Time for me to move on from Webroot
-
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.
-
@JaredBusch 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?
Of course it is. Pot is a federal crime still.
HA - I have no idea where Jason's company is, I was assuming he was talking about cigarettes, not weed.
-
@travisdh1 said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
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.
And the Amish are banned from 99% of jobs. Effectively no one can hire them. You have to have a business specifically built around the ability to hire them to be able to.
-
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@JaredBusch 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?
Of course it is. Pot is a federal crime still.
HA - I have no idea where Jason's company is, I was assuming he was talking about cigarettes, not weed.
I was at first, too.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
That's a lot of "ruling out" over a personal agenda not tied to corporate value.
What if it is a corporate value though - healthier employees.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@travisdh1 said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
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.
And the Amish are banned from 99% of jobs. Effectively no one can hire them. You have to have a business specifically built around the ability to hire them to be able to.
Yeah. Little known facts here, most of the Amish population are not a "Citizen of the United States of America", but one of the other 15 different types of Merica citizen. Doesn't take a "special" company, just one that knows how to deal with people who don't have a social security card..... and little things like constitutional rights.... I'll try not to start down that road.
-
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
That's a lot of "ruling out" over a personal agenda not tied to corporate value.
What if it is a corporate value though - healthier employees.
But it's a necessary medicine for a lot of people. One of the reasons to ALLOW it is for healthier employees! Not that any drug automatically makes people healthier or unhealthier, but you are basically saying that you'd happily make innocent people unhealthy and guilty ones more healthy and/or that you want to filter out people who need medication which is just evil.
Imagine if you fired anyone who needed heart burn medication or medication for heart attacks to "eliminate the unhealthy"!!!
-
@travisdh1 said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@travisdh1 said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
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.
And the Amish are banned from 99% of jobs. Effectively no one can hire them. You have to have a business specifically built around the ability to hire them to be able to.
Yeah. Little known facts here, most of the Amish population are not a "Citizen of the United States of America", but one of the other 15 different types of Merica citizen. Doesn't take a "special" company, just one that knows how to deal with people who don't have a social security card..... and little things like constitutional rights.... I'll try not to start down that road.
No, I mean that they can't have lights, direct deposit, checks, file taxes, etc. All of those processes violate Amish beliefs due to the technology involved. You have to deal in cash only (technically even US currency violates Amish beliefs) or barter for the work and almost no business has the ability to accommodate that.
-
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
That's a lot of "ruling out" over a personal agenda not tied to corporate value.
What if it is a corporate value though - healthier employees.
You realize that the reason pot is being pushed through in most of the states that have allowed it is for... healthier citizens.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@travisdh1 said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
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.
And the Amish are banned from 99% of jobs. Effectively no one can hire them. You have to have a business specifically built around the ability to hire them to be able to.
OMG! Say it isn't so. You mean that super-qualified over-achieving Amish workers are being passed over just because they're Amish? Let's fire all of the managers! Lazy saboteurs!
-
@art_of_shred said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@travisdh1 said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
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.
And the Amish are banned from 99% of jobs. Effectively no one can hire them. You have to have a business specifically built around the ability to hire them to be able to.
OMG! Say it isn't so. You mean that super-qualified over-achieving Amish workers are being passed over just because they're Amish? Let's fire all of the managers! Lazy saboteurs!
I was being sarcastic, btw...
-
@art_of_shred said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@travisdh1 said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
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.
And the Amish are banned from 99% of jobs. Effectively no one can hire them. You have to have a business specifically built around the ability to hire them to be able to.
OMG! Say it isn't so. You mean that super-qualified over-achieving Amish workers are being passed over just because they're Amish? Let's fire all of the managers! Lazy saboteurs!
No, they can't ACCEPT the jobs because they can't DO them.
-
I honestly can't think of any normal corporate job that could hire anyone Amish. Being totally serious, I've never seen one with the ability to accommodate that. I can imagine how one could be created, but it would be so limited that I can't think of any that the Amish communities don't already own so it would be duplicated efforts.
Maybe some kind of maid service or something.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
That's a lot of "ruling out" over a personal agenda not tied to corporate value.
What if it is a corporate value though - healthier employees.
But it's a necessary medicine for a lot of people. One of the reasons to ALLOW it is for healthier employees! Not that any drug automatically makes people healthier or unhealthier, but you are basically saying that you'd happily make innocent people unhealthy and guilty ones more healthy and/or that you want to filter out people who need medication which is just evil.
Imagine if you fired anyone who needed heart burn medication or medication for heart attacks to "eliminate the unhealthy"!!!
Well, if we limit the discussion purely to weed, I'll agree with you. But if we include cigarettes, yeah - no.
-
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
That's a lot of "ruling out" over a personal agenda not tied to corporate value.
What if it is a corporate value though - healthier employees.
But it's a necessary medicine for a lot of people. One of the reasons to ALLOW it is for healthier employees! Not that any drug automatically makes people healthier or unhealthier, but you are basically saying that you'd happily make innocent people unhealthy and guilty ones more healthy and/or that you want to filter out people who need medication which is just evil.
Imagine if you fired anyone who needed heart burn medication or medication for heart attacks to "eliminate the unhealthy"!!!
Well, if we limit the discussion purely to weed, I'll agree with you. But if we include cigarettes, yeah - no.
Sure, I'd STILL not be willing to limit in that way but it is SO much better to not hire cigarette smokers than weed smokers. If you were to choose one of the two, cigarettes make you a health liability, tend to take tons of breaks at work, smell bad, bother other workers, etc. But I'd still never drug test for tobacco INSTEAD of determining someone's value at work. Firing someone for dipping or whatever would be considered insane... and yet it is so much better than hiring based on someone not smoking weed.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
That's a lot of "ruling out" over a personal agenda not tied to corporate value.
What if it is a corporate value though - healthier employees.
You realize that the reason pot is being pushed through in most of the states that have allowed it is for... healthier citizens.
Again, when limiting the discussion to weed only, I have a less of an issue - Medical fine. Personally all smoking is gross.
-
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
That's a lot of "ruling out" over a personal agenda not tied to corporate value.
What if it is a corporate value though - healthier employees.
You realize that the reason pot is being pushed through in most of the states that have allowed it is for... healthier citizens.
Again, when limiting the discussion to weed only, I have a less of an issue - Medical fine. Personally all smoking is gross.
Keep in mind that drug testing is not about smoking, it can include exposure, eating and other forms. It means you fire people who ate brownies on accident (which we know happens) or fires people who live too close to people who smoke a lot, etc. Famously it made people who ate poppy seed bagels in NYC come up as heroin addicts. You can ban smoking separately from eliminating drugs.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
That's a lot of "ruling out" over a personal agenda not tied to corporate value.
What if it is a corporate value though - healthier employees.
But it's a necessary medicine for a lot of people. One of the reasons to ALLOW it is for healthier employees! Not that any drug automatically makes people healthier or unhealthier, but you are basically saying that you'd happily make innocent people unhealthy and guilty ones more healthy and/or that you want to filter out people who need medication which is just evil.
Imagine if you fired anyone who needed heart burn medication or medication for heart attacks to "eliminate the unhealthy"!!!
Well, if we limit the discussion purely to weed, I'll agree with you. But if we include cigarettes, yeah - no.
Sure, I'd STILL not be willing to limit in that way but it is SO much better to not hire cigarette smokers than weed smokers. If you were to choose one of the two, cigarettes make you a health liability, tend to take tons of breaks at work, smell bad, bother other workers, etc. But I'd still never drug test for tobacco INSTEAD of determining someone's value at work. Firing someone for dipping or whatever would be considered insane... and yet it is so much better than hiring based on someone not smoking weed.
Yep I agree with all those things.
I'm on your side Scott - I don' t think we should drug test expect for things you previously stated (doctors, heavy equipment operators). Now that said, if a company is going to "have you drive something while on the clock" it should be fine to require they truthfully answer - do you smoke weed/do drugs, if so, you can't be behind a wheel while on the clock for me, period. But sitting behind a desk - fine.
-
Drug testing also incurs cost, a lot of it. You have to pay for testing, you have to pay worker's time for testing, you have to have strict HR policies and processes, you have to hold data that no sane company would want to voluntarily hold about employees, you have to follow processes strictly every time - ones that can accidentally cause critical personnel to be removed without warning (see my example above) or one that could see a huge percentage of staff or entire teams removed at once. Drug policies carry a lot of danger both of crippling the business or discrimination lawsuits (if you don't maintain strict policies around them.)
In the case of my buddy that is the top performer at his job that is a key person that they could not possibly risk losing through drug testing (but do anyway) - his entire department smokes with him so if they tested the department at the same time or nearly the same time... they'd totally shut down the business. And once you drug test by policy, you don't legally have the right to pick and choose. They'd easily lose their entire trained workforce and all ability to deliver to customers overnight.
-
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
That's a lot of "ruling out" over a personal agenda not tied to corporate value.
What if it is a corporate value though - healthier employees.
But it's a necessary medicine for a lot of people. One of the reasons to ALLOW it is for healthier employees! Not that any drug automatically makes people healthier or unhealthier, but you are basically saying that you'd happily make innocent people unhealthy and guilty ones more healthy and/or that you want to filter out people who need medication which is just evil.
Imagine if you fired anyone who needed heart burn medication or medication for heart attacks to "eliminate the unhealthy"!!!
Well, if we limit the discussion purely to weed, I'll agree with you. But if we include cigarettes, yeah - no.
Sure, I'd STILL not be willing to limit in that way but it is SO much better to not hire cigarette smokers than weed smokers. If you were to choose one of the two, cigarettes make you a health liability, tend to take tons of breaks at work, smell bad, bother other workers, etc. But I'd still never drug test for tobacco INSTEAD of determining someone's value at work. Firing someone for dipping or whatever would be considered insane... and yet it is so much better than hiring based on someone not smoking weed.
Yep I agree with all those things.
I'm on your side Scott - I don' t think we should drug test expect for things you previously stated (doctors, heavy equipment operators). Now that said, if a company is going to "have you drive something while on the clock" it should be fine to require they truthfully answer - do you smoke weed/do drugs, if so, you can't be behind a wheel while on the clock for me, period. But sitting behind a desk - fine.
Doctors I would not test. If a doctor is trusted to know when to give out any medicine, they should know when to take it. If you need to drug test a doctor, you need to fire them already.
Heavy equipment I would only honestly test "at work". Like "are you high?" You never bad heavy equipment operators from drinking off hours, yet would never let them operate a crane drunk. Same with weed. Unless the insurance company has a reason to change the cost based on that, and even then, it would be unlikely to change it enough to make it make sense.
