[liyanchang]

Hi Andrew. I'm really sorry that you went through that. We know and acknowledge that our hiring process isn't perfect - I can't count the number of conversations where we at USDS share stories about how we personally were in some limbo before interviews or what we had to do to get drug tested or how we were super confused.

This of course is no excuse - there is a lot of work to be done and we are working on it.

[ritchiea]

I appreciate the apology but the really disappointing thing is talking to your recruiters who say it's hard to get good technologists into government and then looking at your process that seems to exacerbate the problem.

[dragonwriter]

> I appreciate the apology but the really disappointing thing is talking to your recruiters who say it's hard to get good technologists into government and then looking at your process that seems to exacerbate the problem.

Not even the worst of the descriptions of experience with USDS hiring I've seen could possibly be reasonable viewed as exacerbating the problem (mitigating it less than an ideal process would, sure; but to be exacerbating, it would have to be worse than the average non-USDS public sector hiring process.)

[ritchiea]

I agree with you. I misspoke above. They are not exacerbating the problem but their hiring process could be an impediment to reaching their goals.

[onion2k]

Every public-facing process a business has is part of the marketing process. If people are left with a story of how dealing with the business was a bad experience, that will affect the business's reputation. When stories like yours are common the pool of potential talent is reduced as people are put off applying in the first place. The recruiting process at the USDS is exacerbating the problem because it means that fewer candidates will apply for jobs there.

[r4vik]

wait what? you have to get drug tested??

[facetube]

Seriously. Good software developers have other employment options that don't involve being treated like a criminal and having someone watch you urinate.

[FLUX-YOU]

Piss test would turn you off of a job? Seriously? You know that is bureaucratic policy 95% of the time and not personal?

[facetube]

It definitely would. "Okay, that's the fourth and final interview; you're hired, salary is within our range, now give us your urine so we can see if you're a heroin addict" is typically not how I like to start major employee/employer trust relationships.

It's certainly not personal. I just think it's bad policy for all but the most safety-critical occupations, and choose to avoid employers who insist on collecting my bodily fluids or health history.

[dragonwriter]

> Piss test would turn you off of a job? Seriously? You know that is bureaucratic policy 95% of the time and not personal?

Right, its a bureaucratic policy providing a firm and strongly negative indication of the employing entity's respect for its actual and potential employees.

EDIT: To be fair to USDS, one could argue that the policy with regard to Executive Office of the President staff is an externally imposed (its statutory, not executive order, as I understand) aspect of the kind of government culture that USDS is intended in many ways to be a leading wedge for changing, at least as it applies to the IT space, so it may be worthy of some more generous consideration than would generally be the case, but its still a negative indicator.

[jmckib]

Most of the best coders I know would fail a drug test. It's just plain stupid. Even though I would pass one, I would never work for a company that does it.

[FLUX-YOU]

>It's just plain stupid.

I don't see how. It's usually just a sweeping policy for liability or legal reasons and that's it.

[curiouscats]

"just a sweeping policy"

The USDS is suppose to be addressing the idiotic "seeping policies" that allow bureaucratic thinking to drive away those interested in working to use technology to improve performance.

That they didn't bother to fix this obviously silly bureaucratic rule that disrespects people is an very valid piece of data that you will find many less blatantly disrespectful bureaucratic rules stymying your attempt to do your work.

It might be they did a decent job fixing the many many problems with how much of government IT has been done but just failed on this one very visible and thus any marketer would tell you very important to address issue. But I doubt it. Most likely if they failed to even deal with this, the situation is pretty bad in many other ways.

USDS has done some nice things, according to stories I have read, but it seems it is just this appendage to the bureaucracy that is given some leeway due to powerful allies in the bureaucracy. This has always been the case in government and lots of good IT stuff has been done by those given power to avoid the normal IT processes by powerful allies.

But the other success isn't about an improved system it is about typical power politics in a bureaucracy. Things like sticking to bad policy that is driven by command and control thinking treating workers like drones such as polygraphs or drug testing for office workers is a sign that even the core thinking around the management system is extremely poor. In that case the management system will constantly be imposing idiotic rules on you that can be ignore only due to a powerful ally preventing enforcement (or just the incompetence of the bureaucracy to enforce the rules it set in place).

[waterlesscloud]

I'd easily pass a drug test, and whatever technical interviews. And there's not a chance in hell I'd piss in a cup for any employer.

It's demeaning, and I simply will not do it.

[guelo]

I think this is one of those east coast vs west coast business mindsets. West coast businesses for the most part don't even think about drug testing while east coast ones can't imagine why you wouldn't drug test.

[pjscott]

The stupid part is that drug tests would reject a large percentage of really good programmers, and they are neither abundant nor cheap. That's a big cost for such a vague benefit.

[pharrington]

Premise: it is good, to the point of being legally enforced, to keep an individual's medical history private, except when necessary for medical treatment.

Conflict: an employer demands bodily fluids, revealing medications one is taking.

In most cases, the demand for the private medical history is unnecessary, stupid, and illegal.

[ProAm]

It all comes down to insurance, liability and money.

[dllthomas]

My father always refused any position that demanded a drug test, even at points in his life where I am virtually certain he would have passed.

I likewise would pass, but would be turned off by the demand. I do not know if I would be sufficiently turned off to turn down an otherwise desirable job - it hasn't come up.

[x3n0ph3n3]

Why should anyone not operating heavy machinery have to be subject to such a test? I'm with the other poster in that I will never take a job that requires such a test purely on principle. If a job requires such a poor heuristic for gaining employment, how is it going to be actually working for them? My guess would be a steaming pile of incompetence raining from above. I have much better prospects as a technologist elsewhere.

[toomuchtodo]

I don't believe you do for 18F, but you do for the US Digital Service, as its a part (or operates under the authority) of the executive office of the President.

[jchrisa]

Maybe they are just about catching lies, so if you are honest about it, no problem?