Where do you draw the line

[Gidan]

Applying for a job with the City of Bozeman? You may be asked to provide more personal information than you expected.

That was the case for one person who applied for employment with the City. The anonymous viewer emailed the news station recently to express concern with a component of the city's background check policy, which states that to be considered for a job applicants must provide log-in information and passwords for social network sites in which they participate.

The requirement is included on a waiver statement applicants must sign, giving the City permission to conduct an investigation into the person's "background, references, character, past employment, education, credit history, criminal or police records."

"Please list any and all, current personal or business websites, web pages or memberships on any Internet-based chat rooms, social clubs or forums, to include, but not limited to: Facebook, Google, Yahoo, YouTube.com, MySpace, etc.," the City form states. There are then three lines where applicants can list the Web sites, their user names and log-in information and their passwords.

http://montanasnewsstation.com/Global/s ... S=10551414

[Spazz]

Maybe all of us should sit down with who employs us and let them decide all the things we can and cant do . Wouldnt that be great ?

It will only get worse. Once you let your job or the govt start regulating your behavior they only get bolder and bolder. This is the fault of all you people who think drug tests are ok and go along with them.

[Harrison]

I don't like to work with, or for, junkies. Thanks.

[Gypsiyee]

Drug tests are a perfectly acceptable practice. The only thing I disagree with is the marijuana issue. I don't think marijuana use should be grounds for unemployment, but cocaine, heroin, and other addictions are another story - I'm not quite sure why anyone wouldn't think so unless they'd never seen someone with a severe addiction to those drugs. They will lie, cheat, steal, fight, whatever they need to do to acquire a fix. Addicts have one track minds. it's a wicked addiction, compromising the safety of both the individual and the business. I don't have experience with heroin addicts, but coke addiction has overtaken a handful of my friends and family.
And if you think you can tell an addict just from one look or conversation/interview, you might be surprised. Not all of them fall into the stereotypical appearance.

In drug testing, the line should be drawn on what drugs raise red flags imo - but drug testing should not go away. It's a necessary measure for the safety and security of the company and its employees.

As far as the original post.. that's over the line, imo, especially for employment at the city level. I could almost understand it in DC if you were working a highly privacy-sensitive job. On the other hand, it's not like they're invading your space and snooping after you're already employed - it sounds like people are voluntarily providing this information as applicants, knowing that this is a prerequisite for the job. If there's something I find over the top for a position, I simply don't apply.

[ClakarEQ]

I agree with spazz and while I also agree that being high on any drug while working is obviously bad, what you do on your time, from drug use to porn, is no ones business but your own.

However that isn't the case today, what you do on your time regardless of what that is, now appears important to everyone else. That is the slope we've all accepted.

Harri, do you think you'd land a job if someone saw these boards and the shit you wrote? Or even myself if my employer saw the shit I wrote (well if they're liberal I think I'd be ok :p).

The deal is, nothing you do is yours anymore, it is just as much mine now, to the point I think spazz is making, it won't get better, it will get worse, soon, what you do in your house will also belong to me and the rest of the world.

EDIT

I don't know if it is over the line regarding Gid's post. I mean, if you have a person looking to work for the city, shouldn't the city be able to confirm that this person is "good" for the city? What if they've posted all sorts of slanderous things on their myspace page. Or how about semi nude pictures of themselves, etc. Are you suggesting these things are less important then drug testing? If drug testing could prove / show that you are "high" right now, I'd have less issues with it. However all drug tests show is that at some time from 1-2 to 30 days you got "high" is BS. Also the most common drug abused today is alcohol, and that isn't even tested for because it leaves your system too quickly.

[Gidan]

One of the things I find most amusing about the whole situation, a quote from further in the article

"So we do those types of investigations to make sure the people that we hire have the highest moral character and are a good fit for the City," Sullivan said."

Yet as part of the application for the person of highest moral character, to get hired, you must show you are willing to violate the TOS for many of those websites by simply providing your username and password to another. It seems to me that any person who is qualified for the position based on this is the exact person who wouldn't not be hired as they can not fill out this section of the application.

[Lueyen]

I wouldn't get the job.

[Arlos]

Once again, on the question of drugs, everyone conflates use with abuse. Someone who would lie, cheat, steal is a drug abuser, not merely a user. It IS, contrary to the garguments made here, possible to USE certain drugs without ABUSING them. Admittedly, that's quite difficult for certain drugs, but much less so for others, and no, I'm not talking about just marijuana here. If someone is completely capable of fulfilling the duties of their job, and does so, what does it matter what they do on their own time?

Note that yes, some jobs are exceptions, due to the various risks involved, such as someone who is a pilot, say. But for Joe Tech Support guy? Who gives a rat's ass if he, say, snorts a line of coke at a party on an occasional weekend instead of going through a 12-pack of Pabst Blue Ribbon,, if he is showing up on time and getting his job done? Obviously, someone who shows up to work strung out on whatever isn't a fit employee, but neither would someone who showed up drunk. In both cases, the problematic issue is abuse of the substance they are consuming, not USE.

That's why random drug tests for average employees in most positions are wrong, because no, just because someone DOES use something does NOT mean they would make a bad employee. It's an invasion of privacy.

-Arlos

[Gypsiyee]

and how do you tell the difference between who is whom, Arlos? You can't. Cocaine, heroin, crack - these are among the most highly addictive substances available - they're also substances that clear from your system relatively quickly, as I recall - please correct me if I'm wrong. Those who can simply 'snort a line on the weeknds' are the rarity, not the norm. As with anything else, rules are created with the majority in mind. The odds lean in favor of addiction being a problem to those who partake in those substances, period. If a guy who snorts on the weekends once in a while can't hold off long enough to test for his job, he doesn't need the job because his priorities are obviously somewhere else.

That said, I never said I was in favor of random drug testing. Drug testing to qualify for a job and calculated drug testing to pinpoint a performance issue are completely fine in my book.

[Arlos]

Alcohol is a highly addictive substance as well, and I submit that a complete raving alcoholic is going to perform just as bad as someone who's a cokehead. Should people be tested for excessive drinking as well then? If it's all about screening out potential problem employees, by your logic, then they SHOULD be tested, yet none are. Obviously then, that isn't the overriding motivation involved, and instead is designed simply to punish those who get their mindbenders in a different fashion than the societal norm, regardless of how well they handle them.

-Arlos

[Gypsiyee]

We'll have to agree to disagree that cocaine and heroin are even remotely comparable to alcohol or marijuana, in terms of addiction or otherwise. I'd venture to say that a pretty large majority of people socially drink without becoming addicts - you'd see a much different ratio with either of the above substances.

I will compare marijuana to alcohol any day of the week and consider them rather equal in terms of general usage and inebriation. But there is no way in this universe I could ever, ever equate either of them to heroin or cocaine.

[ClakarEQ]

Well lets not get into a drug debate, I think the OP's intent was mroe along the lines of, is what the GOV (city in this case) going too far. I think without a doubt folks would say sure, they are going to far, but in alot of ways, we, the people accept it, I'm not sure we would stop this sort of inquest.

If a myspace page can get a mayor fired, if a tweet can cost a person a job, etc, what exactly is too far "today"?

[Tuggan]

I wouldn't get the job.

[Spazz]

Claker i think your the only one who gets what i am saying. The more you let your job decide what you do in your free time the further down hill this is going to go.

You can find this shit over and over again. How bout the teacher who was fired not to long ago for having a picture with a gun or the other teacher who got canned for posing nude years ago. Our jobs are not who we are and it is the drug testing that opened the door and has taken us to this point.

Gyps coke is just like every other drug, there are a whole lot of people who use it now and again just like there are a bunch of addicts.



Harrison i got some shocking news for you dude. every day you are probibly around drug users and addicts and most of them prolly pass right under your radar. Are all drug users junkies to you ?

[brinstar]

Addicts have one track minds.

this is literally true-- synapses "rewire" themselves to increase the drive for more substance and step up the chemical reward for scoring that fix, while countless other neural pathways atrophy from disuse

i have always had a sneaking suspicion i should've been a neuropsychologist instead of an english teacher, that shit just fascinates me...

[Nusk]

this isnt anything new
when i applied for one job they asked for this info, but i replied (and rightly so) "so you want me to violate the terms of service of my social network, oh and if you didnt know according to a new federal law this might actually be a federal crime of cyber fraud"

yeah i didnt get the job

for those who dont know

[Gaazy]

In my line of work, I cant take the chance on someone that cant pass a drug test, even pot. As an employer speakign, how do I know you only smoke pot at home, and havent done it at work? The point Spazz had about people on drugs passing right under our radars a lot is the whole problem. I wont take a chance on anyone sneaking under my radar and getting themselves hurt badly, or worse, someone else, in my shop. Cranes, big forktrucks and heavy equipment, torches and welders, loose pieces of steel, motor racks, ect. all over the place. One slip up from a stoner and someone can easily be killed or seriously injured. Accidents happen, yes, but with slowed reaction times, bad judgment, and the lack of caring with someone on drugs equals more accidents. I know because I used to be one, and God knows Ive learned from my fuckups and wont let it happen to anyone else if I can help it. Hell if I wasnt doing the testing, I would have been fired just as easy. I never did drugs at work, but I would have been reprimanded anywhere else. What I mean is I know the attitude that comes with drugs, its a carefree, slowed way of thinking. And like Gyps was saying, its a mind set of doing anything you can as long as you get your fix, no matter who you hurt. Hit the nail straight on the head. Hell Brinstar works with former addicts every day he

<3 monthly drug tests. We tell them the day they apply there will be drugs tests, and if they have a problem, to find a job somewhere else. Its one reason we have a lower accident record than anyone else of our size with a shop.

And how can you compare what social networks someone plays with to drugheads in the workplace? Of course an employer shouldnt ask for what your myspace is, but thats harmless compared to someone being strung out running around on a forklift and cant stay awake. Thats like comparing apples to oranges imo. I can see how social networks are an invasion of privacy, but I cannot see how testing for substances that can get people hurt or killed would not be. 99% of the time its drug users and addicts or former users that are the only ones that are against it. Like Harrison said, most people dont want to work with addicts


I read an article about this earlier that reminded me of this thread, and I got to thinking about it, heh

[Arlos]

Yeah, I see your point, Gaazy, but you could say the exact same thing you said about alcohol. How do you know if someone that drinks won't go out at lunch and have 8 or 9 shots of JD and do something to get people hurt? That mean you should test to see if anyone has a 6-pack of beer on the weekend? Hell, how about the guy that goes out and parties on a weeknight and shows up hung over to hell? I can just about guarantee that they're going to be a bigger risk than some guy that smoked a joint the night before.

Obviously, if someone's work hours are at all impacted by their recreational choices in the off hours, that's a problem. But that's universal, it's completely irrelevant what substance they use used to achieve an altered consciousness. So why single out some things and not others, when any of the above would be equally bad?

All that said, your situation IS one where I can somewhat see it, though I think on-site testing if someone is suspected of being fucked up (and include alcohol in that) would be a more reliable, safer, and better alternative. But what physical damage can some, say, software engineer who was unprofessional enough to get stoned at lunch do, when he's not armed with anything deadlier than a mouse? Why should an employer really CARE what their employees do at home in those kind of circumstances, so long as that person is capable of getting their work done?

-Arlos

[Drem]

drug tests are pretty important for industrial jobs.... if you get injured and can't pass a drug test you don't get workman's comp. not to mention weeding out tons of useless shitheads in the process because they'll never apply in the first place

win/win. if you can't function without drugs then go work at one of the many low-paying benefit-less jobs that don't test for them or might even be employed with people that do them on break. there are plenty of those

[Gaazy]

Hell yes someone hungover as hell is just as much of a risk, and they will be dealt with just the same

One high point is its our business, and we'll run it how we want. Everyone is replaceable and if a possible employee doesnt like it, hey can move on to the next job.


Like Drem said, if you cant live without drugs and with the rules of my workplace, then go somewhere else, thats their choice. I dont want someone whos life is controlled by drugs working for me anyway, whether its a personal choice on your own free time or not. People say is not my business what they do when they arent at work, well guess what, when someone is involved in my company, it IS my business, whether they like it or not. If you cant play by my rules, go somewhere else

Its like the shop boss I had quit a few weeks ago because he was fucking the secretary in the months before. I knew it was going to cause a problem when they ended up having a fight or arguement. It was going to disrupt everything. (He was also married with kids, theres another problem. Crazy wife coming and fighting the secretary or wahtever). When they found out we knew, of course they told everyone oh hey its none of their business what can Eric say fuck them we'll do what we want blah blah blah. Of course you cant fire people just for that, and the biggest mistake Ive made this year actually was not finding another reason to ge rid of both of them, ill admit that myself. Long story short, I let it go too long before I dealt with it, his wife found out, big mess, she stole money from him, big fight, and I lost a shop boss in the middle of a bunch of jobs, big big fucking mess. My point is, from an employers standpoint, and just about any employer will tell you the same, when it involves my business, my livelihood, and my other employees livelihoods, I will MAKE it my business. And its the same with drug testing...if it has the possibility of havign a negative effect on business, Im not taking the chance. The biggest problem with the workplace today is not drug testing, is that you have to worry about getting sued by some little bitch looking to make a buck on anyhing you do.


Anyway, like i said, how can I tell whether or not you did drugs this weekend, or this morning before work? I cant, and thats not a chance Im going to take

[Gidan]

That brings up the original question, where do you draw the line on what is your business and what is not? If you happen to have a married couple both working for you, is their entire private life your business because it could effect you? Is someones diet your business because what he eats could effect your company? The idea of if it can effect my company its my business doesn't work because anything can be turned into effecting your company if you look at it the right way.

Do you come right out when hiring people and tell them that everything they do at work, at home or wherever they are is your business and they have no right to any privacy from you?

[Drem]

it's pretty much the owner's call. and the line of work you're in. i imagine diet is a big deal in quite a few industries

[Harrison]

I don't think smokers should be allowed on the same group insurance plans as non-smokers in a workplace.

It's not fair to the non-idiots to have to pay more for the less intelligent.

With the multitude of ways to quit out there, there is no excuse.

[Gidan]

If you want to seperate smokers, you would also need to seperate people who eat fast food, drink, poor drivers and anything else that puts you at an "unnecessary" risk.

[Drem]