I just want to second the “maybe” part. I know several regular pot smokers who have jobs at which “pee in a cup” is mandatory - you have to pee, but no where in their employment paperwork does it say you have to pass. I also know one coke-head who was a Fortune 500 officer - and everyone knew it.
The higher level the job, generally the more discretion will be used in determining whether your answers mean you’ve reached a dead end, or that they will be completely ignored by the hiring manager.
Was your interview with the hiring manager or HR? If it was with the hiring manager, you may want to call and tell her your thoughts on the test - that it being an ethics test, you answered honestly, but upon reflection, you think the responses you gave might look like you condone toking up on break, and you don’t.
Unless I desperately needed a job, and it was the job or welfare, I don’t even have to think about my answer to this.
There is no way I’d be lying on an ethics test… if you lie, you’ve already failed. That said, attitudes in Australia on things like drugs are very different than in America. I’ve also not heard of this sort of testing being done over here.
There are three reasons why I wouldn’t lie :
- I am proud of my honesty, and know from experience that I would feel very bad about myself if I lied, just for self-gain.
- I firmly believe that what I do on my own time, in my own house, is none of my employers business, as long as my work levels don’t suffer. Employers aren’t supposed to be the police.
- I wouldn’t really want to work for a company that only employs liars. It may be “playing a game” as somebody else pointed out, but it’s a game I choose not to participate in.
Now, if I was starving to death, yes, I’d lie to feed myself. If I was just in financial difficulties, I’m not sure… I would have to think long and hard about it.
I grew up with a very strict mother, and almost everything was a lie, to avoid trouble. I have worked long and hard to get to the point where lying is not only no longer natural to me, but it also lessens me.
That’s my personal view, as usual, IMHO only and YMMV, etc…
I wonder if the Enron execs can pass the test.
I disagree on point one. While your former company may not release that information (and probably won’t - for litigation protection, most places will only release starting/ending dates and whether you’re eligible for rehire), there ARE other ways to at least approximate your income.
For example, lots of places run credit checks nowadays, especially for higher-level positions. If you’re claiming a former salary that’s substantially higher than what you actually made, it will look fishy compared to your expenditures.
lies, damn lies and then there are these stupid tests.
so, you make a test in which there are obvious "right’ answers.
any fool can see that, but they may not agree with these “right” answers…but you’ll hire them if they TICK A BOX TO SAY THEY DO.
RRRRRIIIIIIIGGGGGGHHHHHHTTTTTT
(much sarcasm)
so you don’t hire the honest liberals, in favour of hiring the conservatives, lying liberals and psychopathic drug-takers, mass-murderers and thiefs who are canny enough to work out what you want to hear?
sounds like great business sense.
whatever happened to judgng a man on his handshake?
