lazy managing at best and sabotage at worst. Any intentionally culling of staff regardless of their value to the company is bad management and IS putting the company at risk. Whether it is a manager just trying to get away without actually doing his job correctly or someone with an agenda to hurt people at the expense of the company or someone only seeking to hurt the company and willing to hurt workers as a byproduct, the source is the same - a manager doing something bad and hurting others.
That it is a commonly accepted lazy / bad manager thing to do makes it expected, but in no way excuses it from being bad practice or worse.
No, it's someone making a decision that you disagree with. The black and white "A+B therefore C" view doesn't neatly apply to human interaction. I agree that in a black and white world your math is correct, but it doesn't work that way in the world we live in, and that doesn't make it "wrong".
-
I'm a decent example here. I've never smoked pot in my life. Never. Not once. Not even a tobacco cigarette. Nothing at all. And yet I refuse drug testing because I don't want to work in a place that doesn't look for the best and intentionally goes for "kinda does the job." I don't want a manager that doesn't care about quality or can't figure out what good looks like. I don't want to work for a management structure looking to cover up their own shortcomings by being lazy and hurtful or one that puts personal agendas above the job.
I see drug testing (for normal jobs, heavy equipment, pilots, etc. are different) the same as requiring a college degree - just a cover up for managers that can't figure out how to hire well (at best) and total discrimination at worst with corporate sabotage somewhere in the middle. It's a handy way to know which companies don't take their own work seriously and not worth wasting time trying to work for.
I can't be the only non-smoker who does this.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
Apply it to a real world example, in which situation would you as an investor, owner or CEO be happy...
- Firing your top performing staff... just because? *they never would have been hired in the first place
- Not being able to hire the people that you want. *you know what people I want to hire?
- Not having many of the best people even bother to apply with your company any longer? *the what if clause?
- Generating ill will with your customers? *quantifiable here?
- Making your company look like personal agendas are more important than customer or investor value? *says who?
- Making workers less happy and therefore, less productive? *because only stoners are happy?
- Making good workers consider or actually quit? *says who? they aren't users, therefore not an issue to them
- Not evaluating the value of employees but randomly selecting unrelated criteria to cover up management shortcomings? *says you
That is just loaded with presupposed assumptions...
-
@art_of_shred said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
No, it's someone making a decision that you disagree with.
Yes, I disagree with it on the basis of personal agenda over doing the job that they are hired to do (shareholder value.) It's bad management, period. Its super fundamental of management - you have a job to do, doing this is the opposite of it. It's a cover up, just a common one that people have been conditioned not to question. But it doesn't change what it is.
It's not a specific thing, this is just one manifestation of managers doing something to cover up their failure to manage, measure and evaluate OR... worse, being able to do those things and doing this anyway as intentional sabotage. I'm only assuming the former, but it could be more malicious than that.
-
@art_of_shred said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
Apply it to a real world example, in which situation would you as an investor, owner or CEO be happy...
- Firing your top performing staff... just because? *they never would have been hired in the first place
- Not being able to hire the people that you want. *you know what people I want to hire?
- Not having many of the best people even bother to apply with your company any longer? *the what if clause?
- Generating ill will with your customers? *quantifiable here?
- Making your company look like personal agendas are more important than customer or investor value? *says who?
- Making workers less happy and therefore, less productive? *because only stoners are happy?
- Making good workers consider or actually quit? *says who? they aren't users, therefore not an issue to them
- Not evaluating the value of employees but randomly selecting unrelated criteria to cover up management shortcomings? *says you
That is just loaded with presupposed assumptions...
Not really, those are the baseline results of no longer hiring based on the quality of the outputs. When the company stops focusing on ability to deliver and starts flailing by disconnecting their staff retention from the ability to do the job, these are the natural results.
-
Let's distill it....
Take the drug question out of the equation. And answer this...
When is it acceptable for a manager to no longer do his job around staffing based on value to the company and investors (e.g. demonstrable worker value) and start staffing around personal agendas that are not connected to company value?
-
Look at it from an IT perspective... when would it be okay to just randomly select solutions rather than evaluating them as to their appropriateness and fit for the business?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
I'm a decent example here. I've never smoked pot in my life. Never. Not once. Not even a tobacco cigarette. Nothing at all. And yet I refuse drug testing because I don't want to work in a place that doesn't look for the best and intentionally goes for "kinda does the job." I don't want a manager that doesn't care about quality or can't figure out what good looks like. I don't want to work for a management structure looking to cover up their own shortcomings by being lazy and hurtful or one that puts personal agendas above the job.
I see drug testing (for normal jobs, heavy equipment, pilots, etc. are different) the same as requiring a college degree - just a cover up for managers that can't figure out how to hire well (at best) and total discrimination at worst with corporate sabotage somewhere in the middle. It's a handy way to know which companies don't take their own work seriously and not worth wasting time trying to work for.
I can't be the only non-smoker who does this.
Maybe not the only, but a very small minority for sure.
I also have never smoked. Period. I know lots and lots of pot users, and the "hirable" ones are a slim minority. If you can segregate the obvious waste of time candidates with one swift stroke, you might catch a couple of oddballs who might have made great employees. If your company draws talent, and you are the one holding the cards, then it's on the applicant to make the decision whether it's in his best interest to lose an opportunity to work for you because he smokes weed.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
Let's distill it....
Take the drug question out of the equation. And answer this...
When is it acceptable for a manager to no longer do his job around staffing based on value to the company and investors (e.g. demonstrable worker value) and start staffing around personal agendas that are not connected to company value?
Every single person out there does it to some level, whether they even realize it or not. Your personal views affect how you operate in the world. They just do. I am going to say that it IS a decent benchmark for hiring. I've known so many losers who smoke and a couple of productive people who do. In the interest of doing a simple thing to take care of a lot of otherwise potential work, that's called being efficient. There is no such thing as a perfect system for hiring, but efficient can be good.
-
As someone who has worked in Human Resources:
Just because someone doesn't operate equipment doesn't mean that someone all doped up and to be clear variety of things could make someone that one including heavy use of cold medicine, can still make them a danger to work with/around.
Things like not paying attention to where they are walking and walking into a glass door and putting their hand through it (seen it happen), now it's a work place injury.
Smoking pot and getting into a car accident cause they were too loopy, while on the clock, not because driving is part of their normal job (just had to run something to a client site and drop it off type thing). Now the business is at fault. Which = that employee is a liability.
I know not everyone that smokes pot specifically is a danger. However other drugs are a danger. So while it might not seem fair better to be safe than sorry.
-
@art_of_shred said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
I'm a decent example here. I've never smoked pot in my life. Never. Not once. Not even a tobacco cigarette. Nothing at all. And yet I refuse drug testing because I don't want to work in a place that doesn't look for the best and intentionally goes for "kinda does the job." I don't want a manager that doesn't care about quality or can't figure out what good looks like. I don't want to work for a management structure looking to cover up their own shortcomings by being lazy and hurtful or one that puts personal agendas above the job.
I see drug testing (for normal jobs, heavy equipment, pilots, etc. are different) the same as requiring a college degree - just a cover up for managers that can't figure out how to hire well (at best) and total discrimination at worst with corporate sabotage somewhere in the middle. It's a handy way to know which companies don't take their own work seriously and not worth wasting time trying to work for.
I can't be the only non-smoker who does this.
Maybe not the only, but a very small minority for sure.
I also have never smoked. Period. I know lots and lots of pot users, and the "hirable" ones are a slim minority. If you can segregate the obvious waste of time candidates with one swift stroke, you might catch a couple of oddballs who might have made great employees. If your company draws talent, and you are the one holding the cards, then it's on the applicant to make the decision whether it's in his best interest to lose an opportunity to work for you because he smokes weed.
Sure, and applicants will often risk it or skip it. I have a friend who is the top performer in his company. Top by a huge margin. He's been assigned the largest accounts, does 400% the work of the next busiest person. He also smokes pot AND doesn't care about the company's drug policy. He does the job and totally expects to be walked out the door anytime he is hit with a random drug test. He never takes vacation or sick days and feels compelled to work like crazy because the company "depends on him so much" but is secretly laughing knowing that some day, with no warning and no two weeks or anything, they are going to screen him and the account that the company depends on to keep the company going will be left without their account rep and the only excuse... that personal agenda was more important than their ability to deliver for that customer.
He could, in theory, even take their bread and butter customer with him if they fire him rather than having him quit, which he plans to do in a few months anyway... but with lots of warning and training his replacement. If they drug test him, they lose him same day, no warning, no training, no hand off, nothing.
Sure, it's an anecdote. But having worked in big business, essentially everyone smokes. I know a lot of companies that would cease being able to hire completely. It's not a trivial thing. It's not the companies holding the cards here.
-
@art_of_shred said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
If your company draws talent, and you are the one holding the cards, then it's on the applicant to make the decision whether it's in his best interest to lose an opportunity to work for you because he smokes weed.
Problem is, there is only one good way to determine if a company is really hiring good people - by watching their hiring process. Does it look for people who will provide value? Or does it use unrelated things to filter to make hiring "easy". Hiring is generally the most important thing that a company does. If managers are allowed to, or worse, willing to skip the hard work of evaluating candidates and instead look for shortcuts at the expense of the company you see that in the hiring process.
So as someone being hired, it's not about drugs or degrees or gender or race... it's about "is there a process for seeking the best, or is the hiring process about something other than seeking the best?" It's that simple. Are they trying for the best people, or are they just not bothering.
-
The hiring process is the only thing that a company cannot lie about. It's the singular piece of the business that is truly exposed to someone looking to work there. Everything else can be (and is) faked. They show only the best cubicals, only the best workers, only the best departments. They shield people from the seedy underbelly of the company (or can) before they are hired. You don't know how poor management is until they manage you, you don't know if IT can provision your account until you request one, you don't know if you will get a nice office until it is assigned, etc. But you know the hiring process. And companies know this.
So if they aren't bothering to put their best foot forward in the one spot that matters most, what does that tell the candidate about them?
-
In my neck of the woods you have two choices in who you hire. Either you hire from the Amish and Mennonite population, or you hire potheads/drunks. Most factories around here have no drug testing policy because they know 90% of the workforce wouldn't pass.
