How will employers handle legal marijuana use by employees? (Bend: sales, 2013)

[wanderbygrace]

Originally Posted by Xander_Crews

Employers can choose not to hire someone who drinks in their time off as well. Companies in Colorado, some have chosen to drop cannabis testing... I know mine did.

The owners decided that it was unreasonable to refuse to hire people because they use cannabis in their time off, and that they were not going to loose good employees because of it. This makes the company more attractive to talented employees.

As it becomes more common, cannabis testing will become as common as employers refusing to hire anyone who has had a drink in the last month. The ones that do, will go the way of the dinosaur.

Companies that work in trades that expose themselves to significant liabilities (e.g. injuries, failure, etc.) would be foolish to not test for it, especially after incidents.

[whirnot]

Originally Posted by wanderbygrace

We have a policy against marijuana in any form (medical or recreational), as our company works at client sites and with machinery. We do random drug/alcohol testing, as well as mandatory testing after incidents. If it's in your system, termination is certainly possible, especially since the incident issues might result in lawsuits against the company, if we are not properly proactive/reactive.

That is a pretty common practice. One that will be more common.

[Xander_Crews]

Originally Posted by wanderbygrace

Companies that work in trades that expose themselves to significant liabilities (e.g. injuries, failure, etc.) would be foolish to not test for it, especially after incidents.

The testing thus far does not test for whether or not one is under the influence at the time, it tests whether or not they have smoked in the last 20-40 days. Testing positive may have absolutely zero relevance to their job, because they could have smoked it on a day off 3 weeks ago, and been sober every second they are at work and still test positive.

This is like saying that companies that don't test you for alcohol consumption from any time in the last 20-40 days are opening themselves to liability. I don't know of a single company that does such test or refuses to hire people who drink alcohol in their off-time, even people who work in trades.

They need to develop a test to see if one is currently under the influence, which as of right now, the best version of that is a field sobriety test, but they are working on a conclusive test to see if people are currently inebriated from cannabis use. Once such test exist, they should administer that randomly at work or after incidents, along with a breathalyzer. If they are not worried about alcohol inebriation it seems absurd to be worried about cannabis inebriation.

[Hemlock140]

We too have a complete ban on it (1,900 employees) and like any other controlled substance, including alcohol, use during working hours or being under the influence at work is grounds for immediate termination. Since legalized here in WA it's not been a problem. The second hand smoke is more of an issue for those that walk to the bus or train and pass all of the people breaking the law by smoking a joint in public along the sidewalks. The police ignore it but will nab you if you light up a cigarette within 25 feet of a door.

[sholomar]

There are people where I work that talk about their pot use all the time and invite others over despite the "zero tolerance" policy... it only matters on the drug test to get hired.... once you are in the door, and you prove you can do your job and have good attendance, most will not care... just dont come to work high (or drunk for that manner) .. common sense stuff really.

They could probably fire you and you may not qualify for umemployment because of federal drug laws... Problem with marijuana is that one can test positive for it long after the effects have worn off... so the burden of proof is on you that you were not stoned when you got injured on the job because you test positive....

In any case I support individual liberties so I will not be employed at a place that does random testing after hire even if I dont smoke... by doing this they support the current laws and dont help the matter... now if they did scheduled drug testing with the date clearly mentioned that would be different... since it would give the user time to eliminate the drug from their system while still providing the legal protection they need...

[Metlakatla]

Employer drug testing really isn't about the legality of any given substance, and most of the time, it about whether the employer "cares" or not.

There some occupations where drug testing is legally required by state and federal regulatory agencies. As I mentioned in another thread, employers can get good deals on group insurance policies for employees if drug testing is in place. Employers aren't playing the role of law enforcement here (and never should be).

[Metlakatla]

Should have edited when I had time. I meant to state that drug testing generally isn't about whether the employer "cares" what people do in their off time or somehow wants to control that. In some industries and with particular types of jobs, it really isn't the employer's call at all.

[wanderbygrace]

Originally Posted by Xander_Crews

The testing thus far does not test for whether or not one is under the influence at the time, it tests whether or not they have smoked in the last 20-40 days. Testing positive may have absolutely zero relevance to their job, because they could have smoked it on a day off 3 weeks ago, and been sober every second they are at work and still test positive.

This is like saying that companies that don't test you for alcohol consumption from any time in the last 20-40 days are opening themselves to liability. I don't know of a single company that does such test or refuses to hire people who drink alcohol in their off-time, even people who work in trades.

They need to develop a test to see if one is currently under the influence, which as of right now, the best version of that is a field sobriety test, but they are working on a conclusive test to see if people are currently inebriated from cannabis use. Once such test exist, they should administer that randomly at work or after incidents, along with a breathalyzer. If they are not worried about alcohol inebriation it seems absurd to be worried about cannabis inebriation.

Your last paragraph is exactly how I feel (as a member of our senior management). I know we would be able to change our policies, if that were the case.

[Billy_J]

I've had trouble training pot smoking employees (smoke at home each evening). They don't remember what they learned the previous day, so you need to keep going over the same material each day.

Needless to say, employers do not want these people working for them!

[ABQConvict]

Originally Posted by Billy_J

I've had trouble training pot smoking employees (smoke at home each evening). They don't remember what they learned the previous day, so you need to keep going over the same material each day.

Needless to say, employers do not want these people working for them!

Well, smoking pot sure isn't going to make naturally stupid people any smarter.

On the other hand, smart people are also smart enough to not tell their trainer that they smoke pot daily, either. They train up just fine. Because they are smart. I am surprised you had not considered this being a smart, sober trainer and all.