Comment by ToucanLoucan | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ToucanLoucan | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I mean no offense, but this is sort of, with regard to your principles at least, cutting off one's nose to spite one's face? I get that incremental reform is frustrating, but here you had a chance to enter an org you know needed changes, and you blew it because you refused to take a basic drug test that you openly state you could've passed easily.

Like, it's bullshit that they asked, it is an invasion of privacy, it shouldn't be a reason to forgo employment of a candidate they otherwise liked, but at the same time, it wasn't an issue of like, you wouldn't get hired because of your race or gender, it was an issue of like, you'd have to abstain drugs for a while. And then, once you're part of that organization, you can help push for the exact changes you want to see in it.

It's the same reason I get frustrated with my generation not wanting to run for office: we spend all our time complaining about how awful the government is, but precious few are putting themselves out there as the instruments of that change. I don't know if it'll work out or not but I know damn well it won't if we refuse to even try.

Almost all bad business practices were ended by labor refusing to comply with them, not complying to get the job and then somehow changing it within. I think that on top of not taking a massive pay cut, not submitting to a test that can flag you as an opiate addict to the government for life if you ate a poppyseed bagel in the morning is reasonable.

I get that perspective, and I did think about it a lot.

Understand that the position was mostly charity work - the pay was negligible for a six month contract. I was ok with that part - I was motivated to help, not by compensation.

The intrusive testing, coupled with bad compensation is a root cause of the problem IMHO.

I think organizations only really change when they feel pain. In this case, my hope is that the pain of repeatedly losing good candidates is enough to drive policy change (at the congressional or executive level).

I don't think it helps to try to "change from the inside" in this case. If I (and other candidates) just roll with it, there's no incentive for change.

You are completely right. Once inside, your power to affect change is nearly zero unless you are a very high ranking person, and even then it's pretty near impossible.

The change will come when enough people say "we can't hire the best people!" Until then, the only argument is "it's an invasion of privacy and outdated" but if it's not broken (i.e. not causing any problems) they won't fix it. All the candidates power is at negotiation of the offer time. Once you accept, it's kind of over.

+1 to this sentiment.

I'll add, from their perspective, it may also have security risk associated with it. If you are applying for a federal job, there may be a chance that you deal with sensitive information. Just like I may think it's bullshit if they ask how much debt I'm carrying, I understand it from the standpoint that it may impact my security risk.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com