Although pot can stay in your body for a month, if you are taking a urine test and are of normal weight, it usually has to be quite a bit to stay that long, and usually for a while - seven days for someone with a normal weight and had a pot brownie or two would be far more normal.
As to the rationale, there are lots of workers out there right now and it can be difficult to tell when someone is slightly under the influence - but you really want your employees operating at their full capacity. People willing to do illegal drugs (and weed is still illegal) may be willing to do other illegal or unethical things - possibly things that could put your business at risk. I think its a little telling that I know a lot of IT professionals in the mid-90s that weren’t passing their drug tests but didn’t get fired - because they were needed - and when they needed to lay off people starting in 2000, suddenly drug use was a problem again. It sounds like this firm has a firm policy, but in a lot of cases, its really just an easy way to create selective turnover.
…{pulls out old rusty drum to beat on one…more…time}
As I like to point out in these situations - what bothers me is that the employers in these cases are drawing conclusions (drug use = bad in all cases always ever) that are largely based, IMHO, on myth.
What is the evidence that a small amount of marijuana use in off-hours has any direct measurable affect on safety or productivity or profitability? Can you demonstrate that there are other, more socially acceptable, behaviors that have a greater affect on safety or productivity or profitability? (If I were ever re-incarnated I would love to come back as an Economist and figure some of this stuff out…) In other words, we know that smoking cigarettes is “bad”, and we have health plans that encourage the reduction of smoking, etc., but we don’t fire people for it (usually). However, someone who smokes might be responsible for operating machinery and have a heart attack, causing a safety issue. Or miss work, causing productivity/profitability issues. Is this measurable? How does it compare to casual marijuana use? Which has the greater impact? As the King of Siam says - et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
This is just to say I am naturally skeptical of drawing conclusions that are not supported by evidence…
In the OPs case, I feel that the employer likely tossed out a valuable employee based on a conclusion (drug use = bad in all cases always ever) that is not supported by evidence.
An American labor union can fight against employer policies only when it is authorized to represent the employees at that workplace. And less than 10 percent of private sector employees are represented by a union.
I blazed occasionally until I got a job that at 18 didn’t require piss tests but needed me to have a security clearance where I might end up getting a piss test if some accident happened [which did occasionally. HazMat tech is a dangerous profession] so I didn’t blaze until I invalided out 3 years ago after a series of desk jobs.
I liked and preferred weed, but since I could get the same effect from alcohol, and it was legal I had no problem just kicking back with booze when relaxing. Being diabetic meant that I mostly didn’t actually drink for much of the latter years [I am now 52]. I would seriously love weed to become permanently legal recreationally or medicinally.
This is another factor employers need to consider. The OP isn’t clear on just exactly what kind of job the friend was doing, but if it might ever involve any kind of audit, or job results needed to be reviewed, testing positive for pot might be very bad for the company. I’m thinking if she does some kind of scientific testing, and a client didn’t like the results and wanted an investigation, if the person who did the testing shows positive for pot, that could cause huge hassles and destroy the relationship with that client.
It’s not about the impact of the drugs, it’s about following the rules. I work in the financial industry, and there are very strict rules about my personal financial activity. Even though it would be possible to violate the rules without having any impact on my job performance or my company, I don’t do it because violation is cause for termination. Sure it’s frustrating to have limitations on my non-work activity, but I like having my job enough to do what’s required.
Imagine an employer telling you not to use coffee. Or any caffeine.
Not just at work- anywhere, ever. In your own home, on your day off, you are forbidden to consume coffee.
Can you imagine that a slip in discipline could be possible, and can you imagine yourself enjoying a cappuchino in that situation?
The thing that really makes the policy idiotic though is that marijuana use can be detected days, weeks, or sometimes even months later. But drugs like alcohol, cocaine, speed, and opiates can only be detected for about a day after use.
So yeah, it might make sense to have a policy where you don’t want people coming to work high or drunk, so you have a drug test. Except the test of marijuana doesn’t test whether you’re high, it tests whether you’ve used pot in the last month.
So the moral of the story kids, is stick to heroin and meth if your workplace does drug testing.
Actually, when a buddy of mine was subject to surprise urine tests as a condition of his probation, he became a fan of LSD. He investigated the test that was being used along with its shortcomings.
The underlying question in all these kinds of employment threads is “SHOULD the employer (be allowed to) impose such a rule,” bit discussion always seems to jetted bogged down with the “the law allows them to have such a rule, so X was stupid and I would never have been so stupid.”
LSD is normally not tested for, or psilocybin. In addition there are “research chems” that can be used without showing on a drug test.
My problem with most drug testing is the arbitrary nature of it all.
You can use alcohol, and tobacco, and caffeine, all of which are dangerous and kill many, many people each year.
But because current drug law has no basis in fact, less dangerous drugs are strictly forbidden.
Having just completed 20 years of Military service, I was used to the random tests. Now as a civilian contractor doing the same job I am still subject to random testing, but it is much more lax. A few weeks ago I went to a college buddy’s wedding back in the old college town. I was staying with a different college buddy and his wife. They offered me a joint, which I refused, because I know that it might be a 1 in a million shot that I would get tested, but I am not willin to risk my career. We had a full company sweep this week, which would have gotten me fired if I had smoked. It is a simple decision, GamHat’s friend made the wronng one.
Specifically since the Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988.
It isn’t that the law allows employers to drug test, but rather that the law requires them to, if they want to do business with the Federal government.
The Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988 is a Reagan era law requiring that certain policies be put in place for employees of the Federal government. This law also applies to many/most private companies that either do business with them or receive grant money from them. This covers a lot of companies.
Having a drug free policy became part of the bidding process for contractors seeking business from the US government. So companies began to develop these programs to meet the requirement. Then the insurance companies began giving favorable accident insurance rates to companies with the DFWP policies in place and more companies instituted these programs.
Since the Drug Free Workplace Act is still the policy at the Federal level, it does not matter if half the states in the US completely legalize pot use. Those companies doing Federal business, or receiving grant money, will still have to adhere to these policies. And employees who use this now completely legal drug will still get fired for testing positive for use, unless the laws are changed.
It is the Drug Free Workplace Act that needs to be done away with. Businesses can’t really ignore it if they want a government contract. Some contractors, like the one my friend works for, now do only pre-employment and probable cause testing and have eliminated random tests as a way of complying.
And, that it’s legally offered for sale, in a wide variety of beverages (and some foods) at every restaurant, grocery store, drug store, and convenience store you can imagine, plus ubiquitous vending machines.
I’m diabetic; I avoid sugary soft drinks. If I want a diet soda at a restaurant, in most places, my only option is a caffeine-containing diet cola.
Every hiring company that I know of that isn’t a small business requires you to pee into a dixie cup at hire and makes you sign a waver to let them test you on demand going forward.
Nobody (who I know of or can attest to) who is looking for work seriously or is seriously thinking of changing jobs ever takes drugs, even pot.
I think someone here some years ago pointed out that the reason drug use never leaves the work place is because none of the Senior Management nor Any of the Board of Directors of the larger companies EVER get tested.
Aside from this, the Marketing Departments seem to be 100% exempt w/o fail in my personal observation in certain industries.
In at least one of the smaller companies I’ve worked for, one of the owner’s kids-on-payroll (being groomed to take over control of the company inside of 5 years) offered to Sell me pot.
Their response to my WTF was, “…yeah, here we call it thinking outside the box and supplementing income without hurting the company’s bottom line.” :rolleyes:
And, frankly, that’s something I can’t foresee happening any time soon.
Even if opinions about marijuana are slowly changing among the U.S. population (and I’m not entirely sure that they really are), being seen as “soft on drugs” is right up there with being “soft on crime” as a third-rail issue for American politicians. If your political opponents can tar you with that brush, in most Congressional districts, the odds of you surviving your next re-election are pretty slim.
In addition, voting to repeal something like the DFWA isn’t likely to be something that most politicians would see as helping them win more votes.
In short, for most politicians, even if they personally see it as a dumb law, they would see little or no political upside (and quite possibly a big political downside) for voting against it.
There have already been cases where the courts have upheld the firing of employees who have tested positive for pot use while possessing valid medical marijuana cards, in states where medical marijuana is legal.
Legal does not mean that the employers have to change the agreements that a person works under.