<p>Recently I was involved in a holiday giving project through my congregation, in conjunction with an inner city church that we partnered with. Some of us began exploring creation of a year round partnership, including avenues of offering real help and not just charity giveaways.</p>
<p>One of the biggest needs expressed was jobs, jobs, jobs, especially for minority young men, especially minority young men who are not in school.</p>
<p>Some of the discussion that ensued was eye opening–and also exposed some huge divides that I am not sure how they can be bridged. And some of the discussion became quite heated.</p>
<p>For example, there are some jobs out there that don’t require an education and might be the first rung on a ladder–for example, working as a stocker/bagger/cashier, whatever, at a grocery store. Obviously doesn’t pay much, but we are talking first rung. Sometimes not easily accessible for transportation-wise, but the neighborhood we are working with is not a food desert. Or working as a busboy/dishwasher in a local restaurant. Our congregation has some people in positions (some corporate, some business owners) where they could offer jobs/mentoring to individuals from the partner congregation.</p>
<p>What surprised me was the big objection: drug testing. One man from the church was quite emphatic that drug testing was discriminatory and discouraged minority youth from even applying for these jobs.</p>
<p>Another objection was that the jobs at the low end of the ladder were “disrespecting” and that young males did not want to take these jobs because their peers would not respect them.</p>
<p>As a middle class person, it would never occur to me that these could be obstacles to helping these kids. But if these obstacles are real (and real is in the eye of the beholder)how do we either change the perceptions or remove/help them navigate the obstacles?</p>
<p>My H had to undergo mandatory drug testing most of the 45 years of his career at the federal govt, as did all his coworkers at all ranks. On the other hand, I have never had any drug test at any job I have held. I think it depends on employer. My S also had to have a huge battery of tests and interviews for his federal job</p>
<p>I don’t see mandatory drug testing of all employees as discriminatory and am very glad H and S didn’t either because their jobs provided a good wage and some job security.</p>
<p>We were all happy to get jobs and always assumed we had to start somewhere. I wonder about people who say they’ll lose respect by starting at the bottom. That’s where the new CEO of GM started, as well as many of us.</p>
<p>Well that’s just too bad. Both my kids have worked in those disrespecting jobs. </p>
<p>Just a part of being one of our kids. Get a job in the summer. </p>
<p>Not going to say they weren’t disrespected, only going to say they both have impeccable manners with anyone working in any position. </p>
<p>I think the answer to these particular concerns wouldn’t be too sympathetic coming from me. I’m surprised to hear them, actually, and saddened. How are you going to get a job if you aren’t willing to get a job?</p>
<p>Drug testing may result in differential results by race, but not in the way that most people expect. For example, white people are more likely to use illegal recreational drugs than black people.</p>
<p>Discriminatory? Puh-lease. How about they stop using illegal drugs. </p>
<p>And if the young man’s peers wouldn’t respect him with a “lower rung” job, then that is the fault of the young man’s peers. Get better peers. A job is a job is a job. You want money, work for it.</p>
<p>Were the people voicing these objections actually the young people who would have been applying for the jobs?</p>
<p>How did they arrive at their opinions?</p>
<p>Perhaps they didn’t understand that companies who use drug testing require it of all employees, rather than a scheme to shut out people who are assumed to come from neighborhoods where “everyone does drugs.”</p>
<p>What type of jobs did they see as being desirable for the young people?</p>
<p>Jobs “at the low end of the ladder” help kids understand what the structure and expectations are, in the work world- for many kids, hs is (or was) the only view they now have. Let them get started, let them learn a bit about timeliness, appearance and performance. A great idea. </p>
<p>If a kid is concerned a drug test will turn up something negative, I suspect they will self- select, not apply. The shame would be those kids’ choices, not that the employer imposes the same requirement as for other employees- and the same many of us had to go through. </p>
<p>I think even suggesting lower SES kids who want this chance will take offense that there is a standard test- is…well, not so good. It does hint at a stereotype. </p>
<p>What’s next, no interview?</p>
<p>This is different if a business doesn’t test other employees and just wants to test these opportunity kids. Imo, that would be problematic.</p>
<p>Probably because employment drug testing is widely perceived as being associated with the “war on drugs” in the police and criminal justice system, and the latter is widely seen as being biased against black people (see the first link in post #4). Even though black people use illegal drugs less than white people do, anti-drug policies may be perceived as anti-black policies, whether or not they actually affect black people more than white people.</p>
<p>Also, in a low opportunity environment (i.e. poor areas with a low supply of jobs and low quality education that limits opportunities to gain qualifications for more jobs), anything not directly related to the job that is perceived as an additional reason to avoid hiring someone (including drug testing) is likely to be seen negatively. In addition, drug users in high opportunity environments may have more chances at jobs that do not require drug testing, more ways to cheat the tests, and/or better access to knowledge of how long one has to be “clean” to pass the tests.</p>
<p>Drug testing exists. I’ve been through it and have nothing to hide. Companies either test all employees or all in a category, eg, those working in risk situations or etc. If the grocer tests all other baggers, potential new hires should also be tested, regardless of race, ethnicity, SES or their home neighborhood. And if they do not test now, tough luck. You can’t add a test just for minority young men.</p>
<p>Imo, it’s not about how the test may be perceived. It’s about consistency in application of the policy. no?</p>
<p>The two obstacles OP listed are self-erected obstacles. </p>
<p>I have also heard from kids in these neighborhoods is that the reason many drop out of school, start fighting, etc. is because of the peer pressure. I don’t have a solution for this, but things are not going to change, unless the poor minority communities start changing within themselves. Perhaps minority leaders should focus less on the advantages of the white rich kids, and more on how to change attitudes inside their community. I am looking at you Al Sharpton.</p>
<p>I remember the time when Bill Cosby was ostracized for making critical remarks about parenting practices in some African-American families.</p>
<p>The other church needs to step up to the plate for its congregation. Teach their children that there is no job too menial. I worked food service in the college dorm on my way to medical school. Started on the scrape line- cleaning stuff off of plates before the dishwasher. Was a “foot checker” at the public pool- checking for open sores on feet before allowed in. Perhaps a survey of respected adults in their community should be surveyed for jobs they have held. I’m sure many doctors and lawyers of any race have come from many bottom rung jobs. Need to get on the ladder.</p>
<p>If the point of drug testing is to make sure your employees never use drugs, even away from work, I’m sure it works. However, as someone with a business employing 80 people, we’ve never drug-tested, and I know for a fact that some of our employees smoke marijuana outside of work (medical marijuana is legal in Oregon), and drug (or alcohol) use at work has never been an issue. </p>
<p>I don’t want to know and I don’t particularly care what our employees do on their own time, as long as they get the orders correct and treat our customers like the wonderful people they are. </p>
<p>We must be doing something right. We’ve been growing at 30-40% a year for ten years now. I’m pretty sure drug testing wouldn’t help our bottom line.</p>
<p>The reasoning I had heard before was that a few people sued their employer once because one of the coworkers was a drug addict and they said that made it a hostile work environment, and they either won or settled for a huge amount. So now companies drug test as a sort of insurance. </p>
<p>Does anyone know if that’s true? I don’t remember the name of the company that this allegedly happened to.</p>
<p>Well, there are a number of articles on google about why they drug test- none which make 100% convincing sense to me. I guess my question is: for the sorts of companies/jobs OP is thinking of, DO they drug test now? To be a bagger or stock person or? Or did someone bring this up as some wild idea- "Oh, yeah, and we can drug clear them, so we feel more comfortable about these unemployed minority men?</p>
<p>The drug testing aspect can be quite problematic as with the exception of jobs where having an addiction can be a direct impediment to fulfilling the functions of a job, this requirement can and has been used in practice to enforce a form of employers/state encroachment on one’s off-hours activities for the sake of enforcing puritanical conformity reminiscent of Ford’s company housing back in the early 20th century.</p>
<p>This may also create a form of systemic discrimination as according to some legal statistics I’ve read and heard from practicing lawyer friends working in employment and Civil Rights areas, Whites are far less likely to face serious legal penalties than their Black or Hispanic counterparts for similar/same given drug/alcohol offenses in practice.</p>
<p>The case of the 16 year old White Texan kid from a wealthy family who’s let off by the judge with 10 years of probation when his drunk driving involved stolen alcohol and resulted in killing several people and the prosecutor asked for a 20 year prison sentence is the most recent extreme case in point.</p>
<p>puritanical conformity. there’s a stretch. there aren’t always prominent lessons learned from exceptions. </p>
<p>Lerkin, I wonder if the insistence they’ll find these jobs disrespecting is more stereotyping. Every community has folks who want a leg up and will grab one, if offered. I wonder what whoever said it was really thinking. It reminds me of folks who say not to give or do community service, in the first place, because the needy will be demeaned. Sometimes, it all amounts to just more excuses, more us and them.</p>
<p>I am not sure what that person was thinking. </p>
<p>What I do know, is that I have relatives who are poor (not minorities). And they do consider some jobs beneath them. So, they collect government benefits instead of starting somewhere low. I am always bemused by their attitude. </p>
<p>My first job was a janitor. My second job was at Taco Bell (to this day I cannot even think of eating at Taco Bell). My attitude is “You do what what you have to do to take care of yourself and your family”.</p>