After how many years we have been fighting this battle

[OmaHusker]

[LutheranHusker]

I was thinking along the lines that testing at work may become more frequent. Let's use drinking vs smoking pot. A person goes out and drinks heavily on Saturday night as opposed to someone who drinks heavily and uses pot heavily. By Monday the person only drinking will not have any detectable trace of alcohol in their system whereas the person incorporating pot on Saturday could have THC detected in his/her system on Monday. Are you considered under the influence for drugs with some THC in your system?

That's kind of what I was getting at, too. A certain level of alcohol in your blood and you're under the influence. But aren't traces of THC still there days or weeks later? Now, a company can say "it's illegal, no matter what the amount...you're fired." but if it becomes legal, can a company take action for something that's in someone's system that may have had nothing to do with what was going on at work?

I'd think that could potentially be very problematic.

[SealBeachHusker]

Workplaces can enforce whatever level of punitive action they want with regard to drug/alcohol use, can't they?

So, yeah, if you worked at a bar or head shop, you're not likely going to suffer any consequences for showing THC use (or ever be tested for that matter). But if you work for a bank ... all depends on how strict they want to be.

Yeah, as I understand, only if impairment is on the job. My job makes me sign a policy that includes no drinking during lunch or being impaired by drugs or alcohol during the performance of my job duties.

But, can't see any legal way a job could restrict my use of alcohol on the weekend if it's completely legal to do so, and as long as I am not impaired during work hours. Wouldn't that be the same for legalized drug use?

[SealBeachHusker]

I was thinking along the lines that testing at work may become more frequent. Let's use drinking vs smoking pot. A person goes out and drinks heavily on Saturday night as opposed to someone who drinks heavily and uses pot heavily. By Monday the person only drinking will not have any detectable trace of alcohol in their system whereas the person incorporating pot on Saturday could have THC detected in his/her system on Monday. Are you considered under the influence for drugs with some THC in your system?

I don't think trace levels of THC constitute being under the influence. And, there a probably more sensitive tests that could detect alcohol use over the weekend as well.

[RedBlack&Blue]

I was thinking along the lines that testing at work may become more frequent. Let's use drinking vs smoking pot. A person goes out and drinks heavily on Saturday night as opposed to someone who drinks heavily and uses pot heavily. By Monday the person only drinking will not have any detectable trace of alcohol in their system whereas the person incorporating pot on Saturday could have THC detected in his/her system on Monday. Are you considered under the influence for drugs with some THC in your system?

I think this would be true. I'd imagine they could take punitive action if a certain level of the drug were detected. You might also see a tightening of company policies, and perhaps even a tighter level of testing.

There's another punitive workplace factor to consider, and that's the unspoken one.

Let's say you test positive for THC or alcohol. While the company may not be able to fire you on the spot, you might go on to the **** list, and anything you do will be scrutinized. One wrong move, and you're gone. Or, they just figure out a way to get rid of you.

Happens all the time for stuff a lot less serious than drugs.

[SealBeachHusker]

Certainly that's true at present with marijuana being illegal, but I don't think it would still be the case if marijuana was legal, like alcohol. If you work for a bank, no matter how strict they want to be, as long as you're not under the influence while at work, I don't believe they can take any punitive action against you for drinking while off-duty in the privacy of your home.

This was my thinking as well.

In either case, though, if use affects your job performance, I have no problem with a company or organization letting people go. Legalization isn't a free pass to act like a fool.

[McKinneyTXHusker]

That's kind of what I was getting at, too. A certain level of alcohol in your blood and you're under the influence. But aren't traces of THC still there days or weeks later? Now, a company can say "it's illegal, no matter what the amount...you're fired." but if it becomes legal, can a company take action for something that's in someone's system that may have had nothing to do with what was going on at work?

I'd think that could potentially be very problematic.

I sure can't say authoritatively, so am just speculating. Having said that, I think there would have to be levels established for THC just as there are today for alcohol. I believe that for alcohol .08 is considered under the influence, and its possible employers for some jobs may be able to insist on lower levels than that (not sure though.) But trace levels of alcohol can be present even if you've not had an alcoholic beverage in days. I'd think that similarly, trace levels of THC - which yes, can be detected for as long as 30 days after use - would have to be acceptable up to some level established as "under the influence" if marijuana is legalized.

[SealBeachHusker]

Most employers today don't want people working for them that show a disregard for the law. I come from an era where smoking pot was completely acceptable, even though it was illegal. Today I can go to parties where pot is available, and a large number of people pass not because it is illegal, but because it stays in your system and they work for an employer who does random drug testing. It's not worth losing your job over.

This is very true.

[Pops]

I think this would be true. I'd imagine they could take punitive action if a certain level of the drug were detected. You might also see a tightening of company policies, and perhaps even a tighter level of testing.

There's another punitive workplace factor to consider, and that's the unspoken one.

Let's say you test positive for THC or alcohol. While the company may not be able to fire you on the spot, you might go on to the **** list, and anything you do will be scrutinized. One wrong move, and you're gone. Or, they just figure out a way to get rid of you.

Happens all the time for stuff a lot less serious than drugs.

Most employers will work with a person...If tested and come up positive you can ask for help. EAP programs should be available

[SealBeachHusker]

I think this would be true. I'd imagine they could take punitive action if a certain level of the drug were detected. You might also see a tightening of company policies, and perhaps even a tighter level of testing.

There's another punitive workplace factor to consider, and that's the unspoken one.

Let's say you test positive for THC or alcohol. While the company may not be able to fire you on the spot, you might go on to the **** list, and anything you do will be scrutinized. One wrong move, and you're gone. Or, they just figure out a way to get rid of you.

Happens all the time for stuff a lot less serious than drugs.

Yeah, and after a few harassment lawsuits I'd imagine some new law that restricted testing or provided some other protection for people doing something that was legal.

[RedPhoenix]

Yeah, as I understand, only if impairment is on the job. My job makes me sign a policy that includes no drinking during lunch or being impaired by drugs or alcohol during the performance of my job duties.

But, can't see any legal way a job could restrict my use of alcohol on the weekend if it's completely legal to do so, and as long as I am not impaired during work hours. Wouldn't that be the same for legalized drug use?

If they can fire you for smoking cigarettes they can fire you for booze and/or anything else you consume.

[Huskers57]

just get it legalized already. jeez.

[SealBeachHusker]

If they can fire you for smoking cigarettes they can fire you for booze and/or anything else you consume.

At least give us a link to work with here...lol.

[RedPhoenix]

At least give us a link to work with here...lol.

Ok give me a second...

[Huskers57]

Ok give me a second...

time's up.

[RedPhoenix]

http://www.princelobel.com/news-publications-186.html -- No smokers

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-he...obese-workers/ -- No overweight

[Sonuvahusker]

I was thinking along the lines that testing at work may become more frequent.

If someone truly wants to win a war on drugs, that's how it's going to be done.

[SealBeachHusker]

If they can fire you for smoking cigarettes they can fire you for booze and/or anything else you consume.

I will say that my workplace's alcohol policy is fairly strict in that it doesn't even let me drink during my unpaid lunch hour. But, the "impaired" during the performance of my job duties in not specifically defined at all.

[SealBeachHusker]

http://www.princelobel.com/news-publications-186.html -- No smokers

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-he...obese-workers/ -- No overweight

Scary.

Although, some good news in there as well:

In most states, a prohibition against hiring smokers would not be lawful. Some states bar such policies explicitly, protecting the off-duty use of tobacco products. Other states more generally bar employers from limiting their employees' use of lawful products during non-working time. A few states go even further and bar employers from restricting any lawful activities of their employees during non-working hours. Overall, approximately 30 states have some form of express statutory protection for the off-duty conduct of employees.

Massachusetts does not currently have such a law. That does not mean, however, that Massachusetts employers can adopt policies like the one adopted by the MHA without legal ramifications. Most challenges elsewhere have, predictably, been on the grounds of discrimination and invasion of privacy.

[RedBlack&Blue]

http://www.princelobel.com/news-publications-186.html -- No smokers

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-he...obese-workers/ -- No overweight

I actually have no problem with these policies. Let them extend them to THC and alcohol use.

Given the high cost of medical care and that the employer bears that burden, they've got the right.

That said, I still don't think employers should be in the health care business, but that's a different discussion for a different thread.