<p>^^^</p>
<p>Ok…sorry if I misunderstood. :)</p>
<p>Perhaps somehow getting the influential young folks employed FIRST. Once they are taking “menial jobs” then the others will follow?</p>
<p>When I posted the above, I was thinking that could be a strategy. If these church members know which young adult males are “leaders” with power, then getting those young men working will be the first step to getting the rest to follow.</p>
<p>Originally Posted by 2016BarnardMom
I think the slippery slope is testing for legal drugs and refusing to hire when nicotine is detected.</p>
<p>Then perhaps the answer is to always use a 3rd Party testing lab and the agreement is that nicotine won’t be tested or the info regarding that use won’t be released to the employer.</p>
<p>It’s good to see that so many have the same confusion that I do.</p>
<p>I can’t imagine my sons thinking any job is “beneath” them, or that they would turn down a job because their peers would disrespect them because of having to wear a uniform, or follow rules, or do menial work, etc. </p>
<p>But from what we were hearing at the meeting I attended, a youth who took a job at McD’s would be the laughing stock of the boys on the corner–and that was more important to him than a paycheck would be–even if he understood that the bottom rung was only a beginning, with much better things ahead.</p>
<p>And with the magical thinking so common in teens, these kids think that they can wait for the magical “prestige” job to materialize–you know, they will be the next great rapper, etc.–or maybe just step in to that job that requires dressy dressing–</p>
<p>So some of the church members from the partner congregation were being fairly discouraging when members of my congregation were trying to commit to hiring/mentoring some of these kids in their own businesses (one is a Kroger executive, one owns some restaurants, one owns a commercial janitorial company…)</p>
<p>It was an interesting meeting in a lot of ways. It seems that there are a lot of barriers out there that I never recognized before.</p>
<p>would be the laughing stock of the boys on the corner</p>
<p>You have to identify who the “leaders” are of “the boys on the corner” and get them working first…then the rest will follow.</p>
<p>So what solutions did those folks from the partner church suggest? Btw, were they folks who would know? They had been involved in this sort of thing before? Maybe you need to look for a city program or something currently successful. Their reaction is strange in that it says, don’t bother.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Odd that there is a time limit, but the BAC limit is greater than 0.00%.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not everyone had to have been drug tested by their employers…including companies where they may be inclined such as financial companies. </p>
<p>For instance, the financial firm I worked for never drug tested me nor anyone else…even though I was given an extensive background check to ensure I had no serious criminal or other records, especially related to financial matters. </p>
<p>As for my mentioning systemic discrimination, that comes from the statistics I’ve read and heard from lawyer friends working in labor and civil rights areas which states Black and Hispanic individuals are far more likely to be arrested and sentenced much more severely for the same given alcohol/drug offenses than their White counterparts. </p>
<p>This has been repeated by nearly everyone I know who has done research on the issue or worked on those cases. </p>
<p>Systemic discrimination doesn’t have to be deliberate or intended for it to be an issue. </p>
<p>If it has a “disparate impact” on the affected protected class under the EEOC for it to be a problem in areas like employment and the job criterion/filter causing it isn’t directly related to the qualifications needed to perform a given job, then that job criterion/filter either would need to be altered or eliminated if they are found to have a “disparate impact” on a given protected EEOC class.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not to mention the military is exempted from many requirements falling within the EEOC guidelines. </p>
<p>For instance, while the military often does provide religious accommodations for personnel of different religious faiths, they’re technically not LEGALLY OBLIGATED to in all circumstances under the law due to such exemptions according to folks I’ve known who served, including a few former JAGs who are now practicing lawyers in the civilian world.</p>
<p>You do realize that drug testing can detect use of some drugs from WEEKS before? It’s not a matter of the “last 8 hours” or “they are impaired right now”. It’s a matter of what they did on vacation two weeks ago. Again, how does this affect the performance of most jobs on Monday morning?</p>
<p>mom2collegekids- There are businesses (several health systems but some manufacturing businesses also) which deliberately test for nicotine and will not hire smokers or people using nicotine replacement. The goal is to eliminate them from consideration. </p>
<p>dmd77- I cited some risks earlier in the thread. 1) You have someone who demonstrates a disregard for the law in general. Would that person follow rules at work? 2) A drug addict (which you can’t prove one way or the other, but employers won’t want to take the risk) could be higher risk for embezzlement or theft from the company because they need money to get their next fix. 3) It is generally more difficult to tell if someone is high at work than drunk at work, so they’d rather just avoid people who get high.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Drug testing aside, are these jobs actually available to unskilled minority youths in your community, in the sense that if they apply and take the drug test, they have a chance of being employed? Like zoosermom, I doubt that any native-born youths who want to be paid legally get jobs as bus boys in my area. Grocery store jobs are not so easy to get, either. Grocery baggers in my area are usually either the disabled, who have “supported” jobs (which is to say, they are not paid the minimum wage by the grocery store and the state makes up the difference), or people over 25. And that’s not because younger people aren’t applying.</p>
<p>Interesting conversation. You will find drug testing very common in the public sector. DH was DOD for years…the kind where you don’t know what your husband does. Drug testing is the least of the requirements to obtain high level security clearances. These are important because they want to know you’re not a risk for blackmail, so your fidelity is just as much an issue as gambling habits, or drug use. Anything someone could use against you. My son, 20, got his first clearance for a large aerospace contractor internship this summer. He knew a career in this industry would involve drug testing. </p>
<p>My oldest son, 22, started at our local grocery store in high school, cashier. He started at community college but had a rough go of it (gifted/LD). Five years later he’s been trained all over the store, they love him, he just can’t get full time hours, 32-36 so no benefits. He’s done everything from janitorial, maintenance, butcher, food prep, inventory/vendor orders, it’s Wegmans so there are a lot of departments. So I’ve got news, upper middle class white kids that don’t have their degree are working years at Wegmans and can’t get full time hours. He loves his job, takes as many extra shifts as they will offer, and is grateful for his job everyday. There is honor and integrity in hard work. He looks elsewhere but FT work is very difficult to find. He’s medically intelligible for military service. Our 18yo, hs Sr will be headed to college next year, but he’s working at Wegmans too. He’s responsible for books and spending money.</p>
<p>DH worked as a janitor and a landscaper, during college he helped restore homes…an apprentice handyman. Paid off for me! I started walking to the local strip mall on Saturdays when I was 14 and was a shampoo girl in hair salons. It makes me very very sad that any youth from any neighborhood today would find these jobs beneath them.</p>
<p>Cobrat, they don’t test before interviewing. Not when they look at a list of applications. If they mandate testing, it happens, ime, after the offer is made, as a condition of employment. So if they offer a job to you, me, or some opportunity kid, they have chosen- not discriminated. (The prejudice would apply if they refused to consider these minority youth, based on assumptions. Yes, profiling exists- but OP raised the idea of actively supporting some of these kids. Not looking for them to arrest or badger. Its just a different context.) </p>
<p>Those on this thread who have been tested can chime in re: whether they were tested as part of the initial culling or as a condition attached to the job offer. But that’s not even what OP raised; he/she heard statements that these kids wouldn’t want to be tested, at all. Presumably, even to seal a job offer.</p>
<p>Whether or not someone’s area hires a particular sort of bagger, stock person or busser, really depends on local practices. OP said these jobs would/could be made available to the group they thought of supporting. </p>
<p>I didn’t assume, btw, that we’re necessarily talking about gang bangers. I didn’t read it that way. Just youth who could benefit. A guy here, a gal there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A company is not going to spend the money on drug testing applicants; that would be cost prohibitive. They will only do that once an offer is made and accepted. Therefore Cobrat’s comments about systemic discrimination don’t really make sense in this context, unless he is referring to discrimination against drug users, which is not a protected class.</p>
<p>In my profession, there is often drug testing as a condition of employment. Additionally, it is usually explicitly stated that random drug testing is a possibility at any time, with refusal to cooperate being grounds for termination.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>S1 was a busboy at an upscale restaurant in our area while in HS. To this day, whenever we go out, he makes sure to thank the person who refills his water glass.</p>
<p>Is there also a concern about any of these kids already having a “record”? In some communites, there are a number of kids who already have been arrested a time or two. Is that also part of the issue here? Are the kids with “records” the ones who will pooh-pooh and criticize another kid for getting a job…because those places would never hire someone with a record?</p>
<p>Where my husband is, part time jobs stocking shelves are very easy to get in reputable supermarkets on the night shift. They are legal and young people of any race can be hired easily because the turnover is so high. It is hard work and working nights is a huge adjustment. But full time jobs doing the same are hard to get because they are union jobs that pay well. But they absolutely do drug test, although people with criminal records who test clean get hired easily. Over the years, my husband has seen many young men (young women don’t choose this job) learn skills and move on. In my law firm(s) we have hired various people through learn to work support programs and not one has ever worked out. But on the night shift of a supermarket, people without a history of work can learn how to be a responsible employee without the added pressure of having to be in public view.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem is, perception, even if inaccurate, can steer attitudes and behaviors. The taint of the “war on drugs” means that any anti-drug policy may be equated with racism by black people, even if the particular policy is not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Piffle. Evidence of smoking pot evidently lingers for something like a month. I know any number of responsible adults with responsible jobs who smoke pot occasionally at home on their own time. I also, frankly, know some people who do coke occasionally. These include extremely well-paid, high-performing people making in excess of $500K per year. They would NEVER consider going to work high. I see no difference between them and a person who has a few drinks at a party on Saturday night. (And who does NOT get behind the wheel of a car after doing so…)</p>
<p>I’ve never had to be drug-tested to get a job. I’ve always considered it a violation of civil liberties, and I would have a major problem deciding whether to comply if I were asked to do so.</p>
<p>But leaving that aside, it sounds as if the person is simply conveying the reality among the youth in question. It doesn’t surprise me in the least. What to do about it? First of all, accept that you can’t save everyone. And a single solution will not work for everyone. So getting the kids who ARE willing to work working is a start. Adding in something like paying slightly younger kids to do chores is another.</p>
<p>The idea that smoking marijuana indicates someone is breaking the law is prevalent in this thread. Please remember that two states (Washington and Colorado) have legalized recreational marijuana; many others (California and Oregon among them) allow medical marijuana uses. So no law is being broken in those situations.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Any tips about getting such jobs? Three months ago, when my son was looking for a job, he applied to all the grocery stores in our area and heard zip from any of them. As an aside, every single application was online.</p>