Weird ways to get fired at work

[ateamer]

Yes, the Simplex lock has a default combination. In fact, last I checked the gates at HEF had that combination.

I’ve been to more airports that use the default code than those that don’t. I always thought it was just some standardized airport procedure that the managers developed.

 

[Bob Noel]

Many years ago I had a job where raises, attaboys, and the like were handed out by my boss. But is someone had to be chastised or fired I had to do it. :-(

check out Cheers, S3.E21 The Executive's Executioner

 

[172andyou]

Repairing printers inside a nuclear power facility. I'm certainly not going to reject that notion, and I'm every bit as freedom loving as most.

Come on. The location of the printer doesn't matter. It doesn't matter even the tiniest bit if this guy blazes up every night to relax after a day of sisyphean effort fixing printers at a corporate office, a nuclear plant or anywhere else.

 

[Bob Noel]

Come on. The location of the printer doesn't matter. It doesn't matter even the tiniest bit if this guy blazes up every night to relax after a day of sisyphean effort fixing printers at a corporate office, a nuclear plant or anywhere else.

Of course it matters. Think it through... the guy will have access to a sensitive/restricted space.

 

[DaleB]

Come on. The location of the printer doesn't matter. It doesn't matter even the tiniest bit if this guy blazes up every night to relax after a day of sisyphean effort fixing printers at a corporate office, a nuclear plant or anywhere else.

It does to the Feds, as well as the power utility that runs the plant, so yeah, it kind of does matter. What doesn't matter what you, or I, or anyone else thinks about whether or not it should. Plenty of jobs require drug testing, so complaining that it's not fair or whatever is pointless. Don't want to give up smoking weed? Great, go get a job somewhere that doesn't test or care.

 

[geezer]

I worked in non nuclear power plants.

How one of our employees found the freedom of weed did not fit. He and a newer employee were assigned to deliver test equipment to a work site for the next day,
Sunday. Weedy semi stopped at a traffic light, behind a late model car, released the brake while still moving, and bumped the car ahead. Driver ahead was annoyed, but pulled up a couple of feet. Weedy just giggled at the first bump, and continued no foot on brake, and the auto transmission had enough throttle supplied to run up and bump again.

The offended driver got out, and came back to our truck, the brand new assistant set the parking brake, picked up the mike, and softly said " Truck 123, and the location", then "send an officer". The dispatcher understood from the softness that there was a serious problem, and merely responded OK. Next, the newbie turned off the ignition and removed the key.

Two police cars arrived, took a short statement from the offended driver, handcuffed Mr. giggles, asked if the newbie could drive the truck and he said "No, but I can move it to the curb, and call our dispatcher for another driver".

This took place in the first 2 hours of the shift, and Weedy was converted to AWOL. Sunday he was again AWOL, as he had no money for posting bail.
Monday, he had his hearing, still no bail, so stayed another day in detention.
Tuesday, he was fired for 3 consecutive days AWOL.

We did not have a suitable test for weed back then, and had been dealing with bad days, with the senior employee trying to keep him away from danger About half the time, he was floating to some degree at work.

Weedy in a nuclear or even a fossil fuel plant could simply bump into a control switch, and knock the plant off line, and possibly do millions of dollars of damage.

The nearly brand new guy off the street received a very complimentary letter in his personnel jacket, and proved to be an excellent employee.

Weed is a bigger issue than the users are willing to admit. They are worse that drunks at determining if they are too impaired to drive, etcetera.

One of my assistants had 3 dui arrests for weed, he felt he was no risk, since he drove very slowly. The cops nabbed him for 10 MPH on the Washington Beltway, slowly creeping home after a party with similarly inclined friends. He concluded that driving faster would end the stops, but he hit a 3 foot diameter oak, at about 45 MPH, in his VW Jetta.

That solved the question of how we were going to get rid of him.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

This is off-topic, but I saw some discussion about someone asking how if you know you are going to be fired in a few days, what could you do to cause the most havoc in the company legally? Some of the suggestions were coming out to your boss, or telling your boss how happy you were that your wife is pregnant and about to give birth, because they would now be afraid to fire you due to possible discrimination lawsuits. I am not sure this would work, but it sure would stress out management and human resources

The coming out one might work... But pregnancy? Nah, they don't care. A friend's wife, who is a lawyer, was fired from her law firm just after telling them she was pregnant. ****ty, yet perfectly legal.

 

[bflynn]

Sometime after I'd moved from research into a research IT position at a big multinational, part of my job was hiring consultants to work with some of the business units. I'd do a prescreen, then the business units would do more extensive phone interviews, and I'd hire the successful candidates. It usually worked pretty well. Until one particular candidate impressed everyone on the phone, and was hired. I set him up with a cubicle and laptop in our corporate office, and he spent his first day working remotely from there with the actual business units he was supporting. By afternoon, I was getting calls from the business units that the guy did NOT have the expertise needed, and by later afternoon, they were convinced that the guy on site was NOT the guy we had interviewed by phone. And I recalled that CERT, the Computer Emergency Response Team at Carnegie Mellon, had recently issued an alert that a certain nation state had been using extremely knowledgeable IT resources to get hired after extensive phone screening, then sending agents to the work sites to gather intelligence and/or introduce malware into the IT environment. By close of business on the first day, I terminated the contractor and alerted the contracting firm who had sent him. IT security scooped up his laptop and started tracing everything he had accessed that first day. By policy, they could never tell me what, if anything, they found.

We quickly changed our contractor hiring policy to require video interviews for any remote candidates, and we'd screenshot the video to have something to match with the candidate upon arrival.

I found out that one of the recruiting agencies we used was debriefing candidates and writing down the technical questions I asked. They would brief the next candidate on my questions and give them the answer.

I was suspicious because candidates were saying the right words, but they never sounded confident in them and as soon as they got something new, even a simple thing, they would stumble. I verified it by switching up a question and the guy gave me a picture perfect answer to the old question.

Recruiting agency fired and my interviews now always include variations on question and something new.

 

[mark.staggs]

Sometime after I'd moved from research into a research IT position at a big multinational, part of my job was hiring consultants to work with some of the business units. I'd do a prescreen, then the business units would do more extensive phone interviews, and I'd hire the successful candidates. It usually worked pretty well. Until one particular candidate impressed everyone on the phone, and was hired. I set him up with a cubicle and laptop in our corporate office, and he spent his first day working remotely from there with the actual business units he was supporting. By afternoon, I was getting calls from the business units that the guy did NOT have the expertise needed, and by later afternoon, they were convinced that the guy on site was NOT the guy we had interviewed by phone. And I recalled that CERT, the Computer Emergency Response Team at Carnegie Mellon, had recently issued an alert that a certain nation state had been using extremely knowledgeable IT resources to get hired after extensive phone screening, then sending agents to the work sites to gather intelligence and/or introduce malware into the IT environment. By close of business on the first day, I terminated the contractor and alerted the contracting firm who had sent him. IT security scooped up his laptop and started tracing everything he had accessed that first day. By policy, they could never tell me what, if anything, they found.

We quickly changed our contractor hiring policy to require video interviews for any remote candidates, and we'd screenshot the video to have something to match with the candidate upon arrival.

This is still quite the problem with hiring remote software engineers. We've currently run into what we _think_ was a different person at least once in my current company/team, maybe twice, but at the time we were still naive enough to not take screenshots during the video interviews. <sigh> No more though. We screenshot and compare to the guy who shows up.

 

[Initial Fix]

I remember a story where someone was running a taxi company from his work office. This was before cell phones. It took years before his management discovered it. Granted that’s not saying much about the management either.

 

[DaleB]

Last place I worked hired a developer who turned out to be a fake. We learned about when the FBI contacted me; they’d found his company laptop in a warehouse in Atlanta, being remotely operated from either China or N. Korea. Apparently it’s not uncommon. The hiring manager and the COO had done phone interviews, but I think he’d kept his camera off during those.

I interviewed a couple of people who I was pretty sure were googling answers to my questions. Those are pretty easy to spot, though.

 

[172andyou]

I worked in non nuclear power plants.

How one of our employees found the freedom of weed did not fit. He and a newer employee were assigned to deliver test equipment to a work site for the next day,
Sunday. Weedy semi stopped at a traffic light, behind a late model car, released the brake while still moving, and bumped the car ahead. Driver ahead was annoyed, but pulled up a couple of feet. Weedy just giggled at the first bump, and continued no foot on brake, and the auto transmission had enough throttle supplied to run up and bump again.

The offended driver got out, and came back to our truck, the brand new assistant set the parking brake, picked up the mike, and softly said " Truck 123, and the location", then "send an officer". The dispatcher understood from the softness that there was a serious problem, and merely responded OK. Next, the newbie turned off the ignition and removed the key.

Please don't confuse my position as saying it's ok to work stoned. It isn't. It isn't ok to work drunk either, but alcohol isn't prohibited off hours. There are tons of things that are ok on personal time, but not on company time.

One of the ironies in all this is that like half the places I worked that had drug tests also had holiday parties with booze.

 

[172andyou]

Of course it matters. Think it through... the guy will have access to a sensitive/restricted space.

Yep. And?

That's true of boozers also, but no one is saying people can't drink after hours? No one is testing people to see if they have evidence of booze in their hair in the past 30 days. Even pilots, who really should be sharp behind the wheel, are permitted to fly only eight hours ofter tying one on, so long as they are less than half drunk (.04). The weed thing is just a throwback to a previous puritanical era.

 

[midwestpa24]

Please don't confuse my position as saying it's ok to work stoned. It isn't. It isn't ok to work drunk either, but alcohol isn't prohibited off hours. There are tons of things that are ok on personal time, but not on company time.

One of the ironies in all this is that like half the places I worked that had drug tests also had holiday parties with booze.

While I am not an advocate for weed, I would tend to agree with your comparison to drinking. It is ok to spend you weekends blitzed on alcohol as long as you are sober at work.

However, my experiences with weed smokers is that they tend to think of smoking weed being comparable to smoking cigarettes, and don't realize the extent that they are impaired. The people I have dealt with seem to think its no big deal to smoke before or even during work hours, because they "work better high". They think no one notices.

 

[172andyou]

While I am not an advocate for weed, I would tend to agree with your comparison to drinking. It is ok to spend you weekends blitzed on alcohol as long as you are sober at work.

However, my experiences with weed smokers is that they tend to think of smoking weed being comparable to smoking cigarettes, and don't realize the extent that they are impaired. The people I have dealt with seem to think its no big deal to smoke before or even during work hours, because they "work better high". They think no one notices.

I've known a handful in the restaurant business with that attitude. Well, I guess not "work better high", more like, "it's not a mentally taxing job, so I might as well enjoy it". But, again to compare to booze, drinking on the job is super common in restaurants also.

 

[172andyou]

I think some people confuse addiction and recreational drug use - in the typical sense of casual and occasional use, on par with having a few drinks on the weekend.

Weed is not harmless. It saps initiative, ambition, judgment, cognition, and stunts emotional growth at ANY time in life. There is recent research proving this fact. And weed use is substantially different than alcohol use. The goal of most THC users is to get blotto'd (to resurrect a stoner term). The motivation of having a wine glass or two, or an evening whisky/whiskey, is different. Most alcohol users goal is not to get drunk.

I will be happy to review any citation you care to produce demonstrating "most" having the goal of getting blotto'd. I've never seen a study that came remotely close to finding that. And my personal experience, as flawed as that is due to sampling problems, is that their are millions of people consuming weed casually without meaningful side effects on work or family. The sample problem is that I hang, like most pilots, with pretty successful people. So the weed smokers I know are also pretty successful. If you've got something with a better sampling method (not hard!), show the citation.

I do agree there is a rough equivalency between chronic/habitual THC users/abusers and chronic/habitual ethanol users/abusers. Each plays havoc with one's physical, mental, and emotional systems.

Yeah, this is really my main point. So I'm glad we agree on it. Weed and alcohol abuse both have effects on people. And, though you didn't say it, the effects of abuse on the adolescent brain seem particularly concerning. (and, in both cases, purchase is therefore limited to those over 21)

Since this started with printer repairs, I do want to circle back to that and point out (about 50/50 joking and serious) that one can burn off an awful lot of brain cells with either weed or alcohol and still repair printers.

 

[Bob Noel]

my point were never about the person being able to repair a printer.

It was about that person having access to sensitive/restricted areas and equipment in the sensitive/restricted areas.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

Weed used to be illegal in all states not too long ago, while booze was/is legal.

Does an employer or site have a right to choose whether someone with a criminal past can work there? What about a criminal action on the weekends?

Did the person grow their own, or buy it? If bought, how many degrees of separation are there from the criminal organization that grew or started the distribution? Do I want that link on my high security site? As long as I’m not desperate, I’ll take the non-stoner please, all else being equal.

Here is where I’ll contradict myself, big time. I have 3 friends/family members who partake and I would hire them in a heartbeat or have them watch over important stuff. All are extremely hard workers and I would trust them.

Takeaway - broad statements are not always correct.

 

[172andyou]

Weed used to be illegal in all states not too long ago, while booze was/is legal.

Does an employer or site have a right to choose whether someone with a criminal past can work there? What about a criminal action on the weekends?

That's a very, very good question!

Especially in the US where people have a hard time finding a job after conviction and the idea of rehabilitation seems to have left the culture long ago, if it ever existed.

Should the crime have to be job related? For example, it seems rational to allow an employer to deny an accounting job to someone convicted of embezzlement. But what if it was "only" a civil case? Should the employer be able to deny them the job then? What if it was only an accusation? Or what if the accuser later recanted after getting a pay-off by the candidate?

And what if the crime was not job related? What if someone was convicted of falsification of business records but was applying for a job that gave them no direct control over the records?

And how far into the legal system should we go? Is speeding worse than smoking a joint? Is being an alcoholic more acceptable than speeding?

Did the person grow their own, or buy it? If bought, how many degrees of separation are there from the criminal organization that grew or started the distribution? Do I want that link on my high security site? As long as I’m not desperate, I’ll take the non-stoner please, all else being equal.

All things are never equal. But, in your thought experiment, is it equally valid to say, "all things being equal, I'll take the non-speeder over the lead foot"? And, if so, should we also be examining candidate driving records for non-driving related jobs?

Here is where I’ll contradict myself, big time. I have 3 friends/family members who partake and I would hire them in a heartbeat or have them watch over important stuff. All are extremely hard workers and I would trust them.

Takeaway - broad statements are not always correct.

1000% agree. People have a tendency to think in broad strokes and not take into account things like the fact that they had bad experiences with three stoners, but they also know another ten people who smoke weed occasionally who never share that information with them because they know the culture is still evolving in terms of the acceptability of such casual use.

 

[dfw11411]

One of our newest sales reps (let's call him "Dumbo") initially seemed to be a great hire. He had a happy-go-lucky personality that people found charming. He was very popular. His performance was above average from the start and he was in the top 10% within a few months. But his ambition to be number one got him fired. And then we sued him.

Although our sales team was high performance, no one promoted nor allowed illegal, unethical or immoral activities. Just work smart and hard. Pretty normal business. Dumbo soon got into trouble for not filing his expense reports for the company supplied credit card on time. No big deal, the sales reps traveled a lot and sometimes got behind with their paperwork. When he did, there was a few charges that seemed, well, a little odd. But with 50+ sales reps it took time to research unusual charges. And then Dumbo filed some really strange expenses including the penthouse suite at a convention hotel the week of a national conference. One of the biggest receipts was for "business entertainment services" from a supplier that wasn't findable. Our accounting staff finally realized something was wrong and took it to our CFO who instantly understood what Dumbo was doing. Hookers, lots of booze and probably drugs. And Dumbo had hosted employees of Fortune 500 companies during the convention. All in an effort to gain their business. When confronted, Dumbo simply said that in today's business environment, this is what we had to do to get big deals. He was escorted to the door and we sat there with a mixture of disgust and amusement at Dumbo's world view.

A few minutes later, while handling the normal employee termination procedures (lock the login, check emails and voicemail, clean out the desk, etc.) we discovered that he had emailed our customer database to a competitor just minutes before our confrontation. We contacted the police who said it was a civil matter and then called our attorney. He filed a restraining order (or the business equivalent of one) and notified Dumbo of his consequences. We then filed suit to recover the expenses. Dumbo hired an attorney who turned out to be a really reasonable fellow. The evidence of Dumbo's misdeeds was so blatantly obvious that Dumbo's attorney admitted he'd never had a client so clueless about how the world really worked. After a few months it became apparent that Dumbo was still unemployed, could never repay the expenses, and, most importantly, the competitor deleted our data the instant they received it. We let the suit linger but finally dropped it when it was clear Dumbo was no longer a threat. As far as I know we didn't win any business from those companies.

 

[Mahneuvers]

An out of town contractor of mine, with kids, was cheating on his wife with another lady on my team. In the mornings people would see them driving in together. It was funny to see her shrink down in her seat hoping no one would see her. He billed ~80+ hours/week for years before joining my team (and his hourly rate was eye watering). He charged travel meals that were obvious he was treating other people to dinner (he would say, "honest, I ordered an extra appetizer, entree and desert so I could have it for lunch the next day") . He was an alcoholic. After I fired him, people came forward with how he was doing shots with beer chasers at lunch. I noticed his bloodshot eyes, but, if you're working a 100 hour week, it might be expected. After I capped him at 40 hours/week b/c I didn't see any difference in his output regardless of the hours he worked, he screwed me with a client delivery saying he realized he reached 40 hours just before the delivery! I was challenged by a company executive when I fired him. Months later, that executive approached me telling me how a customer prospect alerted him that he was selling our software oversees. He had stolen it while on my team and claimed he had ownership rights. At the time, I was young and the fact human nature isn't great was slowly dawning on me. This guy taught me there are horrible people in the world.

 

[Flatiowa]

Replaced by technological changes…I know a very smart tv repairman that is working his final years before social security kicks as a janitor.

 

[Brad W]

Weed used to be illegal in all states

isn't it still illegal in all states?

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

isn't it still illegal in all states?

Federally, yes.

 

[Daleandee]

Had an employee that was using his company supplied vehicle for out of area visits (way out of his area). Receipts turned in with his expense report proved this. Of course he denied all of it but when his vehicle was "borrowed" for a few days after being left at a convience store in the hood the truth was revealed. He did pass the drug screen during the interview phase of hiring/training. Go figure ...

 

[clear_prop]

I worked with a guy that was always hard to find. When you pinged him, he was always in a meeting in another building. It was a big campus and his role did involve a lot of meetings, so it was plausible enough.

After I left that company, a friend that was still there let me know that they discovered he was working two full time jobs. The 'meeting in another building' was actually the company down the street.

 

[kyleb]

Had some young guys working in our area. College students doing low level IT support. Several of them were off work on the same day (all had asked their various bosses for the day off), and someone needed to use the company van. Nobody could locate it, then somebody remembered that one of the "kids" was the last one to borrow the key. So a text (remember those days) went out to the kid, and (thankfully) he called when available. "Hey, do you know where the van is?" "Yeah, we're (we being all the young guys) taking it to a Robb Zombie concert (about 200 miles from the office)." They were told to bring the van back immediately and despite protests that they would miss the concert, they brought it back. As they were being fired for misuse of a company vehicle, one of the guys said "What's wrong with borrowing it to go to a concert, my brother (an engineer who'd been with us for a while) borrows it for all sorts of non-business uses and he never gets in trouble?"

Way to go dude. Get yourself and your buddies fired and also throw your brother under the bus. Brilliant...

 

[AV8R_87]

After I left that company, a friend that was still there let me know that they discovered he was working two full time jobs.

Plenty of that happening in the world of telework. One guy got fired for having a side business as a dog walker and doing that while being on the clock with his primary employer.

 

[DaleB]

Never could prove it, but I'm pretty sure one guy who worked for me for a few months back in '21 - '22 had another job. I just hope his performance there sucked as bad as it did for us. At my next-to-last place (huge bank with over 250K employees) there was more than one who we figure must have had second jobs -- or we were the second job. I wasn't their manager, but saw the signs.

 

[Flatiowa]

I think it’s unfair to denigrate people with two jobs, around 15 years ago I knew a local lady who was an immigrant (and yes she was legal) from Guatemala, she was a stay at home mother for her four kids (all under six years old) when her husband died in a car accident, had no savings and rent was due, no food in the fridge. Thankfully it was a small community and neighbors still cared about each other. Some helped with money for bills, some older retired ladies took turns providing “day care/baby sitting” and she was able to get a job as a line worker at a local food processing plant to keep her head above water, but that was about it. Two of her younger sisters moved in with her and between the three of them they were able to quickly save enough for a down payment on a house to live in. Two of the three worked two full time 8 hour shift line worker jobs, the third worked one, but that one was seven days a week, in less than two years the house was theirs free and clear and they all quit their extreme hour work loads for standard 40 hour a week jobs. A wise manager should be able to recognize the ones ambitious enough to work two full time crap jobs to make a better life, and even if they have no formal education or experience, realize those thing can be taught, but that level of personal drive cannot, thats something someone is either born with or not.

 

[midwestpa24]

I think it’s unfair to denigrate people with two jobs, around 15 years ago I knew a local lady who was an immigrant (and yes she was legal) from Guatemala, she was a stay at home mother for her four kids (all under six years old) when her husband died in a car accident, had no savings and rent was due, no food in the fridge. Thankfully it was a small community and neighbors still cared about each other. Some helped with money for bills, some older retired ladies took turns providing “day care/baby sitting” and she was able to get a job as a line worker at a local food processing plant to keep her head above water, but that was about it. Two of her younger sisters moved in with her and between the three of them they were able to quickly save enough for a down payment on a house to live in. Two of the three worked two full time 8 hour shift line worker jobs, the third worked one, but that one was seven days a week, in less than two years the house was theirs free and clear and they all quit their extreme hour work loads for standard 40 hour a week jobs. A wise manager should be able to recognize the ones ambitious enough to work two full time crap jobs to make a better life, and even if they have no formal education or experience, realize those thing can be taught, but that level of personal drive cannot, thats something someone is either born with or not.

I think you misunderstand. These people aren't getting in trouble for having two jobs, they are working two remote jobs at the simultaneously! Being on the clock and getting paid by two companies for the same time, and gaming the system because they are working remotely.

 

[Flatiowa]

I think you misunderstand. These people aren't getting in trouble for having two jobs, they are working two remote jobs at the simultaneously! Being on the clock and getting paid by two companies for the same time, and gaming the system because they are working remotely.

Aww, got it, I fully misunderstood

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

I think you misunderstand. These people aren't getting in trouble for having two jobs, they are working two remote jobs at the simultaneously! Being on the clock and getting paid by two companies for the same time, and gaming the system because they are working remotely.

If an employee can do as much as another employee while working another job at the same time, then the other employees are gaming the system too by not putting forth full effort and getting away with it. However, I think the examples above were someone doing shoddy work at both jobs.

 

[DaleB]

If an employee can do as much as another employee while working another job at the same time, then the other employees are gaming the system too by not putting forth full effort and getting away with it. However, I think the examples above were someone doing shoddy work at both jobs.

I don't know how the ones I was aware of were doing at their other jobs, but I know it impacted their performance at OUR place enough that we figured they had other jobs they were working. Or maybe they were just spending a lot of time video gaming or drinking or smoking weed or whatever, I don't know. I do know that when they got fired it came as no surprise to them and they didn't seem upset about it - probably because they already had another job anyway.

 

[nauga]

"Yeah, we're (we being all the young guys) taking it to a Robb Zombie concert (about 200 miles from the office)."

A small private company I worked for allowed personal use of the company truck for a while. That came to a screeching halt when someone returned it as promised but left their weed gummies in the cab. Never heard who, never heard if any other action was taken.

Nauga,
who was not gummed up

 

[Domenick]

my point were never about the person being able to repair a printer.

It was about that person having access to sensitive/restricted areas and equipment in the sensitive/restricted areas.

Printers tend to have circular buffers. Jobs, i.e., content, is cached to the buffer and following jobs are cached behind it until the buffer is full when the first job gets written over. Much like many security cameras with limited data storage.

A printer tech certainly has the knowledge to retrieve/copy that buffer and walk out with whatever sensitive data remained in the buffer.

 

[Barrett50]

OK, I admit it. I worked for two companies at the same time. Double dipped. I was a field rep for a piece of equipment that was NEVER allowed to go down during trading hours. We could only service it after 11PM and before 4AM. So, during the days, I had a LOT of dead time. My boss knew this and he was ok with me studying for my grad and post grad degrees while on shift.

So, I spent a lot of time at the university computer center. I spent so much time there, after a while they thought I was staff, not a student. Not surprising, one day they asked me to help with a hardware problem and since I knew the machine well, it took me about 20 min to resolve it. Then, they asked if I could work P/T with certain jobs. I said I could, but they would need to be flexible about hours, and I needed to come and go sometimes at my own pace. I didn't specifically tell the univ I was employed elsewhere, and they didn't specifically ask either.

It worked well for more than two years, completed my Masters, got paid from both jobs, and had flex schedules with each employer. Neither one ever knew about the other. It was a nice gravy train. My boss at my main job was a real easy going guy, and I think he sort of covered for me a few times.

 

[moparrob66]

my point were never about the person being able to repair a printer.

It was about that person having access to sensitive/restricted areas and equipment in the sensitive/restricted areas.

Even if a pot smoker is stone sober while on the clock, for many employers its a trust issue. Everyone knows cannabis is illegal on a federal level, yet pot smokers go to great lengths to justify its recreational use. Until it is decriminalized, its still a crime that criminals intentionally, knowingly and repeatedly spend money time and effort to commit. If you demonstrate that you cant be trusted to follow that law, how far outside the circle of trust do your personal standards put you?

 

[SkyChaser]

I worked two jobs simultaneously for a while in college - "on the clock" for both of them at the same time. But one job was sitting with an elderly wife of a professor who had MS who needed someone in the house with her in case an emergency or fire happened and the other job was hemming choir robes for the college choir. It was nice making $19/hour for those few weeks a semester!

 

[DJTorrente]

Even if a pot smoker is stone sober while on the clock, for many employers its a trust issue. Everyone knows cannabis is illegal on a federal level, yet pot smokers go to great lengths to justify its recreational use. Until it is decriminalized, its still a crime that criminals intentionally, knowingly and repeatedly spend money time and effort to commit. If you demonstrate that you cant be trusted to follow that law, how far outside the circle of trust do your personal standards put you?

I'm not a big fan of the "malum prohibitum" rationale. For example:

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

That said, I think there's more than ample evidence that habitual cannabis users are poor judges of its overall effect on their performance, absent independent evidence.