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, 02:21 PM
 
Location: Eastern Washington
14,247 posts, read 44,946,726 times
Reputation: 12861

Advertisements

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. At my company, a big part of our employees' role is to travel to countries all over the world to do ground surveys. Before purchasing plane tickets, we require employees to undergo a drug test to ensure that we won't have any issues while employees travel.

Most employees are straightforward and will let me know beforehand that they won't pass the test; an honesty which I appreciate. A couple days ago however, an employee deliberately brought a clean urine sample to his test with the intent of cheating and deceiving the system. He is a valuable employee and I really like the guy, but at the end of the day, can I trust him? He humbly came to me and spoke with me face to face about what happened because he wanted to be open about it rather than me hearing about it from another source. I don't think he would have done so had he not been caught.

I could simply restrict him from traveling ever again, or I could just let him go based on the overall possibility of future dishonesty.

What would you do?

I'm not quite understanding this. I don't think any other country will drug test your employee(s). So long as say 24 hours have passed since they last smoked weed, they won't be high.


I could see warning them not to take any weed with themselves on an international trip (which would be very stupid in a lot of ways).


Or are you saying that you won't trust doing these surveys to anyone who smokes - what - regularly, or has within the last month, or what? That they might be drug tested if they get into a car wreck?


As to your main question, you just have to balance this one incident against how valuable the guy is, and how valuable he would be if you didn't send him on any more trips.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-15-2019, 02:22 PM
 
Location: Tennessee
23,613 posts, read 17,598,460 times
Reputation: 27693
Quote:
Originally Posted by wafflesngravy View Post
So employers can still enforce it in legal states? Thats kinda lame.
But for what it's worth, nobody can pass in NM either which is an illegal state. It's just pot, who cares at this point.
Companies can discriminate on these types of things.

I work at a place that tests for nicotine and won't hire new tobacco smokers. It keeps the group insurance rate down.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2019, 02:26 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
8,654 posts, read 3,067,747 times
Reputation: 12940
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raddo View Post
That is not what we are discussing AT ALL.
Yes, we were militantly championing totally unfettered use of the gentle weed. Well, you were, and I wasn't saying anything against it. It must be truly tedious these days, with no worthwhile battles left to fight.

If you can't grasp why employers have an interest in unimpaired employees - whether in fact or in possibility - then you really don't have anything to contribute here except completely obsolete articles from High Times.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2019, 02:30 PM
 
3,144 posts, read 888,188 times
Reputation: 2472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
Yes, we were militantly championing totally unfettered use of the gentle weed. Well, you were, and I wasn't saying anything against it.
Wow, your responses are getting even weaker. Please point out where I did any such thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2019, 02:34 PM
 
3,144 posts, read 888,188 times
Reputation: 2472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Conversation View Post
Companies can discriminate on these types of things.

I work at a place that tests for nicotine and won't hire new tobacco smokers. It keeps the group insurance rate down.
Wow. Is that even legal?

EDIT: I guess it depends:

https://www.hrdefenseblog.com/2018/0...-hire-smokers/

Quote:
But it’s complicated.

While smokers are not a protected class under federal anti-discrimination laws, state law varies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2019, 03:01 PM
 
Location: Western Washington
9,006 posts, read 8,425,582 times
Reputation: 15616
On the topic of testing, it is an incredible stupid policy, unless your employees are actually piloting the plane when you send them on assignment.

As far as an employment violation, it is fairly serious, although not a case for termination taken in isolation. I would issue a written warning, stating consequences for subsequent violations. The violation isn’t failing the test, the violation is subversion of company policy, so if the employee does something similar in the future, you can escalate the disciplinary action.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2019, 03:05 PM
 
Location: Northern Virginia
372 posts, read 189,603 times
Reputation: 1400
Quote:
Originally Posted by remsleep View Post
So you are worried about a nurse that may have used cannabis at some point in the last 30 days but not concerned one bit about the fact that a test can't determine whether they are an alcoholic that is actually drunk on the job. Reefer madness is still alive and well.


OP, why would you consider punishing a good employee based on drug test results? Their performance should be the important factor here. A good employee shouldn't lose their job just because they smoke weed. I thought the whole point of drug testing was to identify employee drug use that may impair their performance, not to fire employees that are performing well. Would you have thought about firing this employee if it wasn't for the drug test? That would be the question that I would ask myself.
I believe that the OP is grappling with what do because the employee brought a clean urine sample in order to cheat the drug test. Not that the employee failed the drug test.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2019, 03:08 PM
 
6,615 posts, read 2,388,817 times
Reputation: 15224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Conversation View Post
The issue is that the product is legal where they are. Would you have prohibited him from traveling if alcohol metabolized the same way as pot, and he had a couple of beers a week and a half ago? There is no indication the person's marijuana use is impacting job performance.

Does the employee have to sign a statement that they will not smoke pot? Some kind of written acknowledgment?


To me, it would seem that if there is some kind of written acknowledgement that an employee has to sign...then at the very least, the employee should be written up for giving a false urine sample.


Sounds like the OP makes accomodations for those who come to him and tell him straight up that they won't pass a test...so this guy could've/should've done that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2019, 03:13 PM
 
3,144 posts, read 888,188 times
Reputation: 2472
Quote:
Originally Posted by VAviaCA View Post
I believe that the OP is grappling with what do because the employee brought a clean urine sample in order to cheat the drug test. Not that the employee failed the drug test.
But it isn't quite that simple.

The OP inferred that if you go to him/her and simply confess you won't pass the test, then you get to keep your job, but "No travel for you!"

For all we know, these travel opportunities in this company might be highly prized, prestigious, and/or financially lucrative.

To single out cannabis users that have used some point in the last 30 days, for either medical or recreational use, and then deny them of this coveted opportunity is yes, draconian.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2019, 03:14 PM
 
3,144 posts, read 888,188 times
Reputation: 2472
Quote:
Originally Posted by wafflesngravy View Post
Depends on how valuable the employee is. I've failed 2 tests with my current job and my employer never even acknowledged it to me. They need me more than I need them.
Congrats.

That is a much more common employee/employer relationship than many posters here realize.
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