In Gore Vidal’s Inventing A Nation, he recounts how Talleyrand, who headed the French Foreign Ministry under Napoleon, used to encourage his clerks to masturbate before coming to work “so their minds would be clear for at least part of the morning.”
Those were the days. Would that we could still work under that kind of management. Now they just order us to pee in a cup, although some companies prefer to swipe saliva off your inner cheek. I live in a gambling town where the casinos, presumably because they have more money to burn, go super high-tech and suck out a few of your hairs, which enables them to see what drugs you’ve used for up to the previous three months. (This method is advertised as ‘less invasive’ than urine or saliva tests.) So if you want to be a dishwasher on the graveyard shift in some b-rate coffee shop, just say no to smoking that joint three months before applying. Never mind that most over the counter cold medications show up as methamphetamine or that poppy seeds test positive for opiates; what does it matter? If you’re denied a job on the basis of a false positive on a drug test, that’s your problem. If you don‘t like it, f-you. Step aside and let someone else take your place in line. You’re the beggar, they’re the choosers.
Meanwhile, you’ve tested ‘positive’ for drug use. Someone, somewhere, has this information along with your name, social security number, birth date, birthplace and mother’s maiden name. They know who you are, where you live, and where you went to school. What do they do with this knowledge? Where does it go? Who sees it? What is it used for, and why?
No matter. It’s all moot anyway if you don’t pass the ‘personality questionnaire’ first.
Before they’ve rummaged through your bodily fluids, they gauge your mind with some generic and vaguely sinister personality survey. I took one about a year ago when applying for a very low-skilled, low-wage, part-time job. The manager told me not to worry about it. “It’s all just, like, psychological stuff,” she breezily told me. “There aren’t any right or wrong answers.“
Most of it was standard, innocuous, human resources department pap: Do you embrace challenges? Do you work well with a team? How do handle disagreements with co-workers? But sprinkled throughout were some more interesting items, most of them short statements that required a simple, true or false answer. For example, People sometimes irritate me or I get angry if things don’t go well at work; I believe using company materials for personal use is theft or I often disagree with my supervisors. You get the idea.
I kept waiting for one that said, I resent having to answer probing personal questions that are nobody’s damn business but my own, but it didn’t come up.
There were also some multiple choice questions that followed a similar vein. One of them asked you how you like to spend your days off. The possible answers were something like, ‘work around house’, ‘spend time with family and friends’, ‘play sports and exercise’, or ‘spend time alone, reading and watching TV’.
Again, this is before they command you to piss in a Dixie cup.
I wondered if the bright lights who concocted this ridiculous examination were aware that reading and watching TV are very different activities, and that someone who’s apt to watch a lot of television probably doesn’t read much, and vice versa. And let’s ignore how egregiously inappropriate it is for a prospective employer to ask you how you like to spend your days off. Why would a company that insists upon its right to examine the contents of your bladder have any qualms about asking something so minor as that? And what’s to be gained by categorizing someone’s personality on the basis of simplistic, true or false questions?
Suppose they’re only trying to ferret out malcontents or potential mass murderers. Fair enough. But shouldn’t the ‘business psychologists’ who invent these tests be aware of the fact that a sociopath who wants to bring an assault rifle to work and shoot people can probably manage to lie his way through a pre-fabricated personality survey? And if they are aware of this, what’s the freakin’ point of making people take the test in the first place? What possible value does it have? Why does a company that squeals bloody murder about paying some poor schmuck’s health insurance gladly dish out money to pay for these idiotic ‘personality questionnaires’ that are such an obvious waste of everyone’s time?
To ask these questions is to sound like a dangerous introvert who spends too much time alone ‘reading and watching TV’.
Anyway, I guess I had the right stuff, because I got the job. So I endured a week of ‘orientation’ because it was paid. When Friday came around I collected a measly paycheck and quit. The whole process occurred in an atmosphere of hostile condescension where you were treated like a deformed orphan or an unwanted stepchild in some grim nineteenth century boarding school. I would describe it as Oliver Twist meets Office Space, or Jane Eyre’s Day at the Human Resources Department. It was pure fucking lunacy.
Oh yeah, it was a union job. Where was the union, you ask? Good question. Not helping the workers, I can tell you that. The job paid eight dollars an hour.
Stop your whining, for Christ's sake. Did Oliver Twist go around whining? Be a man and eat your gruel!
Posted by: Aitch Jay on April 6, 2009 10:35 PMOnce, in a weak moment long ago in Kentucky, I tried out at a temp agency. After passing the tests of typing speed etc., I found that part of the application called on me to agree *in advance* to be drug-tested at random. I wrote down my refusal. The tester pointed to it in gloating triumph. Aha, she said, you're a drug user. No, I said, I've got principles. She didn't believe me. She just plain viscerally didn't. Even when I quoted her the Ben Franklin bit about how people who would exchange their freedom for a little temporary security deserve neither. Perhaps that's on my Permanent Record somewhere too. I wonder.
Fortunately, a better-paying job in a law firm came along not much later.
I am, as it happens, a drearily clean-living person. In fact I have never understood why so many political activists make themselves so vulnerable to easy arrest by possessing controlled substances when they needn't.
It's just that those of us who have nothing to hide need to refuse these things too some of the time, as a public service.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam on April 6, 2009 11:42 PMRemembers me how my father became an alcoholic about 40 years ago by filling out some stupid government form for some even more stupid reason.
He checked the box "Do you drink regularly?"
He did. He sharded a bottle of beer for supper with my mother. So she was an alcoholic too, probably, only in her case no one knew and she had no job to lose anyway.
Posted by: Peter on April 7, 2009 4:39 AM
I wonder if anyone could guess that I use cannabis...
I'd rather not work for someone if it would mean I can't.
Posted by: Mahakal on April 7, 2009 2:17 PMIt's true that I have to buy my own health insurance, pay double FICA, and forgo paid vacation, a pension, and the like, but you've just reminded me why being self-employed is better.
Posted by: Joyful Alternative on April 7, 2009 2:49 PMWith Cheney running snuff squads out of his office in Washington and no one in the Bush Administration doing anything to stop him for the past eight years, this crowd is capable of anything. The worst part of it is that many of these folks are career employees. I'm really disappointed in our Justice Department, which has devolved into mostly a lawless bunch of cretins. Obama and crew need to do a whole lot than they've done so far to fix the problems there. If it is not done, extreme fascism will be with us shortly.
I'm doubtful of your analysis about the Stevens case, at least the part about Stevens going back into office. Although I wouldn't be surprised that Stevens was ousted the way he was to make room for another Republican Senator from Alaska later on.
Posted by: Buck on April 7, 2009 6:13 PMOOPS UP ABOVE. I Commented on the wrong post.
As to this post, ,my concern is that employees already know if you have a medical problem with those drug tests. Any psychiatric medicine as benign as an antidepressant or a mild anti anxiety drug shows up and they automatically know that you're going to cost them more than the next guy in insurance costs. And that may be the real reason they run the tests.
Posted by: Buck on April 7, 2009 6:18 PM