My friend just got summarily fired from her job for a pot brownie

[shiftless]

Some places have good reason to test, for security personal or heavy equipment operators for example, but I’ve never understood the need for those of us who sit at a desk all day. Either we do our work corectly or not. So, I’ve always assumed that companies test for drugs so they can use it as an excuse to fire people they don’t want or to cover their asses in the case accidents. "Yes, our employee did drop a piano from ten stories up, crushing poor Mrs Hollingsworth and her toy poodle, but we have proof that he used pot within the last 30 days so it’s his fault.

[JFLuvly]

Irishman,

I have not posted in a while and I should have mentioned that I am in Canada and I am a legally prescribed marijuana user. Even-though I am a federally licensed user, I still can’t get past the pre-screen and to me that seems discriminating. I’ll add that my marijuana use does not seem to have any effect on me the day after, if anything I am more aware of what is going on around me because as I said earlier I sleep much better at night while using it. That being said I don’t think I should be automatically disqualified for safety sensitive jobs such as driving any more than an Ativan patient.
As far as I know there are saliva tests available which indicate marijuana use within two hours or so before the test is administered, although I have no idea as to the accuracy.

[KaylaLynn]

@Machine_Elf

Maybe they’re unnecessary quotes.

OMG! That is a really funny blog!

[Leaper]

That blog makes me angry.

[Leaffan]

@KaylaLynn

OMG! That is a really funny blog!

Wow. That is “certainly” a weird “blog” about “superfluous” quotes. Almost as funny as “engrish.com.”

[alphaboi867]

@Leaffan

Is there any other country in the world that tests run-of-the-mill employees for drugs?

I mean really, what employees do on their own time is their own business.

Puritanical USA at its finest.

I imagine Singapore is even worse.

[SweetLucy]

Yeah, the War on Drugs has been a smashing success :rolleyes:

I’ve never used any illegal drugs and have no desire to, but I think it should be a choice and not a crime

[Leaffan]

@alphaboi867

I imagine Singapore is even worse.

Man. I once had to transfer planes through Singapore. I was scared as hell just from reading the signs in the airport. Death penalty for importation, etc.

[Bozuit]

@Northern_Piper

I would say it’s very libertarian. The employer has complete liberty to make random drug tests part of the job requirements, with an absolute right to dismiss if there’s a positive result.

The employee has complete liberty to take the job or not, depending whether the employee is okay with those job conditions.

The government stays out of the employment relationship on this issue and does not attempt to regulate it.

Sounds pretty libertarian to me.

You make a good point. I think what I meant was that the culture as a whole that makes drug-testing so prevalent and acceptable doesn’t seem very libertarian. I suppose there’s libertarianism where you keep your nose out of other people’s personal stuff, and libertarianism where you take the attitude that you’re welcome to use the power you have over people to stick your nose into their personal stuff.

Maybe I was just baked.

[Bouncer]

@DrumBum

I have never quite understood the rationale for testing office workers for drugs like pot. Pilots, rig workers, and the like I can understand but tossing an employee for smoking pot at home last weekend seems a tad excessive. They do not have testing here, either because they trust us or the laws here do not permit it. In the US offices, they test in the states that permit it.

I would say it’s for two reasons.

One, they want to avoid lawsuits and so it’s a blanket policy. No one can claim to be singled out by color, religion, sex etc if it affects everyone across the board. Nor do they want to end up in front of the department of labor explaining why this position requires testing but that position doesn’t for every possible position within the company.

Two, it’s an issue of trust. In that sense that you are (at some point) told before being hired that you will be subject to screening (usually either in the ad for the job or application process). If you do not reveal usage prior to hiring, or do not reveal usage during employment, you are knowingly lying to the company/organization about consumption of these drugs. And that goes to trust. If you’re willing to lie about pot usage, you might also lie about heroin usage. Or theft. Or you might be subject to blackmail if you work with proprietary data or secured systems.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

[handsomeharry]

@GameHat

Sigh. You wish it would be over something more serious.

It was over something more serious: her inability to keep her mouth shut. She has learned 2 valuable lessons, hopefully. 1. Keep her mouth shut and 2. The company enforces it’s code, whatever it is.

Glad to hear that she won’t starve.

Also, the correct answer to ‘have you ever been fired for cause?’ is “No.”

[Irishman]

@KaylaLynn

OMG! That is a really funny blog!

I think you mean, That is a “really funny” blog!

@handsomeharry

Also, the correct answer to ‘have you ever been fired for cause?’ is “No.”

That would be factually incorrect. Not sure what her termination papers would reflect.

[Irishman]

nevermind - server error made me think it didn’t go through

[the_diego]

@Rick

But picture this. Let’s suppose I hire a new tech and I don’t drug test him. Now let’s further suppose that on his first day he is in an auto accident that is his fault and he is higher than a kite.
With no pre-employment drug screen the injured party’s lawyer is going to make me and my dealership look like the largest bunch of idiots that ever twisted a wrench. The lack of a drug screen could also add maybe an extra zero to the settlement.
I believe that our insurance company requires a drug screen before employment. FTR we also do a background check for criminal matters. I have had people I could not hire due to background checks.

Gotcha. But here’s the problem: a drug test can be positive and yet the employee is neither culpable nor does he pose a risk to the organization. I enter a room in a party and I see people sniffing crack. I leave but the chemical is already in my system. What’s the crime and the risk to my company?

[wonky]

@the_diego

Gotcha. But here’s the problem: a drug test can be positive and yet the employee is neither culpable nor does he pose a risk to the organization. I enter a room in a party and I see people sniffing crack. I leave but the chemical is already in my system. What’s the crime and the risk to my company?

As far as I know, all drug tests have a threshold. Below that threshold, you may have a little bit of a drug in your system, but not enough to test positive. The standard hypothetical of hanging out in a room with pot smokers, or eating a poppy seed muffin are covered by this.

[handsomeharry]

@aNewLeaf

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?

I can. And, I can also imagine losing my job if I were to shoot my mouth off about it.

[Magiver]

I knew someone who was hit in the company parking lot by another employee and the policy was that both people submitted to the test. 20+ years in a good paying job out the window over smoking pot. Sad. The policies AFAIK started in the transportation business to screen out pilots and truckers who caused an accident.

I can understand it when applied to accidents having nothing to do with whether it’s legal or not. If you’re drunk or high then you shouldn’t be operating equipment. I would think the woman in question had some kind of legal foot to stand on in this regard.

[Northern_Piper]

Just came across a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada from June, which held that the employer cannot unilaterally impose random alcohol tests in the workplace; must demonstrate a clear need for such tests.

Workplace Alcohol Testing: Canada’s Supreme Court Rejects Mandatory, Random Checks

In 15 years before the policy was imposed, there were only eight instances in which a worker was found to be under the influence of alcohol and none involved an accident or injury.

In the 22 months the policy was in effect, no one tested positive.
…

“In the end, the expected safety gains to the employer in this case were found by the board to range ‘from uncertain … to minimal at best’ while the impact on employee privacy was found to be much more severe,” Justice Rosalie Abella wrote for the majority.

"Consequently, the board concluded that the employer had not demonstrated the requisite problems with dangerousness or increased safety concerns such as workplace alcohol use that would justify universal random testing.

“Random alcohol testing was therefore held to be an unreasonable exercise of management rights under the collective agreement. I agree.”

[Una_Persson]

@Leaffan

Well, of course there’s a bit of a difference between mining jobs and cubicle jobs. But still, it perplexes me.

Several people have tried to say that cubicle/office workers being tested doesn’t make sense, but I can think of many exceptions. I’m one; I’m a Licensed Professional Engineer and as such I can approve designs and reports which could directly impact public safety. I can be fired for a single positive test unless a re-test comes up negative.

Everyone at my company knows it and we all signed a form saying we knew it. And contrary to an earlier posting, yes it is legal for my company to deny people medical marijuana use while being employed. It’s been tested in court.

I have no reaction one way or the other. I’m in favor of controlled legalization, but have never, not even once, tried any illegal drug. And I’m not sacrificing a 6-figure career and a comfy office at a place I sincerely love to work, just so I can eat a pot brownie and giggle a lot. If I had an actual medical need, I’d feel differently.

[JFLuvly]

And contrary to an earlier posting, yes it is legal for my company to deny people medical marijuana use while being employed. It’s been tested in court.

I would be very interested seeing the cite for that.