U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-15-2019, 01:32 PM
 
3,144 posts, read 886,294 times
Reputation: 2472

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
All posters who recognize that this isn't a referendum on the benefits and utter benignity of the wonder weed, raise your hands... thought so.

Dragging in the tired old rants about weed v. alcohol v. tobacco and Freedom! and Personal Choice Dammit! really don't add anything. Especially not here in CO, where the issue is settled.

The OP's stated intent is to protect employees and himself from drug law problems for employees that travel. Instead of debating the massive invasion of personal privacy and choice and blah blah blah... how about focusing on how he might better/best do everything he can not to end up in legal entanglements with employees who travel outside the 420 zone?

Comments from employers rather than 420 agitators will be given preference.
That's very simple:

Warning employees before their trip to not take any with them is common sense.

Punishing them by restricting travel or firing them for taking something to help them sleep, or for something they did at a friend's house a week and a half ago, is draconian.

The OP and his dilemma is in Colorado, so obviously the issue is far from settled.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-15-2019, 01:39 PM
 
1,550 posts, read 402,290 times
Reputation: 2896
Quote:
Originally Posted by garylancelot View Post
Fellow Coloradans (or anyone else willing to chime in!),

As you know, this whole "legalized" marijuana issue has become a bit of a challenge when it comes to finding employees who can keep themselves clean.
Not really, actually not at all. According to drugabuse.gov only "9.4 percent of the population" uses an illicit drug. You simply need to do a better job of recruiting the other 90.6%.

Welcome to C-D, I see this is your first post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2019, 01:41 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
8,616 posts, read 3,037,542 times
Reputation: 12862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raddo View Post
Punishing them by restricting travel ... is draconian.
Nonsense. Unproductive, maybe, with the stated goal, but not exactly torture room stuff.

And for about the sixth time, the OP said nothing about firing for use.

He's asking about firing for flat-out lying. It doesn't really matter what the lying was about, except that it was in relation to evading/breaking a company policy. Firing is not out of line but it's the OP's call.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2019, 01:45 PM
 
Location: Top of the South, NZ
17,177 posts, read 13,727,490 times
Reputation: 5553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
All posters who recognize that this isn't a referendum on the benefits and utter benignity of the wonder weed, raise your hands... thought so.

Dragging in the tired old rants about weed v. alcohol v. tobacco and Freedom! and Personal Choice Dammit! really don't add anything. Especially not here in CO, where the issue is settled.

The OP's stated intent is to protect employees and himself from drug law problems for employees that travel. Instead of debating the massive invasion of personal privacy and choice and blah blah blah... how about focusing on how he might better/best do everything he can not to end up in legal entanglements with employees who travel outside the 420 zone?

Comments from employers rather than 420 agitators will be given preference.
The rule basically implies the pot smokers are basically addicts, that need to be protected from themselves - desperate enough to try and get some weed in Singapore.

Wonder if this company bans people who like a drink, from traveling to Saudi Arabia?

As an employer,fairness is first and foremost, when it comes to rules.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2019, 01:45 PM
 
3,144 posts, read 886,294 times
Reputation: 2472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
Nonsense. Unproductive, maybe, with the stated goal, but not exactly torture room stuff.

And for about the sixth time, the OP said nothing about firing for use.

He's asking about firing for flat-out lying. It doesn't really matter what the lying was about, except that it was in relation to a company policy. Firing is not out of line but it's the OP's call.
That's correct. Here's my response to that, which I already know you are completely closed-minded to, as worded towards the OP:

I have a feeling this otherwise honest, healthy, valuable employee "cheated" because he knew the lingering stigma cannabis users suffer could get him fired, or at least stared at differently every time he encountered you, if he had come to you and explained the situation. In this way, even regular, healthy, productive citizens of a legal state still has to live their life in the closet.

I would not penalize this employee for doing what he had to do to maneuver through a minefield of overly-restrictive, overly-stigmatized regulations that have nothing to do with his role as a valuable employee.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2019, 01:46 PM
 
1,550 posts, read 402,290 times
Reputation: 2896
Quote:
Originally Posted by PriscillaVanilla View Post
I don't agree with pre-employment drug testing unless it's crucial to the type of work a person is doing, such as someone who works in healthcare, drives a truck or operates heavy equipment, airline pilot, etc.

I think most businesses waste time and money policing their employees.
There is a ton of metrics to support why employers want to have a work force free of substance abuse. Your personal opinion is just that. It has no data to support it. You don't know the costs, and they aren't expensive at all and entirely worth it. Typically costs the same as the first paid hour overhead for that employee. It is a bargain.

All work is critical. Do you want to spend money out of your pocket to have someone be a stoner and not cook your meal properly when you eat out and put in ingredients which you or a loved one are allergic to? Or to have someone clean your teeth who is high? Or someone who does your taxes to be smoking pot while doing it? No, of course not.

I only work at places which do drug testing and I wouldn't have it any other way. It proves a better class of people to work with who are focused and dependable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2019, 01:48 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
8,616 posts, read 3,037,542 times
Reputation: 12862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raddo View Post
That's correct. Here's my response to that, which I already know you are completely closed-minded to...
Hardly. I can simply reed and komprehennd gud.

Quote:
I would not penalize this employee for doing what he had to do to maneuver through a minefield of overly-restrictive, overly-stigmatized regulations that have nothing to do with his role as a valuable employee.
And you employ or supervise... how many employees? (My peak was over 100.)

You show absolutely no comprehension of employer liability and responsibility for employees who do any hazardous task, including travel. Allowing a drunk or stoned employee to operate machinery or drive company trucks leaves an employer open to separate liability and damages, from the employee as well as anyone else injured. But you're close-minded to that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2019, 01:51 PM
 
3,144 posts, read 886,294 times
Reputation: 2472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
Hardly. I can simply reed and komprehennd gud.


And you employ or supervise... how many employees? (My peak was over 100.)
My peak was about 5, but I have owned my own businesses since the 70's.

However, completely irrelevant. Shows you're grasping at straws, as does your mockery. Sad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
Allowing a drunk or stoned employee to operate machinery or drive company trucks leaves an employer open to separate liability and damages, from the employee as well as anyone else injured.
Where did that come from??? That is not what we are discussing AT ALL.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2019, 02:13 PM
 
9,426 posts, read 7,086,964 times
Reputation: 12202
Someone at the start mentioned a policy.. That's what needs to happen. If this situation isn't covered under the policy..



In today's world, if this weren't covered under the company policy, i'd be pretty hesitant about firing him.



But, I would also make sure that the policy was updated to cover falsifying or attempting to falsify test results.

I thought most policies were updated with that back when the "Whizzinator" came out a few years back.

I also agree with the people who don't quite get why you test them before they get airline tickets.. Either you care about usage or you don't. I'm fine with it either way, but.. Either eliminate the testing or make it true random testing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2019, 02:18 PM
 
780 posts, read 203,923 times
Reputation: 1134
This happened in Colorado for what it's worth. This thread was moved from that sub.

Recreational marijuana is fully legal throughout the state of Colorado.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top