- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Colorado Supreme Court: workers can be fired for off-duty marijuana use
Posted on 6/15/15 at 1:36 pm to Jcorye1
Posted on 6/15/15 at 1:36 pm to Jcorye1
quote:
Obviously there is abuse in the system... find me a system without any abuse and I'll find you a lying sack of poo system.
I know. My point is that some systems seem to be easier and more readily abused than others, and this is one of them. It's the same thing with pain killers and adderall. The difference is that there is a necessary use for pain killers, and adderall doesn't have the same side effects as the other two that the company is worried about.
The person who is prescribed medicinal marijuana to ease his pain because he is dying from cancer is likely not working anyway, so this doesn't really apply there.
0
Posted on 6/15/15 at 1:37 pm to Loveland Tiger
quote:
If he is otherwise performing his job, and he doesn't drive automobile for DISH, they should have made an exception.
No they shouldn't. Part of his job required driving a company car. Their insurance premiums go up as soon as that DWI hits his record. Like I said (and what they told him): there are plenty of other qualified people for the job who won't cost the company more money to employ.
Tying that back into the OP and the thread, the same goes for pot. Is it fair that the appearance of pot in one's system when an accident (whether automobile related or simply an on the job accident) is treated the same as the presence of alcohol? Definitely not. But that is how it will be treated by law enforcement and insurance agencies.
Further, if an employer was aware of any substance issues or use by their employees before they injured someone else on the job, the employer is then potentially on the hook for negligent hiring and supervision.
This isn't a political issue. And I highly doubt the employer in the Colorado case was trying to make it one. Its a business decision, and the right one, to screen their employees for drugs.
Posted on 6/15/15 at 1:37 pm to UpToPar
quote:
So you want the government telling businesses what they should and should not do?
Dish should have. That's what I would have done. I wonder if DISH will receive any customer feedback from this.
Posted on 6/15/15 at 1:39 pm to Sparkplug#1
quote:
I don't know about you, but I've been studying it, and alcohol kills and causes more violet crimes than cannabis (zero being deaths and millions of deaths from alcohol). What kind of studying are you talking about?
He's probably talking about studies that look at reaction time, decision making, critical thinking types of effects that businesses are concerned with. Businesses generally don't preclude their employees from drinking on the job because they might commit a violent crime.
Posted on 6/15/15 at 1:41 pm to Loveland Tiger
quote:
Dish should have. That's what I would have done. I wonder if DISH will receive any customer feedback from this.
I'm sure they will, and that's how these things are supposed to work, which is why I think you see the decision from the Colorado Supreme Court coming down the way it did. If people decide they don't want to use DISH because of this or if DISH employees start leaving because of the policy then DISH will suffer consequences, but it's not the government's job to tell them what they should and shouldn't do.
Posted on 6/15/15 at 1:42 pm to UpToPar
quote:
If they wish to fire employees for smoking pot and the consequence of that is that nobody wants to work for them, then so be it, but I don't think the government should start telling companies what they can and cannot fire people for when it doesn't serve any legitimate purpose.
I don't think the government should either. That's why I said earlier
quote:
I mean ultimately I agree employers can put whatever crazy temperance stipulations they want to, but it's not a good idea for a number of reasons.
The only time I think the govt should step in is when it would be prescribed by a doctor. At that point a company shouldnt be able to fire you based on what a doctor says you should take, unless it inhibits your performance.
This post was edited on 6/15/15 at 1:44 pm
Posted on 6/15/15 at 1:42 pm to logjamming
quote:
Part of his job required driving a company car.
That's different. Still, we need to understand the impairment of cannabis. They are NOT the same (as booze), and shouldn't be grouped in the same category.
Hopefully, we're approaching the point of no return and we can begin proper studies. Is the impairment from a joint smoked a week ago the same as a joint smoke that morning? Alcohol tests adjust for this.
I don't drink. Never been a wreck. Ever. I do get high, though.
This post was edited on 6/15/15 at 1:46 pm
Posted on 6/15/15 at 1:44 pm to Sparkplug#1
quote:
I don't know about you, but I've been studying it, and alcohol kills and causes more violet crimes than cannabis (zero being deaths and millions of deaths from alcohol). What kind of studying are you talking about?
You and I know this. Unfortunately, removing the stigma from the plant will require slam dunk, hit them over the head, evidence.
Posted on 6/15/15 at 1:48 pm to Darth_Vader
I would agree with the employer firing a worker for casual non medical marijuana use, but I don't see how it's legal to fire someone who has a prescription to use it for medical reasons?
Posted on 6/15/15 at 1:49 pm to Loveland Tiger
quote:
That's different. Still, we need to understand the impairment of cannabis. They are the same, and shouldn't be grouped in the same category.
That's not the argument. I even said that they aren't the same and shouldn't be treated as such. But its about a company's bottom line.
Regardless of your feelings on pot, if you own a business, and your company's health care provider or liability insurer tell you, "if you periodically screen your employees for drugs and/or alcohol, you can save about 20% on your company's premiums," you'd institute a drug policy in a heart beat. You as a business owner have a right to protect your bottom line.
I have no issues with pot. And money aside, if two equally qualified applicants were up for a position, and I told them, "if you accept this job, you will be subject to drug screening," and one of them says "I'm not going to pass" or "marijuana use is legal in this state and I am entitled to use it under my state's laws," I am not hiring that guy. Anyone else who says they would is kidding themselves.
Posted on 6/15/15 at 1:57 pm to logjamming
quote:
I have no issues with pot. And money aside, if two equally qualified applicants were up for a position, and I told them, "if you accept this job, you will be subject to drug screening," and one of them says "I'm not going to pass" or "marijuana use is legal in this state and I am entitled to use it under my state's laws," I am not hiring that guy. Anyone else who says they would is kidding themselves
Here's where alcohol and MJ are different. Would you test them for immediate THC (last couple of hours), or periodic use (hair, can stay in your system for a week), assuming it's legal? If the dudes high when he comes in for a test sure, don't hire him. But if he tests positive because he was smoking on Saturday night on his own time, not on the clock, and not scheduled for work, why the stigma? What makes you think he'd be any less qualified than the other guy?
This post was edited on 6/15/15 at 2:01 pm
Posted on 6/15/15 at 1:58 pm to logjamming
quote:
Regardless of your feelings on pot, if you own a business, and your company's health care provider or liability insurer tell you, "if you periodically screen your employees for drugs and/or alcohol, you can save about 20% on your company's premiums," you'd institute a drug policy in a heart beat. You as a business owner have a right to protect your bottom line.
I never said otherwise. As long as we stop demonizing the plant the truth will emerge. And things will get better.
Posted on 6/15/15 at 3:19 pm to Darth_Vader
WTF? What's the Colorado Supreme Court been smoking?
Posted on 6/15/15 at 3:25 pm to TigerPanzer
Get back to work, hippie.
Posted on 6/15/15 at 3:44 pm to Salmon
quote:Or not so obvious.
seems pretty obvious
So if you have medication and your employer says that if you take that medication which is for your heart, you will be fired? How is that obvious? The guy working for Dish Network used medical marijuana. Marijuana can cure/reduce cancer and tumors, so how will that look on employers? Firing employee for taking cancer medicine. frick yall are stoopid.
Posted on 6/15/15 at 3:49 pm to Darth_Vader
It's a good ruling.
Companies currently can and do fire people for off site alcohol abuse. This is no different.
I'm a firm believer in free market capitalism and private enterprise.
Companies currently can and do fire people for off site alcohol abuse. This is no different.
I'm a firm believer in free market capitalism and private enterprise.
Posted on 6/15/15 at 3:49 pm to monsterballads
quote:
on a federal level it's not though. that's where it gets tricky.
Reading comprehension is where it gets tricky for you apparently.
Did you read the first 3 words of this topic? Colorado Supreme Court.....weed is legal for recreational and medicinal use in Colorado....what does the Federal gov't have to do with Colorado or Colorado's Supreme Court on this subject? Not a damn thing. So your argument is extremely flawed.
Posted on 6/15/15 at 3:54 pm to monsterballads
quote:frick that.
with THC breathalyzers, the employer could tell the level of THC in the users body. (basically tell if they are high or not)
Is it really hard to tell if someone is fricked up or not? Also being high off weed isn't going to mess your coordination up either, unless you are a rookie. Breathalyzers for weed will have it's faults until the technology is up to date, which it isn't. There will be false negatives, etc, where you could just look at them and tell.
Hell I work with heavy equipment and from tall heights while high and never been hurt at work. Hell most of the people in the shop was on something and the only guy to get hurt at work, cuts his knee and he only drinks (was sober).
Posted on 6/15/15 at 4:00 pm to DawgGONIT
quote:
Hell I work with heavy equipment and from tall heights while high and never been hurt at work. Hell most of the people in the shop was on something and the only guy to get hurt at work, cuts his knee and he only drinks (was sober).
I'm sorry, but
Ho
Lee
shite
Posted on 6/15/15 at 4:02 pm to DawgGONIT
quote:
Is it really hard to tell if someone is fricked up or not? Also being high off weed isn't going to mess your coordination up either, unless you are a rookie. Breathalyzers for weed will have it's faults until the technology is up to date, which it isn't. There will be false negatives, etc, where you could just look at them and tell.
Hell I work with heavy equipment and from tall heights while high and never been hurt at work. Hell most of the people in the shop was on something and the only guy to get hurt at work, cuts his knee and he only drinks (was sober).
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News