The Cannabusiness (Fairbanks: schools, pharmacy, calculating)

[pittsflyer]

Originally Posted by jdhpa

I suspect the harder the law makes it to fire someone, the more reluctant employers are to hire people.

Then they don't have to do business in that state. But if that state sets themselves up with a lot of leverage it could compelled business to suck it up and stop treating US CITIZENS like slaves.


The US markets are very mature and our infrastructure is still some of the best in the world when looked at from an entire nation stand point (even though its not what it used to be). Why shouldn't us citizens bennifit from that?


Let them be reluctant, I think a state/nation needs to be protecting its people from graft and corruption.


If someone is trashing equipment or engaged in other undesirable behavior or it is documented that they are grossly incompetent then sure but the problem is these mass lay offs are just that, mass lay offs or because an employee and a boss had a heated disagreement on some business matter. The employee almost always suffers more from a egotistical firing than the company does.


We need to bring back citizenship meaning something and carrying weight in business matters. especially if the "boss" is not a US citizen.


But people need to get fed up with what is going no now and write your representitives

[pittsflyer]

Originally Posted by Blind Cleric

Is it primarily companies with employees operating equipment that do random testing?

I don't think state, city or school district personnel have to worry about it. Maybe they reserve this recourse if there is reason to believe something is amiss with an employee.

That's the way it worked at Alaska airlines. A drug test was mandatory as a condition of employment, but then they left you alone-except in a case I can recall when an employee started to display erratic behavior.
Then, they were tested and subsequently fired. It was coke, not pot.

That's the issue though, it is the employers discression and I agrue that it should not be. Pot is now a legal substance so the burden of proof now needs to fall on the employer that the employee was actually impared and not just having pot in their system. Because we have weak employment laws I don't think employers should even be privy to the reports unless a test is developed that can show pot use restricted to within a 24 hr period because companies are notorious for firings without cause because we are an at-will state and if the company had that report they could just fire someone a month later on a trumped up reason.


Coke is not legal in any states and is not likely to be so that's a different situation.


In fact after this post I am going to craft a well thought out email to my representative, hopefully enough people do that and get this changed.

[Metlakatla]

Pitts, alcohol is a legal substance as well, and employers have every right to screen for it and every right to let employees go who test positive for it.

I'm sure your representative looks forward to communications with you.

[pittsflyer]

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

Pitts, alcohol is a legal substance as well, and employers have every right to screen for it and every right to let employees go who test positive for it.

I'm sure your representative looks forward to communications with you.

The issue is how long alchoal is in your system vs pot, that IS the major issue. Because pot is in your system SO long I don't think an employer has a right to look into your system for something that was done on the employees own time. Also just because pot is in your system does not prove impairment.


If I take 2 weeks off and smoke on the first day the pot will still be in my system when I come back, that is the major issue that will likely continue to be challenged.

[Arktikos]

Originally Posted by pittsflyer

The issue is how long alcohol is in your system vs pot, that IS the major issue. ..

Yes, and this is certainly a potential problem for pot smokers.

However, I have yet to hear of employees deemed valuable by a company being fired haphazardly for this reason. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

It seems more likely to be a convenient way of terminating someone that an employer really doesn't want, for other reasons.

[pittsflyer]

Originally Posted by Blind Cleric

Yes, and this is certainly a potential problem for pot smokers.

However, I have yet to hear of employees deemed valuable by a company being fired haphazardly for this reason. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

It seems more likely to be a convenient way of terminating someone that an employer really doesn't want, for other reasons.

Then they should document and terminate for the other reason. It IS an invasion of privacy to do a look back to a time period that was on the employees own time.


The reasons and details of why employers test and why they fire is largely irrelavent, the bottom line is the law needs to be such that it prohibits employers from even knowing because it is a privacy issue. the onous should be on the employer to prove imparement and only a 24 hr look back should be allowed. Until said test is developed employers should be SOL not the employee for using a LEGAL substance.


That is why people need to write their representitives because how long before employers are looking at your other medical conditions and deeming you unworthy of employment because your going to run up their insurance rates.


Employers have too much involvement in US citizens personal lives (med insurance, pot use, etc).

[Metlakatla]

That's news to me ^^^

It's really this simple in most cases -- if you come to work for me, smash into someone's car with a company truck, I get to drug test you as a requirement of filing an insurance claim. I'm not interested in eating the cost just to preserve your privacy, sorry. I agree that better testing is necessary to determine whether someone was actually impaired at the time of the accident, but for now, we have what we have.

Smallish companies like mine live with the fact that we could be wiped out of business by the wrong lawsuit brought on by an employee's asshattery. You continue bitching about your "rights", Pitts, and my peers and I will continue protecting ourselves. By all means, hog it up on beer, pizza, and pot every night of the week, but act like an adult on my property while I'm paying you or hit the road.

Good employees are difficult to find in Alaska, btw. I highly doubt employers are firing them left and right just because they can. And many businesses wouldn't be staffed at all if they had to drug test every single applicant. This is why I'm importing Mormons from the lower-forty eight next year.

[Arktikos]

Originally Posted by pittsflyer

T.. It IS an invasion of privacy to do a look back to a time period that was on the employees own time..

IF it's happening. I'm not convinced that it is.

From my perspective, there's little point in solving a problem that doesn't exist.

[45XD]

Interesting discussion here. My two cents... I work for a healthcare organization that has facilities in several- I think 7- states, two of which have legalized marijuana. From the get go- the policy has been- if they test you for it and the test is positive, you will be terminated, no questions asked. The wording from the CEO was along the lines of "I don't care if it's legal where you live now." Positive drug screen as an applicant- you will not be offered a job. Whether you do direct patient care or not (I don't) but it's a rule consistently applied across the board.

From a healthcare perspective, in my opinion, this makes sense. Huge potential for litigation under the best of circumstances, now a lawyer can show you were potentially "impaired" on top of it? And it's not so obvious as someone operating machinery or driving a truck and get in an accident. Think judgment concerns- calculating dosages of meds for pharmacy, procedures for physicians or nurses, hell even hand washing or maintaining a sterile environment.

Does your right to use pot supersede a patient's right to know that their healthcare providers are not impaired? And if you test positive today, how does a company know that sometime over the past few weeks you didn't come in "impaired?" Is a healthcare organization going to rely on your judgment of what it means to be impaired? Probably not. And by probably, I mean, no.

In case you are wondering the same rule- at least in our company- applies to other legal substances; if you are taking legal, legitimately prescribed narcotics say after a surgery, you cannot work while you do so and a note from a physician will excuse you from work (FMLA and all that). But if you test positive for a narcotic and you don't have a prescription for it (should be approved ahead of time anyway) you will be fired. Direct patient care or not, same rule for everyone.

Again, I have no problem with any of this- having had multiple loved ones admitted to hospitals as patients the past year or two.

[Haolejohn]

When I was in the Marines, I once asked (out loud) during a alcohol and drug training (I was a MP) why alcohol was legal and not pot.

I had 8 random drug tests over the next 6 weeks.