Employers can still fire Colorado pot smokers for legal use

[Shooby]

www.denverpost.com/marijuana/ci_24799683/employers-can-still-fire-pot-smokers-legal-use

As recreational cannabis sales begin Jan. 1, one fact is sometimes overlooked: Employers still can fire workers for using it on- or off-duty.

State law gives employers full authority to impose any drug prohibitions they wish, despite it being legal in Colorado for adults to possess and consume marijuana.

"Employers hold all the cards," said Curtis Graves, a staff attorney for the Mountain States Employers Council.

So you smoke only off-duty? Not good enough. Consuming just at home provides no protection if your workplace drug test comes back positive for marijuana.

Many employees may be enjoying a false sense of security stemming from passage last year of Amendment 64, which legalized marijuana possession for adults in Colorado.

"Right now there is a great deal of confusion," said attorney Danielle Urban of labor-law firm Fisher & Phillips in Denver. "People are surprised to learn that they can lose their jobs."

Amid the euphoria of approving legal pot, some cannabis enthusiasts may have overlooked a key piece of fine print in Amendment 64.

[ArchietheDragon]

This is true, but as the years pass, employers will be less and less and less inclined to do so. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 2, 2015 9:14:30 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

This is true, but as the years pass, employers will be less and less and less inclined to do so. 

It depends on how much of an impact marijuana use has on productivity, competency at work, etc.

If testing for marijuana becomes a semi-reliable proxy test for unproductive workers... hey, tests are cheap. Employees with drug problems aren't.

[ArchietheDragon]

Jan 2, 2015 9:46:29 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 2, 2015 9:14:30 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

This is true, but as the years pass, employers will be less and less and less inclined to do so. 

It depends on how much of an impact marijuana use has on productivity, competency at work, etc.

If testing for marijuana becomes a semi-reliable proxy test for unproductive workers... hey, tests are cheap. Employees with drug problems aren't.

But once employers start getting sued for wrongful termination due to discrimination every HR consultant in the country is going to start advising companies that they should not fire for legal medical MJ useage on personal time. 

[djAdvocate]

Jan 2, 2015 9:14:30 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

This is true, but as the years pass, employers will be less and less and less inclined to do so. 

not true.  i would give someone a warning for being at work impaired today, regardless of the legal standing of the drug.
if said person continued showing up impaired, i would fire them, and there is no legal recourse to keep them at work.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 2, 2015 9:46:29 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 2, 2015 9:14:30 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

This is true, but as the years pass, employers will be less and less and less inclined to do so. 

It depends on how much of an impact marijuana use has on productivity, competency at work, etc.

If testing for marijuana becomes a semi-reliable proxy test for unproductive workers... hey, tests are cheap. Employees with drug problems aren't.

it really depends on the drug.  some drugs contribute to productivity (such as caffeine), others don't.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 2, 2015 9:52:57 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Jan 2, 2015 9:46:29 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

It depends on how much of an impact marijuana use has on productivity, competency at work, etc.

If testing for marijuana becomes a semi-reliable proxy test for unproductive workers... hey, tests are cheap. Employees with drug problems aren't.

But once employers start getting sued for wrongful termination due to discrimination every HR consultant in the country is going to start advising companies that they should not fire for legal medical MJ useage on personal time. 

it is not discriminatory for an employer to fire an employee for being impaired.

[ken a.k.a OMK]

Security clearances are given by the Federal Government and you are subjected to random drug tests. Maybe there aren't many DoD jobs in Colorado.

[ArchietheDragon]

Jan 2, 2015 11:38:55 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 2, 2015 9:52:57 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

But once employers start getting sued for wrongful termination due to discrimination every HR consultant in the country is going to start advising companies that they should not fire for legal medical MJ useage on personal time. 

it is not discriminatory for an employer to fire an employee for being impaired.

True.  That is not what I was talking about, though. 

That said, companies are pushed harder and harder to work with employee with addictions, rather than fire them.   (we are becoming France where it is almost impossible to fire anyone!)

[luckyme]

We have a large health care provider in this area that prohibits smoking, even at home. 

Their current employees were given a certain length of time to quit or they would be terminated.  They will not hire anyone who smokes. 

So this, to me, isn't all that surprising.   

[Apple]

Even if it's legal at state level, it's still a federal offense.  People working for the federal government can still be fired for testing positive for thc, even if they work in a state where smoking pot is legal.  I would think private employers also have a right to fire anyone committing a federal offense, on or off the job.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 2, 2015 11:48:36 GMT -5 ken a.k.a OMK said:

Security clearances are given by the Federal Government and you are subjected to random drug tests. Maybe there aren't many DoD jobs in Colorado.

i am not sure how constitutional random drug testing is for non-safety related professions.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 2, 2015 12:02:35 GMT -5 Apple said:

Even if it's legal at state level, it's still a federal offense.  People working for the federal government can still be fired for testing positive for thc, even if they work in a state where smoking pot is legal.  I would think private employers also have a right to fire anyone committing a federal offense, on or off the job.

they have the right to fire anyone for any non-discriminatory reason.  if i don't like the clothes you wear, or how you smell, i can fire you.

businesses have standards.  you have to meet them to be employed by them.

[ArchietheDragon]

Jan 2, 2015 12:07:55 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 2, 2015 12:02:35 GMT -5 Apple said:

Even if it's legal at state level, it's still a federal offense.  People working for the federal government can still be fired for testing positive for thc, even if they work in a state where smoking pot is legal.  I would think private employers also have a right to fire anyone committing a federal offense, on or off the job.

they have the right to fire anyone for any non-discriminatory reason. m.

technically, yes.   practically, not really. 

[EVT1]

Jan 2, 2015 12:06:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 2, 2015 11:48:36 GMT -5 ken a.k.a OMK said:

Security clearances are given by the Federal Government and you are subjected to random drug tests. Maybe there aren't many DoD jobs in Colorado.

i am not sure how constitutional random drug testing is for non-safety related professions.

Already settled- not Constitutional.  Of course a private employer can do whatever the hell they want.

And if they could it would just be another waste of taxpayer dollars anyway.

[Deleted]

Jan 2, 2015 11:37:16 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 2, 2015 9:14:30 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

This is true, but as the years pass, employers will be less and less and less inclined to do so. 

not true.  i would give someone a warning for being at work impaired today, regardless of the legal standing of the drug.
if said person continued showing up impaired, i would fire them, and there is no legal recourse to keep them at work.

That's not what this particular article is pointing out though.

This particular article is about testing positive, and the possible being fired because of a positive on the test. You can smoke weed DAYS, even WEEKS, before a test and still "pop positive". Doesn't mean you are in any way impaired though... just that in recent history you had some.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 2, 2015 18:40:15 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 2, 2015 11:37:16 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

not true.  i would give someone a warning for being at work impaired today, regardless of the legal standing of the drug.
if said person continued showing up impaired, i would fire them, and there is no legal recourse to keep them at work.

That's not what this particular article is pointing out though.

This particular article is about testing positive, and the possible being fired because of a positive on the test. You can smoke weed DAYS, even WEEKS, before a test and still "pop positive". Doesn't mean you are in any way impaired though... just that in recent history you had some.

huh?  i don't understand why you bolded what you bolded.  i used the word TODAY to contrast it with "in the past" (which was what i was contesting).  and i didn't mention WEED in that response.

Richard- just a quick question- why are you going after me on even the most minor details?  you have some sort of issue that you would like to settle privately?

[Deleted]

Jan 2, 2015 19:28:30 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 2, 2015 18:40:15 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

That's not what this particular article is pointing out though.

This particular article is about testing positive, and the possible being fired because of a positive on the test. You can smoke weed DAYS, even WEEKS, before a test and still "pop positive". Doesn't mean you are in any way impaired though... just that in recent history you had some.

huh?  i don't understand why you bolded what you bolded.  i used the word TODAY to contrast it with "in the past" (which was what i was contesting).  and i didn't mention WEED in that response.

Richard- just a quick question- why are you going after me on even the most minor details?  you have some sort of issue that you would like to settle privately?

first paragraph: I bolded what I bolded to point out that it has no relevance to the issue at hand in the OP.

Second paragraph: Nope. No issue with you. I comment as I go along... that one I thought needed comment on. You are pretty good to debate against. I just thought, in this case, you misunderstood the issue since you were posting about working impaired, and this article wasn't about working impaired.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 2, 2015 19:37:47 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 2, 2015 19:28:30 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

huh?  i don't understand why you bolded what you bolded.  i used the word TODAY to contrast it with "in the past" (which was what i was contesting).  and i didn't mention WEED in that response.

Richard- just a quick question- why are you going after me on even the most minor details?  you have some sort of issue that you would like to settle privately?

first paragraph: I bolded what I bolded to point out that it has no relevance to the issue at hand in the OP.

i was responding to Archie, not the OP.  is that allowed here?, or must ALL REPLIES confirm to the OP, and respond ONLY to it?

Second paragraph: Nope. No issue with you. I comment as I go along... that one I thought needed comment on. You are pretty good to debate against. I just thought, in this case, you misunderstood the issue since you were posting about working impaired, and this article wasn't about working impaired.

once a thread starts going, i tend to NOT refer back to the OP.

for example, in the thread which we are now actively engaged, the OP has nothing to do with Voter ID, yet you seem to have no problem whatsoever with arguing in that vein.  so, either i am missing something in your logic, or you are not really following any.

good night.

[Deleted]

Jan 2, 2015 19:57:28 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 2, 2015 19:37:47 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

first paragraph: I bolded what I bolded to point out that it has no relevance to the issue at hand in the OP.

i was responding to Archie, not the OP.  is that allowed here?, or must ALL REPLIES confirm to the OP, and respond ONLY to it?

Second paragraph: Nope. No issue with you. I comment as I go along... that one I thought needed comment on. You are pretty good to debate against. I just thought, in this case, you misunderstood the issue since you were posting about working impaired, and this article wasn't about working impaired.

once a thread starts going, i tend to NOT refer back to the OP.

for example, in the thread which we are now actively engaged, the OP has nothing to do with Voter ID, yet you seem to have no problem whatsoever with arguing in that vein.  so, either i am missing something in your logic, or you are not really following any.

good night.

I hadn't noticed the drift in this thread yet. I do "follow the drift" too...

ETA: and the comment by Archie, that you quoted, made no reference (in the post, itself) to "working impaired".

[zibazinski]

Well, we have shop staff and office staff. I'm pretty sure one of the office staff is on steroids. He's as hormonal as an adolescent, for one thing. There's other symptoms but other than annoying, it isn't dangerous to anyone. The shop guys are another story. It isn't legal in Michigan, yet, but if it becomes so, we have two guys that probably will go for it. This cannot be allowed. So the "talk" will have to be given. 

[Angel!]

This article is a year old, pot has been recreationally sold for a year now in Colorado.

Colorado springs did not legalize the sale of recreational mj due to DoD jobs. They have air force academy, fort Carson, Peterson afb, Shriever afb, and norad. It is still legal to smoke and possess, but there aren't recreational stores.

[Shooby]

I think the problem with MJ is there isnt' a good test to tell if someone is acutely intoxicated or recently used it unlike alcohol which can be measured.  I think this is really going to open a can of worms for DUI laws in that State as lawyers grab hold of that.

[EVT1]

I see a couple of good points:

It is always OK to fire an impaired employee

It is legal to fire an employee that test positive for a drug test, even if A) they were never impaired at work B) had a prescription C) had a false positive D) had a valid positive for some shit they did on their own time weeks ago.   All of these reasons are bullshit IMO.

But the word is getting around that drug testing as pushed by the Regan administration is a complete failure, just like it is a failure testing welfare recipients.  It only benefits drug testing companies or 'occupational medicine' clinics where they exist for only this and protecting employers against workers comp claims.

The failure rates of drug tests should scare anyone that has to take one, and really the degradation of having to take one so you can work should piss off any American.  So why does the right wing and the Libertarians still push this bullshit when it goes against their own political philosophy?  Scalia in a dissent stated it exactly- because drug testing was politically symbolic message that shits on the 4th amendment.  He was not a fan of it at all- much less than the majority was which still put a halt to some of it.

[EVT1]

Jan 2, 2015 21:43:19 GMT -5 Shooby said:

I think the problem with MJ is there isnt' a good test to tell if someone is acutely intoxicated or recently used it unlike alcohol which can be measured.  I think this is really going to open a can of worms for DUI laws in that State as lawyers grab hold of that.

Not at all- DUI laws have included weed for a long time, and prescription drugs as well- that's why it is driving under the influence now and not driving while intoxicated.  Remember DWI- that was something dad could get busted for 20 years ago.  10 years before that it was go home Ed.  10 years before that it was have one for the road

Field sobriety covers it- they tell you to walk the straight line and you walk to pizza hut......

[Angel!]

They can test for impairment pretty well with a blood test. They have even set a legal driving limit of 5 nanograms/ml.

www.codot.gov/programs/alcohol-and-impaired-driving/druggeddriving/marijuana-and-driving

[djAdvocate]

Jan 2, 2015 19:59:25 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 2, 2015 19:57:28 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

once a thread starts going, i tend to NOT refer back to the OP.

for example, in the thread which we are now actively engaged, the OP has nothing to do with Voter ID, yet you seem to have no problem whatsoever with arguing in that vein.  so, either i am missing something in your logic, or you are not really following any.

good night.

I hadn't noticed the drift in this thread yet. I do "follow the drift" too...

ETA: and the comment by Archie, that you quoted, made no reference (in the post, itself) to "working impaired".

we were talking about employer/employee rights, and i was speaking as an employer.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 2, 2015 20:09:45 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Well, we have shop staff and office staff. I'm pretty sure one of the office staff is on steroids. He's as hormonal as an adolescent, for one thing. There's other symptoms but other than annoying, it isn't dangerous to anyone. The shop guys are another story. It isn't legal in Michigan, yet, but if it becomes so, we have two guys that probably will go for it. This cannot be allowed. So the "talk" will have to be given. 

drunks have always been a worse problem for me.  i did have one pothead.  i slowly demoted him to floorsweeper.  he got the message.

he is now one of my best employees.

[zibazinski]

  I think the lowest grunt job we have is washing the machines. DH says that's the worst job so of course when he was a young whippersnapper working for his dad, that was his job!

[EVT1]

Good story- a company I worked for got bought and they brought out mobile drug testing bus (this was a car dealership) and what happened was expected- they fired the people that tested positive EXCEPT the service writers and salesmen that were the top of the line- they let them into 'rehab'.  We are talking cocaine.  But they were the top performers.  It was tolerated.  We also has an advisor that visibly shaked- yet his numbers were so high no one said shit.  Guess my point is nobody is going to fire anyone that is good at their job