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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
