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)
-
@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?
-
@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).
-
@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)
wow, that's mad
obviously I understand not letting you smoke when you're working etc, same as drinking when working...but at the weekend? That's my time, and I should be free to do what I want to do..? (unless you're on call etc, then again, same as the drinking thing...) -
@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.
-
@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).
Both, I'm sure.
-
@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.
-
@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?
