Should workers be fired for weekend drug use?

Sorry, God will have to forgive me for not being a cheerleader for his creation of ganja.

If meth users didnt have a positive result on the tests, it is likely they werent tested, just collected. It costs around 900-1100 per test, and 200-500 per collection (depending where you are). I doubt that your meth friends 'passed'.

Ive met many a pot smoker who had problems working, getting to work, and staying out of accidents. Then again, I am a cop. I agree with Capro.

Drug laws, onerous or otherwise, are here to protect people who dont do stupid things like try to operate a 2 ton vehicle while high as a kite. Go figure.

 

Well, I did say "in moderation and responsibly." That rules out driving, working with heavy machinery, etc. But it is difficult to persuade people like me, who have seen with our own eyes, and experienced ourselves, no negative consequences from smoking marijuana. We learn to tune out the criticisms, because they are so absolutely different from what we see. Gen. 1:29 is enough for me, because "we ought to obey God, not men." (Can't recall which church father said that.)

The people passing the drug tests were in the military. The commander was upset that some of his best troopers were being booted out for smoking pot, when these same tests failed to identify bad troopers he knew for a fact were using some of the heavier drugs.

Sorry we disagree, but then, I'm not a cop, so we see different things from different perspectives. Most of the cops I know would like for marijuana to be legalized, for a number of reasons (including the potential to concentrate their limited resources on more important crimes, such as meth).

 

I am a UNION employee, and I stand strongly with the union despite my highly-conservative views of most other issues.

We granted our employer the right to take any IMPAIRED employee for testing, long as it included a GENERAL checkup for ANY cause of impairment, and that the policy applied to non-union employees as well. This most likely saved the life of one employee undergoing an attack of hypoglycemia(low blood sugat...can be rapidly fatal).

Any employee found to be impaired through alcohol or dope is given a "last-chance" agreement that they must complete a state-approved substance-abuse course(at company expense) and that if such employee ever again reports to work impaired by alcohol or any dope, he/she shall be immediately fired. So far, we've had two union employees plus one supervisor thus given "last chances". All three have managed to kick alcohol!

While we recognize the company's desire to keep intoxicants outta the work place, and our own desire to not work in a dangerous environment with some space cadet, we absolutely, positively will NOT permit the SLIGHTEST say-so over our PRIVATE LIVES. I believe we've compromised and met our employer half-way. As for on-the-job performance, everyone is expected to do his/her work in an acceptable manner. If someone can no longer do this, the company may investigate, and if the medical community finds a person is no longer able to perform satisfactorily, the company may assign this person to a job he/she CAN do, or place them on disability at 80% pay. (This works out to almost the same as ordinary take-home pay after taxes. Thus, some people cheat to try to obtain disability.)

We shall continue to vigorously resist ANY employer say-so over our private lives, including excessive overtime. Who's to say some diaper-heads won't buy our facility and try to impose THEIR personal standards upon us?

 

I was a cop in Ohio(hence my handle) and in this state, simple MJ possession is a MINOR MISDEMEANOR, same as running a stop sign. Our guideline was, "If it aint a suitcase full, don't bust; just confiscate." Why? If the amt. of pot isn't obviously a felony amount, only the LEAVES may be weighed, with EVERY seed & stem culled out. It just aint worth the trouble!

Do I believe pot use is a sin? YES, if the object is to get stoned. It DOES have a MEDICAL use, for glaucoma, and that's certainly no sin.

Do I want it legalized? NO! Why? Because that would open the door for people to drive stoned, or engage in other activity dangerous to others, while stoned....let alone eventually drive up medical costs because of the vast increase in LUNG CANCER it would bring about.

 

If what you do at home affects you during working hours, the company has that legal right.

If you test positive for drug use during the week, you are still being affected by the drugs during the work time.

 

With the test they use right now, marijuana will not show up for 5 or 6 days, and will stay in the fat cells for approx 30 days. Long after the effects wear off.

 

Up to there we can agree for the most part. Beyond that , I don't believe most people can check their addictions at the door. Test 'em. Offer help. Fail a second test? Fired. No exceptions.

 

If a person is so concerned about conflicts between their terms of employment at someone else's property and business and their privacy then they should find somewhere more agreeable to work rather than dictating to the property owner how he should extend the privilege of employment.

The "right to privacy" applies to government intrusions, not the expectations of a property owner in extending a privilege to another person.

It's not your company. It's his. You don't like the terms he demands then start your own company or find a job elsewhere. The idea that employees should be dictating the terms under which an owner should be allowed to protect his business and property is ludicrous.

Unless the employer was responsible for the injury, why should they be responsible for making up a job or paying them anything?

I know that this is a requirement to some extent or another. I am arguing the principle, not the reality.

What about the employer's right to vigorously resist the risks imposed on it by the "private" behavior of irresponsible people? Who are you or your union to tell an employer what amount of risk should be acceptable or whose research is to be believed about the short and long term effects of substance abuse as they relate to the workplace?

No one.

My personal belief is that the only "employment" rule there should be is that an individual contract has to be in place for a set period of time complete with terms agreed to by both parties.

Otherwise, there is nothing stopping your union from pooling its resources and starting an employee owned company.

The distortion of what constitutes a "right" is incredible today. Property rights were every bit as sacred as religious freedom to the founders. I am sure that they would be sickened by the idea that government would effectively destroy the property rights of business owners by allowing organized employees to dictate the terms under which the owner would be allowed to use his property.

 

What does that mean? You don't get high, you just enjoy the taste?

There is no "moderation" in impairing your judgment and awareness to the extent one does when they get high. We are exhorted as Christians to remain alert and sober. We shouldn't need an escape that incapacitates us.

 

Brother Curtis,

First - If an employee came to you and said, "I am currently an acting criminal, in violation of Federal Law, but I only violate the law on weekends and off-work hours," would you fight for his right to remain employed?

Second - If it stays in the blood system, it is still having an effect. It may not be an obvious effect, but it IS an effect.

 

Look, the bottom line is this. If I as an employer dont want someone who smokes a joint on Sunday woking for me on monday then I have that right. Union or no union. I work in a union shop but since Florida is a right to work state I choose not to join. As a matter of fact there are more workers not in the union than are in the union. But if someone tests positive for drugs they are not fired but have to go through a drug awareness program at their expense and can return once they test clean. If they want to continue in their vice then they can work somewhere else. That has happened twice so far. There was one guy (an engineer) who tested positive for marijuana, cleaned up and is back.
I just praise the Lord that I got delivered from that mess. Pot just makes you stupid.
As far as someone being able to perform while high on pot, think of what you could be if your mind was totally clear.

 

Bro Curtis writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some insurance providers require companies to drug test their employees.

----------------------
That is correct. In Ohio its the state workers comp board. They dont make the company submit, however, you dont get the HUGE discount if not in the program. Ive been a union construction worker for quite a long time and have seen some sites. Iron workers were the most fasinating. One joint and 2 shots before going up hundreds of feet in the air on skyscraper jobs, walking 6 inch beams. Couple of decades ago it wasnt unusual for the bosses to bring us out a couple of cases of beer for lunch before we went back on the roof. Times have changed. These owners are now subject to the drug tests the same as we are. And this was agreed to as part of union and management collective bargaining.

 

BTW, I don't think an employer should be limited to illegal substances.

I think they should be able to test for nicotene as well. Tobacco use causes cancer. The employer has a right to protect its assets and ability to continue to attract good employees with good, low cost insurance. One of the ways to do that is to not have smokers on the policy.

Employment is a privilege, not a right. The rights lie with the property owner so long as they do not recklessly endanger someone else.

 

Originally posted by TexasSky:
Brother Curtis,

First - If an employee came to you and said, "I am currently an acting criminal, in violation of Federal Law, but I only violate the law on weekends and off-work hours," would you fight for his right to remain employed?

I would not make the employee prove he wasn't breaking the law. Drug testing is a violation of innocent until proven guilty. If his lawbreaking interfered with his job performance, including time off for a jail sentence, then I would not support his continued employment.

Second - If it stays in the blood system, it is still having an effect. It may not be an obvious effect, but it IS an effect.

The only affect is that you may test positive. You will not be stoned two days after smoking. And it doesn't stay in the blood, but is stored in the fat cells. There is no test yet to see how much THC is in the bloodstream.

 

Should we test for gluttony, as well ? After all, It's been proven without a doubt that athletic people like me can outwork several fat slobs. What if somebody's work is being hindered by their donut consumption ? Shouldn't we test to make sure ? I'm sure donuts have cost companies health care $$$$.

 

There is no "moderation" in impairing your judgment and awareness to the extent one does when they get high. We are exhorted as Christians to remain alert and sober. We shouldn't need an escape that incapacitates us.

I'm astounded at the beliefs some have concerning this. In some 30 years, I have never been incapacitated by weed. I've known plenty to be incapacitated by drink, however, which is legal. I have had 170+ SH of college with a 4.0 GPA. I've excelled at every job I had. This is not atypical for a lot of people who smoke pot.

Anymore, I mostly smoke because it helps to relieve my pain; otherwise, everything I earn would be going into painkillers. Fortunately, I work for myself now, 70+ hours/week.

BTW, the hair test (which my wife's employer conducts) can measure pot for one year after quitting; it is most certainly not having an effect as long as it tests positive.

Either you don't know what moderation is, or you've never smoked pot.

 

What about what all that weed smoking is doing to your lungs? Have you had a chest x-ray lately? Besides the fact that you are breaking the law and should go to jail.

 

I put in 30 years on the Seattle Police Force. Most of the working cops I personally know think pot should be legal.

 

But for the time being it is illegal. If you want it legalized contact your congressman and get to work on it.

 

Yes, they may be fired, because a company has the sovereign right to make rules and regulations and to fire people for breaking them. It's the same argument as DWI....."But, officer, I wasn't drinking while driving, I only drank a few hours ago..." LOL! Give me a break! Of course this assumes there is a reason to test the person. Testing someone just out of the blue, that should only be done in Major League Baseball!

Cheers, Bluefalcon