Mr. Intellect

[ADeMartino]

Okay, so, bear with me here. This isn't about a customer, so this doesn't belong in Sucky Customers. It isn't (technically) a coworker, so it doesn't really belong there, either. So I'm putting it here. Moderators, if you feel it belongs elsewhere, please put it where you feel it's appropriate, and accept my apologies.

On with the story...

I went to an interview today. Happy happy joy joy! The prospect of a full-time, regular job is pretty damned appealing to me, especially after the chaos and general joblessness of the last six months. I won’t go into details here unless asked; it’s not relevant to today’s tale anyway.

Anyway, I was not told that it would be a ‘group’ interview.; I hate those. This particular one was six prospective employees being grilled by three HR types. Yeah, it sort felt like the inquisition.

But I persevered.

As the interview was winding down, we were asked if we had any questions for the HR types – and this is where our tale picks up.

One of the prospective-employees group (whom I’ll call Mr. Intellect) asked if the company required a drug screen.

Now, I suppose that question wasn’t totally out of line – but seriously, just asking it raises a red flag. One of the HR types did answer, though – yes, the company did require a pre-employment screening; in addition, any employee was subject to random testing, plus a mandatory screen if there was an accident or injury. All in all, pretty much the standard package.

You’d think that would enough. Alas, no. Mr. Intellect asked what type of screen the company would require – urinalysis, hair, saliva?

I swear, that old adage comparing something to a train wreck – you want to look away, but you can’t…..it’s true. I couldn’t help watching this man as he shot himself in the foot. Repeatedly.

Again, the HR guy answered, though it was very clear he wasn’t impressed with Mr. Intellect – the company currently used saliva tests.

And Mr. Intellect piped up again. “Oh. Well, do you have any positions that don’t require drug testing?”

‘Subtle’ ain’t in Mr. Intellect’s vocabulary, apparently.

I can’t decide if he’s an idiot or a genius. We all know that there are people out there who are on unemployment and are required to look for work, so in order to remain on the dole, they intentionally do things to guarantee that nobody will ever actually hire them – if this was the case here, I gotta say, it was brilliant. Make the prospective employer believe you’re a drug user and therefore unhireable.

Or maybe he’s just a ‘trustee of modern chemistry’ and it’s eaten his brain.

Oh, and I got the job. (commence the happy dance....)

[Bright_Star]

Most places of employment nowadays require drug testing BEFORE you get the job AND they have random drug testing in the work place as well. He should have known that already. UNLESS he was using...lol.

[ADeMartino]

Most places of employment nowadays require drug testing BEFORE you get the job AND they have random drug testing in the work place as well. He should have known that already. UNLESS he was using...lol.

Yeah, I know, and they're getting increasingly-militant about it. Back in November, I interviewed with a company that required a drug screen prior TO THE INTERVIEW - and at the prospective employee's expense, no less.

I know, that sounds really harsh, but the way they set it up was actually pretty fair. First of all, they'd tell you what was required up-front, so if you were a drug user, you could gracefully bail out - no harm, no foul. Then, once they'd considered the applications and selected the 'candidates' for an interview, you'd be contacted and given an appointment with the screening service. Once you'd done that, and assuming you passed the screen, THEN you'd be contacted for an interview. If you failed or refused the screen... well, they didn't have to waste their time on you, did they?

Yeah, it still kind of sucked that I had to throw $35 for a drug screen before even being called for an interview, but I did understand the logic behind it. I did pass the screen but sadly did not get the job. At least, though, the company had the class to negotiate a lower-cost screen, so it wasn't the $55 it normally was.

[sms001]

'grats on the job!

I could see asking how drug testing is worked into the hiring process, in order to schedule for it, but I'd hold back and hope someone else asked first. Swingin' at that particular pitch three time though? You're outta here!


And all logic aside, I'd have to be pretty desperate to work for Company 'B' (the "pre-screeners"). Just reeks of mistrust AND cheapness.

[Irving Patrick Freleigh]

Wow, that's a good one. Here's another good one:

"I can get unemployment if I'm laid off, right?"

"Can I get unemployment if the building burns down?"

"Even if it's a suspicious fire?"

[ADeMartino]

'grats on the job!

I could see asking how drug testing is worked into the hiring process, in order to schedule for it, but I'd hold back and hope someone else asked first. Swingin' at that particular pitch three time though? You're outta here!

And all logic aside, I'd have to be pretty desperate to work for Company 'B' (the "pre-screeners"). Just reeks of mistrust AND cheapness.

Well, I passed into the 'desperate' zone right around August of last year. I was working day labor just to keep money coming in, and that's not only low-paying, grunt work, but it's sporadic as hell. There were weeks that I'd only get sent out two days. You ain't gonna pay many bills like that.

In all fairness to company 'B' - I heard they treat their employees VERY well - good pay, good conditions, very good benefits package. And I can sort of see the logic of pre-screening. I've signed on with a few temporary agencies in the past few months, and they all required drug screens. Most of the time, I ended up paying for the screen anyway (they just take it out of your first check). Sadly, I see a lot of companies adopting this policy in the future.

[fireheart]

I can see the use for pre-employment screening in some cases, but not all of them.

Case in point: my mum works primarily admin roles (at the moment she works as a receptionist/finance lady for a mining firm). While she'd made it past the interview, she still had to go for a drug test and medical.

My question to her was "WHY would you have to do it for a position like that?"

[Andara Bledin]

It doesn't matter what position she is taking; it's a matter of what the company does.

Places that do dangerous work or contract work for the government will require all employees to do the drug screen regardless of actual position due to the fact that even in administration, you have the potential to cost people their lives.

It also means that if an employee changes roles, they don't have to jump through any additional hoops to get them set up in the new position.

^-.-^

[Pixilated]

Congratulations on the job!

As for Mr. Intellect ... at least he provided some entertainment.

[ADeMartino]

It doesn't matter what position she is taking; it's a matter of what the company does.

Places that do dangerous work or contract work for the government will require all employees to do the drug screen regardless of actual position due to the fact that even in administration, you have the potential to cost people their lives.

It also means that if an employee changes roles, they don't have to jump through any additional hoops to get them set up in the new position.

^-.-^

Not just that, but insurance companies are requiring employers to do this as well. Yes, the 'face' story is it makes for a safer work environment, but the reality is it gives the insurance company one more excuse to deny a claim.

For example, let's say you're working in a warehouse and something falls off a high shelf and injures you. Bam! Whether it was your fault or not, most places will require a drug test automatically. Now, let's say you've smoked a joint two weeks prior to that. You're obviously not currently under the influence, but that test will come back positive and just like that, the insurance company has a reason to deny the claim. It doesn't matter that you were not under the influence at the time, or even if the accident wasn't your fault. If the screen shows positive, they get to keep their money. Furthermore, if also gives them an excuse to raise the company's premiums.

[Eevie]

Congrats on the job!

Well common sense clearly isn't Mr. Intellect's strong point... I can imagine he made for an amusing interview however.

[Jester]

I currently work for a company (both of the bars I work at are owned by the same group) that does not require drug screening. That being said, questions like that asked by Mr. Intellect would definitely raise the inner alarms for anyone interviewing him for a prospective position. And knowing my management, he would not get the job. Not because they would think he was a drug user. Just because of the idiotic way he went about admitting he was a drug user. Moron.

[fireheart]

Not just that, but insurance companies are requiring employers to do this as well. Yes, the 'face' story is it makes for a safer work environment, but the reality is it gives the insurance company one more excuse to deny a claim.

And this is why I am so glad that health insurance down here is NOT tied to employment.

There are some health insurance companies that only offer services to particular career groups, but those career groups can pick whichever company they want.

(the reason why is simple: why I'm not a drug user, in the past I've been on antidepressants. There are a myriad of side-effects that can occur with those and an insurance claim could easily be refused based on those side effects)