Marijuana Users Face Workplace Discrimination: Ban The Box Campaign Fights Back

http://www.mainstreet.com/article/career/marijuana-users-face-workplace-discrimination-ban-box-campaign-fights-back-0?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO

This is particularly disturbing to me. I live and work in the deep south, so I could see my employer instituting a random drug testing policy if we ever break through and legalize marijuana here. Unless a law were passed that prevented them from doing so.

H.M. Murdoch said:

http://www.mainstreet.com/article/career/marijuana-users-face-workplace-discrimination-ban-box-campaign-fights-back-0?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO

This is particularly disturbing to me. I live and work in the deep south, so I could see my employer instituting a random drug testing policy if we ever break through and legalize marijuana here. Unless a law were passed that prevented them from doing so.

Click to expand...

If you had employees and depended on production, a safe work environment and sound decision making.
Would you prefer a crew of stoners or a crew that didn't use?

jahbrudda said:

If you had employees and depended on production, a safe work environment and sound decision making.
Would you prefer a crew of stoners or a crew that didn't use?

Click to expand...

My approach would be this: if they performed their work well, that's all the criteria I would need to keep them. Otherwise, I'd let them go.

I would definitely want to know if they were addicted to heroin or cocaine, because those are truly addictive drugs that demand use even when you're working. Marijuana is nothing like that.

H.M. Murdoch said:

My approach would be this: if they performed their work well, that's all the criteria I would need to keep them. Otherwise, I'd let them go.

I would definitely want to know if they were addicted to heroin or cocaine, because those are truly addictive drugs that demand use even when you're working. Marijuana is nothing like that.

Click to expand...

So you're happy to work with someone under the influence if they performed their work well?

Have you worked with a stoner before? It's fucking frustrating and time consuming.

How about if they took 2hrs to perform a menial task?

How about if you were injured because they were under the influence?

Like alcohol there must be a zero tolerance policy for being under the influence at work.

earnest_voice said:

So you're happy to work with someone under the influence if they performed their work well?

Have you worked with a stoner before? It's fucking frustrating and time consuming.

How about if they took 2hrs to perform a menial task?

How about if you were injured because they were under the influence?

Like alcohol there must be a zero tolerance policy for being under the influence at work.

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree there should be no drugs at work. But an MJ pee test shows positive for use in the past 30 days, at least. If someone is suspected of being high at work, then some investigation should be done to determine if they are indeed high. But people who come to work sober should not be punished for doing something perfectly legal when they're not at work.

If they are sober and do good work, why should anyone have a problem with their MJ use away from work?

H.M. Murdoch said:

I absolutely agree there should be no drugs at work. But an MJ pee test shows positive for use in the past 30 days, at least. If someone is suspected of being high at work, then some investigation should be done to determine if they are indeed high. But people who come to work sober should not be punished for doing something perfectly legal when they're not at work.

Click to expand...

Pee tests are becoming obsolete in establishing who is under the influence on site during work hours. Urine tests are now the thing you see during pre-employment medicals. Saliva swab tests are starting to become much more popular and only test if you are under the influence.

I've been tested twice at work over a 4 year period so it's no biggie. As long as you're not ripped you'll be fine.

Urine tests are the problem. The burden should be on the employer to prove that the employee is under the influence at that moment. Unfortunately without legislation, private businesses can use whatever test they want and random test you whenever they want as long as the testing doesn't discriminate and the policy is outlined in their employee handbook and made clear at the time of hire. Government jobs are better: they can do a pre-employment drug test, but they can't do random tests on you.

TakeTheTicket said:

Urine tests are the problem. The burden should be on the employer to prove that the employee is under the influence at that moment. Unfortunately without legislation, private businesses can use whatever test they want and random test you whenever they want as long as the testing doesn't discriminate and the policy is outlined in their employee handbook and made clear at the time of hire. Government jobs are better: they can do a pre-employment drug test, but they can't do random tests on you.

Click to expand...

Who told you that?

BigEasy1 said:

Who told you that?

Click to expand...

.....which part

TakeTheTicket said:

.....which part

Click to expand...

I think BE1 was asking about the government not being allowed to do random drug tests after employment begins. Are you sure that's the way it is? Just wondering...

About the guberment not doing random tests? There's different classifications concerning drug testing for federal employees. There is no blanket policy. Some federal employees are subject to random testing and some are not of which most never took a premployment UA. Then with that being said, Ronald Reagan declared all federal work places drug free via executive order so go ponder.

BigEasy1 said:

About the guberment not doing random tests? There's different classifications concerning drug testing for federal employees. There is no blanket policy. Some federal employees are subject to random testing and some are not of which most never took a premployment UA. Then with that being said, Ronald Reagan declared all federal work places drug free via executive order so go ponder.

Click to expand...

https://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/federal-judge-declares-key-west-city-employee-drug-testing-policy
http://sogpubs.unc.edu/electronicversions/pg/pgwin03/article1.pdf
http://workrights.us/?products=public-employee-drug-testing-a-legal-guide

Enjoy

TLDR: If you are not in a safety-sensitive position or in a job that requires you to carry a firearm, they can't test you without reasonable suspicion.

TakeTheTicket said:

https://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/federal-judge-declares-key-west-city-employee-drug-testing-policy
http://sogpubs.unc.edu/electronicversions/pg/pgwin03/article1.pdf
http://workrights.us/?products=public-employee-drug-testing-a-legal-guide

Enjoy

TLDR: If you are not in a safety-sensitive position or in a job that requires you to carry a firearm, they can't test you without reasonable suspicion.

Click to expand...

I thought you were talking federal, not city.

BigEasy1 said:

I thought you were talking federal, not city.

Click to expand...

I'm talking both. Federal laws supercede any state/city laws. Fourth amendment protects public employees

Yea, try to pull that when you are in a designated drug testing position and watch how fast your job and pension goes down the shitter.

BigEasy1 said:

Yea, try to pull that when you are in a designated drug testing position and watch how fast your job and pension goes down the shitter.

Click to expand...

???

TakeTheTicket said:

???

Click to expand...

i think he's referring to certain positions that require drug testing at regular intervals. like some union carpenters that work in highly sensitive locations.

Like I said before, there is no blanket drug testing policy in the federal workplace. If you occupy a drug testing designated position and you refuse to take a drug test you are out the door.
My significant other has been a federal employee since 1988. A dude got canned a few weeks back for exactly what you are saying can't happen. He lost it all, pension, job, benefits and is most likely barred from federal employment due to security clearance issues.
If you think WalMart can drug test but Uncle Sam can't, think again. Per executive order all federal work places are drug free. That's the trump card.

UncleBuck said:

i think he's referring to certain positions that require drug testing at regular intervals. like some union carpenters that work in highly sensitive locations.

Click to expand...

The info I linked him already mentioned that its not a free pass for ALL public employees. Guess he can't read

Some examples include:

Motor Vehicle Operators (DOT)
Aviation
Medical Professionals
Police Officers and Fire Fighters
People who work with or near Classified/Sensitive Information
Drug Interdiction (such as customs agents)
Prison Employees
POST ACCIDENT TESTING

BigEasy1 said:

Like I said before, there is no blanket drug testing policy in the federal workplace. If you occupy a drug testing designated position and you refuse to take a drug test you are out the door.
My significant other has been a federal employee since 1988. A dude got canned a few weeks back for exactly what you are saying can't happen. He lost it all, pension, job, benefits and is most likely barred from federal employment due to security clearance issues.
If you think WalMart can drug test but Uncle Sam can't, think again. Per executive order all federal work places are drug free. That's the trump card.

Click to expand...

Wrong. I already said there are some positions that drug test, if that what you mean by "drug testing designated position", so I'm not sure what you think you're arguing with. The information I linked you said the same thing.