CA to Vote Legalizing Pot in November Ballot...

[Captain Morgan]

Originally Posted by sherri_chickie

Companies can make rules that a person can not come to work if they have used alcohol ( or pot in this case) within a certain time frame of their shift. Pilots can't drink within 12 hours of a flight.

Originally Posted by Apoc

We realize that. But twelve hours is resonable, and its for safety reasons. No pot 12 hours before work would be the same. But punshing someone who smoked a joint at home 3 weeks ago, when its legal? Its a different situation.

And herein lies the problem. Right now, it's not possible to test for THC based on "recency of use" as it is with alcohol, so companies can ban the use of it by their employees. See below...

Originally Posted by Captain Morgan

A lot of pro athletes are not allowed to ride motorcycles...

Originally Posted by Apoc

Thats different though, its an agreed upon contract, for a set time, for millions of dollars. Those athletes are willingly giving up that right. Very few people out there working are on signed individual contracts, thats a bit different.

When you go to work for a company, you agree to their "rules and policies," which in and of itself is accepting a contract. You agree to work for them and abide by their rules, they agree to pay you for that work.

Carrying a gun is completely legal, with the exception of certain establishments. However, companies (that are not within the range of said establishments) can ban firearms on their property completely, regardless of the legality of carrying. You can't even have a gun in your car on company property. Don't give me the "private property" speech, because I'll just come back with, "if they're allowed to ban something that is legal from being possessed on their property, they can also ban use of certain things on their property." It's completely legal to have alcohol in your car, if the container is unopened, but it's illegal to have alcohol in your car on company property. Since THC cannot be tested for recency, a company can easily, and lawfully, say that you can't use it if you want to work for them. They don't know how long ago you used it, but since you tested positive, they can assume you used it today. Therefore, it's banned if you want to work for them. It's well within their rights to do so, just as you're well within your rights to tell them you won't work for them if that's their policy.

Shit, I can tell you that I don't want you in my house with shoes on. You might not have walked through dirt for three weeks in that pair of shoes, but I'm still allowed to say you can't come in my house with shoes on, even though it's not against the law to wear shoes. I agree to let you come in if you agree to take your shoes off. It's a contract, even though it's verbal. Just like a company can agree to let you work for them only if you agree you won't smoke pot. It's a contract, even if it's only for $15,000 a year, instead of $1 million a year.

[Apoc]

Originally Posted by Captain Morgan

And herein lies the problem. Right now, it's not possible to test for THC based on "recency of use" as it is with alcohol, so companies can ban the use of it by their employees. See below...





When you go to work for a company, you agree to their "rules and policies," which in and of itself is accepting a contract. You agree to work for them and abide by their rules, they agree to pay you for that work.

Carrying a gun is completely legal, with the exception of certain establishments. However, companies (that are not within the range of said establishments) can ban firearms on their property completely, regardless of the legality of carrying. You can't even have a gun in your car on company property. Don't give me the "private property" speech, because I'll just come back with, "if they're allowed to ban something that is legal from being possessed on their property, they can also ban use of certain things on their property." It's completely legal to have alcohol in your car, if the container is unopened, but it's illegal to have alcohol in your car on company property. Since THC cannot be tested for recency, a company can easily, and lawfully, say that you can't use it if you want to work for them. They don't know how long ago you used it, but since you tested positive, they can assume you used it today. Therefore, it's banned if you want to work for them. It's well within their rights to do so, just as you're well within your rights to tell them you won't work for them if that's their policy.

Shit, I can tell you that I don't want you in my house with shoes on. You might not have walked through dirt for three weeks in that pair of shoes, but I'm still allowed to say you can't come in my house with shoes on, even though it's not against the law to wear shoes. I agree to let you come in if you agree to take your shoes off. It's a contract, even though it's verbal. Just like a company can agree to let you work for them only if you agree you won't smoke pot. It's a contract, even if it's only for $15,000 a year, instead of $1 million a year.

But noone is arguing that they cant have all the rules they want, AT WORK. No guns, no drugs, no booze, no black socks, no scratching your nuts. You are at work, you abide by their rules. Im not questioning their ability to limit what you can and cant do at work, im questioning their ability to stop you from doing those things at home.

[Captain Morgan]

Originally Posted by Apoc

But noone is arguing that they cant have all the rules they want, AT WORK. No guns, no drugs, no booze, no black socks, no scratching your nuts. You are at work, you abide by their rules. Im not questioning their ability to limit what you can and cant do at work, im questioning their ability to stop you from doing those things at home.

I'm just saying that since it's impossible to test for recency of use, they can ban it's use entirely. Saying you can't drink alcohol for 12 hours prior to work is saying that you can't drink alcohol on your own time at your own house. Yes, the alcohol could still be in your system at work if you drink prior to work, even though you did it on your time. Pot might be out of your system in a few hours, but there isn't any way to test for it.

I actually think that you and I agree on the level of the inability to test for it. Where we disagree is whether or not companies can tell you that you can't do it at all. I think they're well within their rights to do so because they can't tell whether you used it 3 hours ago or 3 weeks ago. They can only tell that you've used it. Therefore, they ban it entirely. You agree to not use pot, at any time, and they agree to let you work for them. It's a contract, just the same as many professional athletes have a contract saying they won't ride a motorcycle. You sign off on their policies and you're agreeing to that contract, even though they're asking you not to do something that's completely legal, on your own time, away from work.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Now get on that HFCS thread and fill us in on the incorrect shit there!

[goof2]

Again, to agree with The Captain, employers cannot test for impairment, only use. I suspect employers will be able to prohibit use as a result. As I said earlier I also suspect employers will not even be the ones pushing for the prohibition. What liability or workers comp. insurance provider is going to want to write policies for companies where not only can employees be impaired at work but there is no way to test for that impairment?What employer who self insures is going to want to take that same risk?

[sherri_chickie]

I have no idea about when they can or can't test for pot, but I can see employers being able to say what you can and can't do, if you want to work for them, you have to follow their rules, otherwise you don't have to work for them. I have morality clauses in my contract, which I have to agree too.

[Apoc]

Originally Posted by sherri_chickie

I have no idea about when they can or can't test for pot, but I can see employers being able to say what you can and can't do, if you want to work for them, you have to follow their rules, otherwise you don't have to work for them. I have morality clauses in my contract, which I have to agree too.

Theres nothing immoral about doing something legal. You cant be fired for drinking. But you could be fired for drinking around your students. There is no morality problem with smoking a joint at home, any more than there is with having a drink at home.

[Trip]

Originally Posted by Apoc

You cant have a policy that dissalows people from doing legal things on their own time. If you give companies that power, whats next? No smoking cigs on your time? No riding motorcycles on your time?

Oh yes they can if they write it into your employment agreement. They can put me "on call" status and I can't drink or travel more than 50 miles from my house along with other things.

[Trip]

I wonder if there is another testing method for it though. They are testing now to see if you do it period. I wonder if they can develop a new test to see if you are currently impaired by it.

[Apoc]

Originally Posted by Trip

Oh yes they can if they write it into your employment agreement. They can put me "on call" status and I can't drink or travel more than 50 miles from my house along with other things.

Yes, because your on call, your technicly working.

[Trip]

Originally Posted by Apoc

Yes, because your on call, your technicly working.

It's a funny thing with that, I don't get any pay for it or anything else. I get paid overtime, I am not pure salary. They can put me in that status when they please. That means they can make certain employees in "pot free" status 24/7 as long as you are employed with the company if they write it in your employee agreement.