Amazon fears it will run out of workers in the US due to very high churn

[Fenixgoon]

Many companies are experiencing a high turnover rate because they're having trouble finding people who can pass a drug test.

And is there any polling data to support that?

"Many people say [have said]..." lots of things. Especially in the 2016-2020 timeframe

 

[NWRMidnight]

That sounds unlikely since drug tests are typically given before an employment offer is given.

This is false. Why would the company pay for those drug tests that they don't plan on hiring. ? The drug test is part of the qualification process and finalizing your employment ,after they have decided to hire you, which are typically stipulations that comes with the job offer such as passing a background check and such. Which is what initiates the drug test and makes the company liable for the cost of th drug test.

 

[ivwshane]

This is false. Why would the company pay for those drug tests before a job offer is given? All companies give the job offer of some sort with the stipulation they pass the drug test. The offer always comes first, which is what initiates the drug test and makes the company liable for the cost of th drug test.

You are being pedantic, a stipulation of passing a drug test is the same thing as requiring a drug test before employment is offered. It also misses the point I was making against a claim by a previous post.

 

[NWRMidnight]

You are being pedantic, a stipulation of passing a drug test is the same thing as requiring a drug test before employment is offered. It also misses the point I was making against a claim by a previous post.

Sorry but fact isn't being pedantic. If you fail the drug test, you disqualify yourself under the job offer requirements, and actually, it's a stipulation of employment that you pass a drug test at any time, that remains in place till the day you separate from that employer. Ignoring that fact or trying to downplay it doesn't change that fact.

No, I didn't miss anything, your claim against the previous poster seemed to be contingent of when drug tests are given in the hiring process, which doesn't dispute his claim. That they can't find people to pass the drug tests. He is also correct about employers not being able to find people due to not passing drug tests. But that only effects those companies that require them, which is not the majority.

 

[ivwshane]

Sorry but fact isn't being pedantic. If you fail the drug test, you disqualify yourself under the job offer requirements, and actually, it's a stipulation of employment that you pass a drug test at any time, that remains in place till the day you separate from that employer. Ignoring that fact or trying to downplay it doesn't change that fact.

No, I didn't miss anything, your claim against the previous poster seemed to be contingent of when drug tests are given in the hiring process, which doesn't dispute his claim. That they can't find people to pass the drug tests. He is also correct about employers not being able to find people due to not passing drug tests. But that only effects those companies that require them, which is not the majority.

So in your mind high turnover means people who aren’t actually employed yet but who fail drug tests? That’s pretty fucking dumb.

Here’s some pedantry for you, “turn over” is a measurement of people actually employed by an employer and since not passing a drug test forfeits the employers offer of employment, they aren’t actually employees.

Turnover (employment) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Once more since you clearly don’t seem to get it; you can’t have a high turnover rate because you can’t find employees who can pass a drug test because those people aren’t actually employees yet. Churn isn’t a calculation of potential employees, it’s the turnover rate of existing employees.

 

[NWRMidnight]

So in your mind high turnover means people who aren’t actually employed yet but who fail drug tests? That’s pretty fucking dumb.

Here’s some pedantry for you, “turn over” is a measurement of people actually employed by an employer and since not passing a drug test forfeits the employers offer of employment, they aren’t actually employees.

Turnover (employment) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Once more since you clearly don’t seem to get it; you can’t have a high turnover rate because you can’t find employees who can pass a drug test because those people aren’t actually employees yet. Churn isn’t a calculation of potential employees, it’s the turnover rate of existing employees.

Let's clarify who's fucking dumb and who's not:

Which drug tests do you want to discuss? The initial drug test when hired/given a job offer, which has nothing to do with turnover. Yet is the one you brought up and I disbuted your claim that it's given before a job offer. Which is the one you and I where discussing that had nothing to do with turnover? Or the drug tests that come after the initial drug test that continue during employment that do effect turnover that you didn't bring up? It sounds like you want to discuss the latter, now that you have clarified you are talking about the drug tests that effect turnover. Yet it's not the drug tests you brought into your argument.

I can understand where you made your mistake, because you seem to be under the impression that the initial drug test is what determines if an employer has found an employee who can pass a drug test or not. Which is really not the case for the most part. That is determined by the drug tests that come after the initial one, because the initial drug test is the easiest drug test for drug users to pass. It's really just a formality because of that fact. (Also, most drug tests now days also include alcohol). The drug tests that come after where they have no warning about (random or required) are the ones most employees fail. It doesn't matter if they fail it after a month of employment, or a year of employment, the employer failed to find someone who can pass drug tests. Which has a big effect on turnover, and the very drug tests the original poster you made you claim against was most likely referring to since he mentioned turnover, not the initial drug tests during hiring that you brought up which has zero to do with turnover.

There is a reason the majority of employers don't do drug testing. It's because a substantial of their employees would fail, and they would have a higher turnover rate. This is also why there are many employers who only do an initial drug test as a formality and don't care about having a drug free work place and they only do it for the incentives, which OSHA cut back in 2015, and/or image, and don't want it to increase their turnover rate.

Also for the record, Amazon does random drug testing.

So, Are we clear on who's fucking dumb, and who's not? Or shall we continue?

 

[Moonbeam]

Apparently we have a system that isn't very humanity friendly. We must be experiencing some other desperate and desperate needs than the welfare of others. Any idea what they could be?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Re drug tests: it's really a pre employment verification typically, which could count as "turnover" I guess, but it seems more like it's a pre employment qualification

As @Fenixgoon said, we would need some data sets to confirm such things.

There are jobs that will test you immediately after a work related incident, usually involving something like a fork lift or vehicle. But I also know of people who slipped and banged their knee on an untreated sidewalk at a corporate office (it was covered in ice tough to see) and were instructed to submit a drug screen also.

I suspect that trouble finding employees to stick around is probably more money, treatment, and work/life balance related.

 

[ivwshane]

Let's clarify who's fucking dumb and who's not:

Which drug tests do you want to discuss? The initial drug test when hired/given a job offer, which has nothing to do with turnover. Yet is the one you brought up and I disbuted your claim that it's given before a job offer. Which is the one you and I where discussing that had nothing to do with turnover? Or the drug tests that come after the initial drug test that continue during employment that do effect turnover that you didn't bring up? It sounds like you want to discuss the latter, now that you have clarified you are talking about the drug tests that effect turnover. Yet it's not the drug tests you brought into your argument.

I can understand where you made your mistake, because you seem to be under the impression that the initial drug test is what determines if an employer has found an employee who can pass a drug test or not. Which is really not the case for the most part. That is determined by the drug tests that come after the initial one, because the initial drug test is the easiest drug test for drug users to pass. It's really just a formality because of that fact. (Also, most drug tests now days also include alcohol). The drug tests that come after where they have no warning about (random or required) are the ones most employees fail. It doesn't matter if they fail it after a month of employment, or a year of employment, the employer failed to find someone who can pass drug tests. Which has a big effect on turnover, and the very drug tests the original poster you made you claim against was most likely referring to since he mentioned turnover, not the initial drug tests during hiring that you brought up which has zero to do with turnover.

There is a reason the majority of employers don't do drug testing. It's because a substantial of their employees would fail, and they would have a higher turnover rate. This is also why there are many employers who only do an initial drug test as a formality and don't care about having a drug free work place and they only do it for the incentives, which OSHA cut back in 2015, and/or image, and don't want it to increase their turnover rate.

Also for the record, Amazon does random drug testing.

So, Are we clear on who's fucking dumb, and who's not? Or shall we continue?

Lol yeah it’s still you but I hope it’s because you can’t see the person I was responding to because you have them on ignore or something because no reasonable person would come to the conclusion about what I was referring to that you came to.

 

[ivwshane]

Re drug tests: it's really a pre employment verification typically, which could count as "turnover" I guess, but it seems more like it's a pre employment qualification

As @Fenixgoon said, we would need some data sets to confirm such things.

There are jobs that will test you immediately after a work related incident, usually involving something like a fork lift or vehicle. But I also know of people who slipped and banged their knee on an untreated sidewalk at a corporate office (it was covered in ice tough to see) and were instructed to submit a drug screen also.

I suspect that trouble finding employees to stick around is probably more money, treatment, and work/life balance related.

Exactly. However the percent of people who are involuntarily terminated (for any reason) is less than 10%, so the person I was responding to would have show that there has not only been a huge spike in involuntary terminations but that those terminations were also drug/alcohol related.

So no matter what he was talking about, pre-qualification drug tests or drug tests during employment, his claim is most likely bs.

https://info.workinstitute.com/hubfs/2019%20Retention%20Report/Work%20Institute%202019%20Retention%20Report%20final-1.pdf

 

[NWRMidnight]

Lol yeah it’s still you but I hope it’s because you can’t see the person I was responding to because you have them on ignore or something because no reasonable person would come to the conclusion about what I was referring to that you came to.

Really? You believe it was obvious that you where refering to drug tests that effect turnover rate when you said nothing that that refers to turnover rate? With the only indication of your argument where the drug tests when hired, saying those drug tests are before a job offer is even made which is where I came in. Which has zero to do with turnover rate. Because your response to him was lacking everything to come to the conslusion you where talking about turnover rate, but rather just the initial drug tests in general, and not even bringing up the drug tests that effect turnover. Maybe in your head you that is what you meant, but that sure as hell isn't what you indicated in your post.

Then you continue to be fucking dumb, and accuse me of having him on ignore (I don't) because you can't even comprehend that you are the one who fucked up from th start basing your argument on the wrong set of metrics without any clarity on what you where meaning to argue.

 

[ivwshane]

Lol and he doubles down. Amazing! I feel like I’m in bizzaroworld or he’s trying to gaslight me. I mean why else would he say I’m wrong but then in his first paragraph literally say exactly what I was saying?

It’s weird and I can only hope he’s drunk or something as he’s normally a pretty reputable poster. Reading comprehension can fail the best of us I guess.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Exactly. However the percent of people who are involuntarily terminated (for any reason) is less than 10%, so the person I was responding to would have show that there has not only been a huge spike in involuntary terminations but that those terminations were also drug/alcohol related.

So no matter what he was talking about, pre-qualification drug tests or drug tests during employment, his claim is most likely bs.

https://info.workinstitute.com/hubfs/2019%20Retention%20Report/Work%20Institute%202019%20Retention%20Report%20final-1.pdf

Can you show us where he indicates pre-qualification drug tests?

He said many companies are having a high turnover rate because they are having trouble finding people who can pass a drug test.

Which drug tests effect turnover, and are they tests that most employees have trouble passing? It's not the pre-qualification drug tests as I already explained to you.

Your link above is not proof of anything, as it's based off employee interviews. Most people will not admit being let go for drugs or failing a drug test first of all. Heck most employers won't even put that in their records unless it involves damage or injury. Even if they where all honesty that is based off all industries, which the majority do not due drug testing. The only accurate way to find out how drug testing effects turnover is to only include those companies that do drug testing.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Lol and he doubles down. Amazing! I feel like I’m in bizzaroworld or he’s trying to gaslight me. I mean why else would he say I’m wrong but then in his first paragraph literally say exactly what I was saying?

It’s weird and I can only hope he’s drunk or something as he’s normally a pretty reputable poster. Reading comprehension can fail the best of us I guess.

Please show me this paragraph.

 

[ivwshane]

Please show me this paragraph.

I was talking about you dumb ass. And yes that’s what I assumed he was talking about since he used the word “finding”, which to me indicated new employees, which made sense since that’s typically when drug tests are given. However even if he didn’t mean that, I already addressed that issue.

If you think the data I linked to is flawed then feel free to provide better data.

 

[NWRMidnight]

I was talking about you dumb ass. And yes that’s what I assumed he was talking about since he used the word “finding”, which to me indicated new employees, which made sense since that’s typically when drug tests are given. However even if he didn’t mean that, I already addressed that issue.

If you think the data I linked to is flawed then feel free to provide better data.

I know you where talking about me.. again, show me this paragraph, because there is no such paragraph.

And there is your problem, you assumed. You based your argument assuming he meant new employee drug tests, even though he never said that, and those tests have nothing to do with turnover rate. Why didn't you consider he meant the tests that actually do effect turnover rate? Oh, wait, you are stuck on the word "finding". Let me ask you this: if an employee fails a drug test at any time, have they found an employee who can pass a drug test?

No, at hiring is not typically when drug tests are given, it's just the initial drug test. The are typically given after employment thru out employment multiple times.

Have you ever worked for a company that actually does real legitimate drug testing, or applied for a job that requires one?

 

[nOOky]

We are having a hard enough time finding new employees where I work, yet they announced random drug testing that started June 1st lol. I'd say 30% of the production people smoke weed outside of work. Yet we don't pre-screen new hires, they will only be tested if they have a safety incident, or are chosen randomly. Of course very few actually quit smoking dope or whatever, they'll take their chances. Weird.

 

[brycejones]

We are having a hard enough time finding new employees where I work, yet they announced random drug testing that started June 1st lol. I'd say 30% of the production people smoke weed outside of work. Yet we don't pre-screen new hires, they will only be tested if they have a safety incident, or are chosen randomly. Of course very few actually quit smoking dope or whatever, they'll take their chances. Weird.

Has anyone developed a test yet to reliably determine if someone was high at the time the incident occurred? So far the testing I've seen for weed basically determines if you've consumed it without having reliable measurements of the current level of impairment if any. This is very different from alcohol where we do have reliable data that can predict one's level of impairment based on the amount of alcohol in your system.

 

[ivwshane]

I know you where talking about me.. again, show me this paragraph, because there is no such paragraph.

And there is your problem, you assumed. You based your argument assuming he meant new employee drug tests, even though he never said that, and those tests have nothing to do with turnover rate. Why didn't you consider he meant the tests that actually do effect turnover rate? Oh, wait, you are stuck on the word "finding". Let me ask you this: if an employee fails a drug test at any time, have they found an employee who can pass a drug test?

No, at hiring is not typically when drug tests are given, it's just the initial drug test. The are typically given after employment thru out employment multiple times.

Have you ever worked for a company that actually does real legitimate drug testing, or applied for a job that requires one?

Post 134, I even highlighted it for you.

I’ll expect an apology or at the very least an explanation for your odd behavior over something pretty benign.

 

[nOOky]

Has anyone developed a test yet to reliably determine if someone was high at the time the incident occurred? So far the testing I've seen for weed basically determines if you've consumed it without having reliable measurements of the current level of impairment if any. This is very different from alcohol where we do have reliable data that can predict one's level of impairment based on the amount of alcohol in your system.

I'm not 100% sure. I do know at least two people that have had accidents have been tested and found to be positive for weed, so they have had to attend treatment to keep their employment. I'd guess that since it is illegal here in MN, any quantity found is suspect, but that is only a guess.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Post 134, I even highlighted it for you.

I’ll expect an apology or at the very least an explanation for your odd behavior over something pretty benign.

Obviously you didn't read the whole paragraph, or the whole post for that matter. Or you don't understand what it I was trying to get across. The very first post you made that mentioned turnover rate at all was post #130. Prior posts, up to and including #125, had nothing in it from you reflecting you where talking about turnover rate, which I have already covered. My post #131, which is what you quoted in post #132, was in response to your post #130. You later admitted that your whole argument was assumed based off of post #124. And now because YOU assumed (post #140) you are trying to take my response out of context to align with your assumption.

The problem is once again you assumed something that isn't true. You assumed that everyone came to the same conclusion or interpretation of post #124 as you did, which you based off of your assumption. Then you assumed everyone knew details that you never included in your response in #125, and/or assumed that everyone else automatically understood your point without details to clarify it, which lead to our discussion and prompted you to post #130. Obviously I didn't assume, So I was never lead to the same conclusions you did. I read post #124 and came to a conclusion of what drug tests he was talking about based off of the fact that turnover has zero to do with hiring drug tests. S0 I didn't base my interpretation of post #124, off of those hiring drug tests because they have zero to do with turnover. Which really had nothing to do with our original discussion or disagreement. Our original discussion/disagreement was if a drug test comes before or after the job offer. That was it, or that was my interpretation of our discussion until your post #130. Which is where you brought up turnover, and attempted to chastise me over your assumption. Which again prompted my response in #131 which I believe explained the two different "categories" of drug tests, one that doesn't have anything to do with turnover (which is not me agreeing with you), and one that has everything to do with turnover.. Yet you still want to argue about the one that has Nothing to do with turnover because you are stuck assuming that is the one he was talking about.

I guess I was trying to have a discussion based off actual known facts, and you where trying to have a discussion that was based off of an assumption. Obviously that doesn't work, which has lead to this argument and frustration on both sides. I guess my post #131 was an attempt to get you to view it from a factual position instead of a position based off assumptions as had a feeling you made an assumption in your interpretation of post #124, which came clear to me in your post #130. I was going to say something in that post about your assuming but I though you would take it as an insult, and it would escalate things further. And I was already frustrated enough when I made that post. Well, they escalated anyhow. And here we are..

 

[ivwshane]

Lol “you were assuming when I wasn’t”…preceded by assumptions you made about my posts, hello hypocrite.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Has anyone developed a test yet to reliably determine if someone was high at the time the incident occurred? So far the testing I've seen for weed basically determines if you've consumed it without having reliable measurements of the current level of impairment if any. This is very different from alcohol where we do have reliable data that can predict one's level of impairment based on the amount of alcohol in your system.

I'm not 100% sure. I do know at least two people that have had accidents have been tested and found to be positive for weed, so they have had to attend treatment to keep their employment. I'd guess that since it is illegal here in MN, any quantity found is suspect, but that is only a guess.

NO they haven't. I live/work in a state that weed is legal. We are also Unionized, so they are constantly staying updated on it. But because no reliable testing method has been developed yet that can accurately test the proper "safe" levels that indicates not under the influence of TCP like we have for alcohol, the company still enforces the standard limits they always have before weed became legal. Which is 100 ppm or what every they TCP measuring unit it. (I don't recall what it is). We have had a lot of people lose their jobs over weed, legal or not.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Lol “you were assuming when I wasn’t”…preceded by assumptions you made about my posts, hello hypocrite.

What the fuck.. now I'm fucking pissed! You admitted it in post #140 you argument is based on assumption, you fucking liar.... There is no fucking way you can come to the conclusions you did without assumptions as non of it was based off of facts, whether you admitted it or not.

Not only can you not have a discussion with someone who is assuming, you can't have a discussion with a fucking liar. No wonder you can't comprehend shit, because you have it all twisted up and then lie about it.

 

[ivwshane]

Reading compensation is hard for some people.