One big issue with this problem is that these men are not all in the same location. Many of them are distributed through the so called rust belt areas -- I've seen maps of this previously. So simply creating a few factories here and there will only address a small part of the problem. They mentioned infrastructure improvement as a way to put some of these people to work -- I think that sounds reasonable because you can apply those jobs and money in the areas hardest hit, but if it only lasts 3 years then it doesn't solve the problem. It would make more sense to incentivize these people to move to areas where there are just more jobs available -- for example, work doing construction for somebody in Indiana for a while then transfer to someplace else. There are tons of jobs across skill levels in areas where there is a growing city. But if you live someplace where the population is declining and have less than high school education then both companies and government are not super excited about investing heavily there. Better to invest in the suburbs of Chicago or Minneapolis rather than small towns that barely have enough jobs anyway. But I think we need to help people move to places it's easier to support long term. So my point is the location of these people is a big factor.
While I think location may be part of the problem, I think it's a relatively small problem. IMHO, the biggest part of the problem is that many of these people are not employable, and due to having an enabler, are not motivated to become employable. There are lots of places in the Rust Belt looking for people to hire, but they need people who will show up clean and sober who will also do the work. These low requirements probably seem like a given to most of the people on HN, but in some communities and some socio-economic classes, this is definitely not a given.
Very true. It's definitely now a situation where we are dealing with the fallout from years of not dealing with the problem. Yea I recently read a story where a factory tried to hire around 50 people and could only hire a small number due to the vast majority failing drug tests. I was actually fairly surprised to hear that. So yea now we are dealing with the problem that has been festering and getting worse for years..
> could only hire a small number due to the vast majority failing drug tests.
I'm surprised mandatory drug testing is a thing in the US. In Germany it's actually outright illegal to do drug tests on employees (exceptions are rare, generally employers need reasonable suspicion (!) and the job must be safety critical, per http://www.zeit.de/karriere/beruf/2013-11/arbeitsrecht-droge...).
As long as it does not involve any heavy machinery, weapons or healthcare no one gives a f..k here what you do in your free time as long as you don't show up drunk or high on the job. And even then, many policemen and healthcare personnel has issues with alcohol abuse...
Yes, practically speaking, the way its done now, corporate drug tests are indeed of not insignificant cost and of questionable deterrence.
There sometimes is financial incentive for them (insurance discounts), but unfortunately at least some of the reason they show up here more than anywhere else is image. The modern mandatory corporate drug test in America sprung up during the Reagan era, when zero tolerance / "War on Drugs" culture was at its peak. (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/06/drug-te...).
"Zero tolerance" policies are rightfully being softened in some of the US, but unfortunately in certain quarters, this attitude lives on.
Yea I recently read a story where a factory tried to hire around 50 people and could only hire a small number due to the vast majority failing drug tests.
Maybe the problem is whatever stupidity requires/incentivizes employers to police what "their" employees do when not at work?
Depends on the drug of course, but since the vast majority of these substances are both highly addictive and also severely impact your ability to operate heavy machinery, people who test positive for (certain types of) drugs are obviously more of a liability on a factory floor. I don't think it's stupidity that makes employers hesitant in this case.
I think it's a valid concern on employers' behalf as far as opiates and meth are concerned. You do not want to be the manager of any business that has a lot of expensive stuff within arms reach -- whether it's a restaurant kitchen or a Home Depot or a jobsite or whatever -- when one of the employees loses control of their habit, needs cash badly, and commits a spectacularly stupid act of larceny to get that cash. I have seen this play out a few times in friends' businesses and it is not pretty.
With that said, I'd agree it's complete bullshit to be testing your employees to try to sniff out recreational marijuana use. A lot of BigCo middle management are socially conservative people in their 40's-60's, and unfortunately many of them operate from a simplistic baseline of "all drugs are bad"...pretty clear that this preponderance is changing, perhaps not quickly enough.
Companies on the west coast in US generally are becoming pretty soft on marijuana due to the recent law changes, but things like opiates or meth definitely they are screening for. There definitely are instances of risk of injury with equipment at work if they show up high, but also many businesses end up with expensive easy to sell machines suddenly walking off the site. So simply theft alone to support a habit of using drugs often is the reason for screening out drug users. The theft issue I've heard of happening from many business owners and can be pretty substantial. Like 2k a week of equipment disappearing until they figure out who it is. Typically expensive tools and electronics that are easy to sell on Craigslist.
