Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 06-30-2010, 09:49 AM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,750,280 times
Reputation: 20030

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK View Post
What we should discuss instead of this single case is the whole idea of "at will" employment. While it is the law now, I have never agreed with it. I think that the law should give all employees rights on the job and especially the right to some form of due process should an employer dismiss them after an initial probationary period of 6 months. I don't believe a Manager should have the right to just walk up to somebody that has worked at a business for years- even decades - and fire them for no good reason. They should be entitled to have their day in court or at least before an impartial labour board.
most companies, large and small, have employee guidelines that need to followed by both the employee and the employer. this includes things like how many warnings an employee would normally get, and what level of discipline up to and including termination. it also spells out what drugs are tested for if the company does drug testing. if your company provides an employee handbook, you would be wise to read it cover to cover.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK View Post
Even if it is not a corporation. It does not matter. Employees should have rights. Even if it is a small business. Let's say that there is a receptionist that works for a motel. She has worked there faithfully for 30 years. Many people do even at jobs like this. Then a new owner buys the motel and he just decides he wants somebody else there so he says "you are fired". Do you think that is right? I don't. She should be able to go to a judge or a labour board and either get her job back or be awarded a severance package based on the time she worked there and contributed to that business. I would award her a week's pay for every year she was there and make them continue her medical and life insurance for a year.
when a business is sold, the current employees are automatically terminated, and thus they are either hired by the new company, or not, at the discretion of the new owner. most of the time the new owners will keep a core of old employees around to make the transition smoother, but that doesnt have to happen if the new owners choose not to. there is no requirement that old employees be kept when new owners take over.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-30-2010, 10:04 AM
 
Location: Vermont
11,754 posts, read 14,612,870 times
Reputation: 18503
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Actually, there are. For instance, there are specific laws enforced by the Department of Transportation requiring companies to have policies in place prohibiting employees from using drugs. Those policies include drug testing, and even govern how employers must address the drug use, from offering treatment to keeping records of employees that have failed drug tests.

The Department of Labor promotes drug-free workplaces, and has several different programs regarding drug testing of employees, and dealing with positive results.

OSHA has recommendations and guidelines in place.

Safety and Health Topics: Workplace Substance Abuse (http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/substanceabuse/index.html - broken link)

More than that, a large corporation has to have insurance in place. The liability issues associated with a retailer that has so many employees interacting with the public and failing to have a policy to prohibit illegal drug use by employees would be enormous. Wal-Mart gets sued almost daily. The costs to the company by not pre-addressing employee substance abuse would be so costly that not having such a policy could be considered reckless and irresponsible to stock holders.

Not true. From the web page you cite:

Quote:
Although not required by OSHA, drug-free workplace programs are natural compliments to other initiatives that help ensure safe and healthy workplaces and add value to America’s businesses and communities.
Even organizations that are required to have drug-free workplace policies, such as federal grantees, are not required to have policies that prohibit off-duty, off-premises drug use.

Anyone who engages in drug abuse, regardless of whether those drugs are legal or illegal, and endangers the workplace or any coworkers or customers, or who impairs his/her job performance by the use of legal or illegal drugs, should be subject to appropriate sanctions up to and including termination. Not because of the drug use, but because of the impaired job performance or the danger to the workplace, coworkers, or customers.

Maybe you should adopt a more questioning attitude toward the lies you've been told over the years about what is essentially a harmless drug.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2010, 10:19 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,812,481 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough View Post
Not true. From the web page you cite:



Even organizations that are required to have drug-free workplace policies, such as federal grantees, are not required to have policies that prohibit off-duty, off-premises drug use.

Anyone who engages in drug abuse, regardless of whether those drugs are legal or illegal, and endangers the workplace or any coworkers or customers, or who impairs his/her job performance by the use of legal or illegal drugs, should be subject to appropriate sanctions up to and including termination. Not because of the drug use, but because of the impaired job performance or the danger to the workplace, coworkers, or customers.

Maybe you should adopt a more questioning attitude toward the lies you've been told over the years about what is essentially a harmless drug.
Ask any truck driver about the laws prohibiting off-duty, off-premises drug use.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2010, 10:21 AM
 
268 posts, read 453,204 times
Reputation: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough View Post
Good. It's none of Wal-Mart's business what he does off work, medical marijuana or recreational marijuana. Unless it affects his job performance or safety, which it doesn't, they should leave him alone.
How do you know he wasn't high at work? Marijuana, whether medicinal or not, impairs a person's motor skills. This is a fact. So, marijuana can and probably did affect his job performance and safety, as well as the safety of his co-workers. If you read the article, you will see that he was drug tested following an injury at work.

If marijuana is the only thing he finds that works, maybe he should respect a business' decision to not want to hire people who use it and find a job elsewhere where the employer doesn't drug test or is more lenient to its use.

I guarantee he knew he would get fired from day one if he ever tested positive. Sounds like it's his own fault to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2010, 10:24 AM
 
Location: Up in the air
19,112 posts, read 30,582,558 times
Reputation: 16395
Wait.... you mean there are people who work at Wal Mart who DON'T smoke weed????

Weird.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2010, 10:45 AM
 
Location: Vermont
11,754 posts, read 14,612,870 times
Reputation: 18503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeezy is BACK View Post
How do you know he wasn't high at work?
I don't. What I do know is that he wasn't fired for being high at work, or for having an accident at work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2010, 10:48 AM
 
Location: Massachusetts
10,029 posts, read 8,331,902 times
Reputation: 4212
Quote:
Originally Posted by delusianne View Post
Oh, you're an advocate of the ACLU? Who knew.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2010, 10:48 AM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,750,280 times
Reputation: 20030
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough View Post
I don't. What I do know is that he wasn't fired for being high at work, or for having an accident at work.
right, he was fired per company policy for failing a drug test. it doesnt matter if one only smokes at home, if you fail the drug test, you can get fired.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2010, 10:53 AM
 
Location: Vermont
11,754 posts, read 14,612,870 times
Reputation: 18503
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
right, he was fired per company policy for failing a drug test. it doesnt matter if one only smokes at home, if you fail the drug test, you can get fired.
If you were able to read you would know that I was already aware of this fact. My point is that an employer has no legitimate interest in an employee's off-duty, off-premises conduct unless that conduct has an adverse effect on the employer, the other coworkers or customers of the employer, or the employee's job performance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2010, 10:55 AM
 
7,541 posts, read 6,260,769 times
Reputation: 1837
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
There was a previous thread about this, when the gentleman was fired.

I think it should be pointed out that Wal-Mart is obligated to follow federal guidelines regarding drug use by its employees, even in the case of medical marijuana.

//www.city-data.com/forum/polit...Mart+marijuana

Correct. I dont care if its State allowed, WalMart is a national company and needs to follow FEDERAL laws. Federal Laws, Marijuana is illegal.

End of Story.
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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:45 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top