Slippery Slope?

[Wonky3]

http://medfordmailtribune.or.newsmemory....VlZXxxTXlg=

From that article: 

"Here’s the takeaway for employees in Oregon: You have the legal right to consume marijuana. But, if marijuana use is banned by your company, the company can fire you if you test positive. That means if you work for one of those companies, you’re going to want to check to see exactly what your company’s drug policy says. (If you’re an employer, this would be a good time to review your drug policy.) Don’t expect the courts to drive much change in this area: Judges in a number of states consistently have sided with employers."


So what if you work for someone who does not want you to drink a beer on your day off? Or, maybe you have been living with your girlfriend/boyfriend for years but never married? Or your employer knows you are an atheist? 


Your employer should not be able to dictate your lawful behavior, especially when off the job. 

[Hugo]

http://medfordmailtribune.or.newsmemory....VlZXxxTXlg=

From that article: 

"Here’s the takeaway for employees in Oregon: You have the legal right to consume marijuana. But, if marijuana use is banned by your company, the company can fire you if you test positive. That means if you work for one of those companies, you’re going to want to check to see exactly what your company’s drug policy says. (If you’re an employer, this would be a good time to review your drug policy.) Don’t expect the courts to drive much change in this area: Judges in a number of states consistently have sided with employers."


So what if you work for someone who does not want you to drink a beer on your day off? Or, maybe you have been living with your girlfriend/boyfriend for years but never married? Or your employer knows you are an atheist? 


Your employer should not be able to dictate your lawful behavior, especially when off the job. 

Give me real world examples of these things being an issue with employers.  Cite them. Then compare them in a percentage with how many employers have NEVER had an issue with your weekend beer, your relationships, or your Religion.  Then, try to understand the percentage of people using recreational pot, and why your point becomes mute.

That being said, the first company to come up with a real test that can tell if you are under the influence of Marijuana, will become a very wealthy company.  Until that happens, I don't see where the employers have a choice.

[orygunluvr]

Until insurance companies change their policies you will be fired if you fail a pee test. Why is it those that have never employed anyone know the most about being an employer and all the rules, laws, and regulations that go with it? Get hurt or killed on the job the first thing is blood is drawn, blood shows intoxification you're on your own, or your loved ones are on their own. You automatically forfeit the coverage an employer is required by law to provide for you. When will you libtards quit villifying employers in this state and get educated on what it takes to be one?

[Wonky3]

http://medfordmailtribune.or.newsmemory....VlZXxxTXlg=

From that article: 

"Here’s the takeaway for employees in Oregon: You have the legal right to consume marijuana. But, if marijuana use is banned by your company, the company can fire you if you test positive. That means if you work for one of those companies, you’re going to want to check to see exactly what your company’s drug policy says. (If you’re an employer, this would be a good time to review your drug policy.) Don’t expect the courts to drive much change in this area: Judges in a number of states consistently have sided with employers."


So what if you work for someone who does not want you to drink a beer on your day off? Or, maybe you have been living with your girlfriend/boyfriend for years but never married? Or your employer knows you are an atheist? 


Your employer should not be able to dictate your lawful behavior, especially when off the job. 

Give me real world examples of these things being an issue with employers.  Cite them. Then compare them in a percentage with how many employers have NEVER had an issue with your weekend beer, your relationships, or your Religion.  Then, try to understand the percentage of people using recreational pot, and why your point becomes mute.

That being said, the first company to come up with a real test that can tell if you are under the influence of Marijuana, will become a very wealthy company.  Until that happens, I don't see where the employers have a choice.

I have no problem with employers "having a choice". I was drug tested for the last 20 years of my working life. Didn't ruin my life. 
And I have no examples. That's why I said it might be a "slippery slope". For instance, a LDS (Mormon) company in "Mormon country" might be tempted to put some of these rules in place. Maybe...only a thought. But, a least a few companies have tried to enforce their values on the employees: Gay folks for instance. 

So, I while I understand your point, I don't think mine "becomes mute". 

An I agree that when one can be tested for "being under the influence" of MJ, things are going to change. Fast. 

[tvguy]

http://medfordmailtribune.or.newsmemory....VlZXxxTXlg=

From that article: 

"Here’s the takeaway for employees in Oregon: You have the legal right to consume marijuana. But, if marijuana use is banned by your company, the company can fire you if you test positive. That means if you work for one of those companies, you’re going to want to check to see exactly what your company’s drug policy says. (If you’re an employer, this would be a good time to review your drug policy.) Don’t expect the courts to drive much change in this area: Judges in a number of states consistently have sided with employers."


So what if you work for someone who does not want you to drink a beer on your day off? Or, maybe you have been living with your girlfriend/boyfriend for years but never married? Or your employer knows you are an atheist? 


Your employer should not be able to dictate your lawful behavior, especially when off the job. 

Well this subject has been discussed at length but yes I can see that now since smoking and even growing MJ is legal it's a little bit different.
I get the slippery slope aspect. Assuming you are thinking if employers can tell us not to do something that is legal then they can say whatever they want.
One one side I say so what? My wife wouldn't hire people who smoked cigarettes. How did she even know? she can smell them

But the difference is that employers can't test to see if someone is smoking weed on the job and their best bet to keep that from happening is to not hire pot smokers.I see their point. I see yours.

[Scrapper]

This isn't a Repub/Dem/Lib thing.
If you have dirty urine and work for a company that tests... it's going to be your own damn fault if you get fired; or if something happens to you and you (or your family) are left without benefits. A choice you made knowing full well what could happen. In those cases, I have no sympathy.

[Wonky3]

http://medfordmailtribune.or.newsmemory....VlZXxxTXlg=

From that article: 

"Here’s the takeaway for employees in Oregon: You have the legal right to consume marijuana. But, if marijuana use is banned by your company, the company can fire you if you test positive. That means if you work for one of those companies, you’re going to want to check to see exactly what your company’s drug policy says. (If you’re an employer, this would be a good time to review your drug policy.) Don’t expect the courts to drive much change in this area: Judges in a number of states consistently have sided with employers."


So what if you work for someone who does not want you to drink a beer on your day off? Or, maybe you have been living with your girlfriend/boyfriend for years but never married? Or your employer knows you are an atheist? 


Your employer should not be able to dictate your lawful behavior, especially when off the job. 

Well this subject has been discussed at length but yes I can see that now since smoking and even growing MJ is legal it's a little bit different.
I get the slippery slope aspect. Assuming you are thinking if employers can tell us not to do something that is legal then they can say whatever they want.
One one side I say so what? My wife wouldn't hire people who smoked cigarettes. How did she even know? she can smell them

But the difference is that employers can't test to see if someone is smoking weed on the job and their best bet to keep that from happening is to not hire pot smokers.I see their point. I see yours.

Hugo slipped one in just in front of you and his thought about "when they can test to see if someone is actually under the influence of pot" is going directly to the point, I think. 

[tvguy]

Until insurance companies change their policies you will be fired if you fail a pee test. Why is it those that have never employed anyone know the most about being an employer and all the rules, laws, and regulations that go with it? Get hurt or killed on the job the first thing is blood is drawn, blood shows intoxification you're on your own, or your loved ones are on their own. You automatically forfeit the coverage an employer is required by law to provide for you. When will you libtards quit villifying employers in this state and get educated on what it takes to be one?

Until insurance companies change their policies you will be fired if you fail a pee test.


Not necessarily. Where I worked you could take a drug class and continue working. I thought you were SO educated.You didn't post one thing I didn't already know And I think Wonky knew that information also.
When will you rightwingtards stop thinking your way is the only way and any other way is retarded?
I didn't see anyone vilifying employers

The simply fact is that an employer can fire you for doing something LEGAL while you are on your own time.

I thought you righties were all about freedom.. You not only don't see this is an issue you feel you have to denigrate those who do?

[tvguy]

http://medfordmailtribune.or.newsmemory....VlZXxxTXlg=

From that article: 

"Here’s the takeaway for employees in Oregon: You have the legal right to consume marijuana. But, if marijuana use is banned by your company, the company can fire you if you test positive. That means if you work for one of those companies, you’re going to want to check to see exactly what your company’s drug policy says. (If you’re an employer, this would be a good time to review your drug policy.) Don’t expect the courts to drive much change in this area: Judges in a number of states consistently have sided with employers."


So what if you work for someone who does not want you to drink a beer on your day off? Or, maybe you have been living with your girlfriend/boyfriend for years but never married? Or your employer knows you are an atheist? 


Your employer should not be able to dictate your lawful behavior, especially when off the job. 

Well this subject has been discussed at length but yes I can see that now since smoking and even growing MJ is legal it's a little bit different.
I get the slippery slope aspect. Assuming you are thinking if employers can tell us not to do something that is legal then they can say whatever they want.
One one side I say so what? My wife wouldn't hire people who smoked cigarettes. How did she even know? she can smell them

But the difference is that employers can't test to see if someone is smoking weed on the job and their best bet to keep that from happening is to not hire pot smokers.I see their point. I see yours.

Hugo slipped one in just in front of you and his thought about "when they can test to see if someone is actually under the influence of pot" is going directly to the point, I think. 

That's irrelevant because they CAN'T test to see WHEN you have smoked pot.

[tvguy]

This isn't a Repub/Dem/Lib thing.
If you have dirty urine and work for a company that tests... it's going to be your own damn fault if you get fired; or if something happens to you and you (or your family) are left without benefits.  A choice you made knowing full well what could happen.  In those cases, I have no sympathy.

ONLY lefftys smoke pot silly, didn't you know that


I don't have any sympathy either. And I agree with everything you just said.

But it has little to do with Wonky's point.

[tvguy]

http://medfordmailtribune.or.newsmemory....VlZXxxTXlg=

From that article: 

"Here’s the takeaway for employees in Oregon: You have the legal right to consume marijuana. But, if marijuana use is banned by your company, the company can fire you if you test positive. That means if you work for one of those companies, you’re going to want to check to see exactly what your company’s drug policy says. (If you’re an employer, this would be a good time to review your drug policy.) Don’t expect the courts to drive much change in this area: Judges in a number of states consistently have sided with employers."


So what if you work for someone who does not want you to drink a beer on your day off? Or, maybe you have been living with your girlfriend/boyfriend for years but never married? Or your employer knows you are an atheist? 


Your employer should not be able to dictate your lawful behavior, especially when off the job. 

Give me real world examples of these things being an issue with employers.  Cite them. Then compare them in a percentage with how many employers have NEVER had an issue with your weekend beer, your relationships, or your Religion.  Then, try to understand the percentage of people using recreational pot, and why your point becomes mute.

That being said, the first company to come up with a real test that can tell if you are under the influence of Marijuana, will become a very wealthy company.  Until that happens, I don't see where the employers have a choice.

Then compare them in a percentage with how many employers have NEVER had an issue with your weekend beer

Being a drinker and a pot smoker It's my personal opinion that hung over drinkers have caused a lot more accidents or other problems than anyone who smoked weed the day or week before.
 And the employer would never know if a guy who caused an accident was hung over or not.

So how is anyone going to "compare"

[chuck white]

I'm against drug testing at the workplace. I think people should wait until they get home to test drugs.


(besides why would you want to test drugs, that's what the homeless are for)

[Wonky3]

Repeating again from the article in the 1st post:

"Here’s the takeaway for employees in Oregon: You have the legal right to consume marijuana. But, if marijuana use is banned by your company, the company can fire you if you test positive. That means if you work for one of those companies, you’re going to want to check to see exactly what your company’s drug policy says."


And that's why I thought of the "slippery slope". They fired her not because she was stoned, and it's reported she had a legal right to use pot. They fired her because of "company policy". 


My thought was, what next? 


Guess I must have been stoned.  

[Hugo]

http://medfordmailtribune.or.newsmemory....VlZXxxTXlg=

From that article: 

"Here’s the takeaway for employees in Oregon: You have the legal right to consume marijuana. But, if marijuana use is banned by your company, the company can fire you if you test positive. That means if you work for one of those companies, you’re going to want to check to see exactly what your company’s drug policy says. (If you’re an employer, this would be a good time to review your drug policy.) Don’t expect the courts to drive much change in this area: Judges in a number of states consistently have sided with employers."


So what if you work for someone who does not want you to drink a beer on your day off? Or, maybe you have been living with your girlfriend/boyfriend for years but never married? Or your employer knows you are an atheist? 


Your employer should not be able to dictate your lawful behavior, especially when off the job. 

Well this subject has been discussed at length but yes I can see that now since smoking and even growing MJ is legal it's a little bit different.
I get the slippery slope aspect. Assuming you are thinking if employers can tell us not to do something that is legal then they can say whatever they want.
One one side I say so what? My wife wouldn't hire people who smoked cigarettes. How did she even know? she can smell them

But the difference is that employers can't test to see if someone is smoking weed on the job and their best bet to keep that from happening is to not hire pot smokers.I see their point. I see yours.

Hugo slipped one in just in front of you and his thought about "when they can test to see if someone is actually under the influence of pot" is going directly to the point, I think. 

That's irrelevant because they CAN'T test to see WHEN you have smoked pot.

Many companies are RACING to come up with one.  I hope they do.

[Valuesize]

I always thought the THC in the plant is what gets you high. Can't they just come up with a standard number to test for like they do for alcohol in your system? 

 

[tvguy]

I always thought the THC in the plant is what gets you high. Can't they just come up with a standard number to test for like they do for alcohol in your system? 

 

They can't test for alcohol days or weeks later. Alcohol disappears from your system in a matter of hours.

From what I understand THC depending on how much one smokes is retained in your body's fat cells because of the type of molecule it is. But I think your question is can they test for LEVELS of THC to determine WHEN a person smoked last.
I don't think so.
 

[Wonky3]

I always thought the THC in the plant is what gets you high. Can't they just come up with a standard number to test for like they do for alcohol in your system? 

 

They can't test for alcohol days or weeks later. Alcohol disappears from your system in a matter of hours.

From what I understand THC depending on how much one smokes is retained in your body's fat cells because of the type of molecule it is. But I think your question is can they test for LEVELS of THC to determine WHEN a person smoked last.
I don't think so. :P
 

And still, the original point was that it should not have mattered that this woman had THC in her blood. She was not high on the job and according to the report she had committed no illegal act. Her employer just did not approve of her smoking dope even when she was on her own time. 
So in this case testing was unnecessary and only done as a company policy. It should be irrelavant about ways to test when she last used MJ, and as long as her performance was good, her conduct away from the job should not have been an issue. 
But given that the employer can arbitrary make company policy about conduct away from the job, I suggested it was a "slippery slope", and explained my point in the previous post. 

I think employers have a right to choose people they feel are "a good fit" and have the right to ask employee's to conform to standards they feel are important that reflect on the company. But there MUST be limits on what they can ask of the people who work for them, and intruding on the personal lives of employees when it does not reflect adversely on the company is exercising power the company should not have.  

[tvguy]

I always thought the THC in the plant is what gets you high. Can't they just come up with a standard number to test for like they do for alcohol in your system? 

 

They can't test for alcohol days or weeks later. Alcohol disappears from your system in a matter of hours.

From what I understand THC depending on how much one smokes is retained in your body's fat cells because of the type of molecule it is. But I think your question is can they test for LEVELS of THC to determine WHEN a person smoked last.
I don't think so.
 

And still, the original point was that it should not have mattered that this woman had THC in her blood. She was not high on the job and according to the report she had committed no illegal act. Her employer just did not approve of her smoking dope even when she was on her own time. 
So in this case testing was unnecessary and only done as a company policy. It should be irrelavant about ways to test when she last used MJ, and as long as her performance was good, her conduct away from the job should not have been an issue. 
But given that the employer can arbitrary make company policy about conduct away from the job, I suggested it was a "slippery slope", and explained my point in the previous post. 

I think employers have a right to choose people they feel are "a good fit" and have the right to ask employee's to conform to standards they feel are important that reflect on the company. But there MUST be limits on what they can ask of the people who work for them, and intruding on the personal lives of employees when it does not reflect adversely on the company is exercising power the company should not have.  

  intruding on the personal lives of employees when it does not reflect adversely on the company is exercising power the company should not have

How is an employer supposed to know if an employee smokes on the job or not? Ask them?

The power you are talking about (drug testing) is the ONLY sure way an employer has to be sure their workers are not smoking on the job.

[Wonky3]

I always thought the THC in the plant is what gets you high. Can't they just come up with a standard number to test for like they do for alcohol in your system? 

 

They can't test for alcohol days or weeks later. Alcohol disappears from your system in a matter of hours.

From what I understand THC depending on how much one smokes is retained in your body's fat cells because of the type of molecule it is. But I think your question is can they test for LEVELS of THC to determine WHEN a person smoked last.
I don't think so.
 

And still, the original point was that it should not have mattered that this woman had THC in her blood. She was not high on the job and according to the report she had committed no illegal act. Her employer just did not approve of her smoking dope even when she was on her own time. 
So in this case testing was unnecessary and only done as a company policy. It should be irrelavant about ways to test when she last used MJ, and as long as her performance was good, her conduct away from the job should not have been an issue. 
But given that the employer can arbitrary make company policy about conduct away from the job, I suggested it was a "slippery slope", and explained my point in the previous post. 

I think employers have a right to choose people they feel are "a good fit" and have the right to ask employee's to conform to standards they feel are important that reflect on the company. But there MUST be limits on what they can ask of the people who work for them, and intruding on the personal lives of employees when it does not reflect adversely on the company is exercising power the company should not have.  

  intruding on the personal lives of employees when it does not reflect adversely on the company is exercising power the company should not have

How is an employer supposed to know if an employee smokes on the job or not? Ask them?

The power you are talking about (drug testing) is the ONLY sure way an employer has to be sure their workers are not smoking on the job.

I think I'd know when someone is stoned on the job. But maybe not. If not, then your point is well taken. But more to the point, this woman was fired NOT for smoking on the job, but for smoking on her own time and there was nothing indicating her work was impaired. And, she had done nothing illegal according to the story. That's why I said I think the company is exercising power is should not have. 
On the other hand, she knew the company policy was to drug test and that using MJ was against company policy. Maybe she should have honored their policy and looked for another job. 
Still, I hold to my "slippery slope" point about the kinds of activities companies should hold over our lives. What if I smoke tobacco, but don't smoke at work? Should the company be able to fire me for not adhering to policy? 
Just asking. 

[Cuzz]

I think I'd know when someone is stoned on the job. But maybe not. If not, then your point is well taken. But more to the point, this woman was fired NOT for smoking on the job, but for smoking on her own time and there was nothing indicating her work was impaired. And, she had done nothing illegal according to the story. That's why I said I think the company is exercising power is should not have. 
On the other hand, she knew the company policy was to drug test and that using MJ was against company policy. Maybe she should have honored their policy and looked for another job. 
Still, I hold to my "slippery slope" point about the kinds of activities companies should hold over our lives. What if I smoke tobacco, but don't smoke at work? Should the company be able to fire me for not adhering to policy? 
Just asking. 

I think that is already starting. My current employer is going to require participation in a "wellness" program. Not participating will reduce the company insurance premium share. It escalates over time so after about three years your premium share will go up hundreds of dollars while the company share will go down a like amount.

I don't object so much about the "wellness" program itself. I see the benefit and I've pretty much started my own regimen a couple years ago. What I do object to strongly is having to share my medical information with anyone but my family, my doctor and, because of necessity, my insurance company. That's getting a little too up in my business.