Memo my former employer put out on friday

bedspirit said:

Check out this memo that my former employer put out on Friday:

11/09/12

To : All *** Employees

From : **********

*** provides this memo in response to the recent passage of Initiative 502 concerning the legalization of marijuana. *** wants to make clear its expectation regarding drug use and the consequences to eliminate any confusion.

***’S DRUG POLICIES REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. *** CONTINUES TO PROHIBIT YOU FROM EITHER USING MARIJUANA OR HAVING MARIJUANA IN YOUR SYSTEM DURING WORK PERIODS.

*** will continue to test for marijuana in accordance with its drug testing procedures. If you are drug tested ( and you probably will be, due to our random drug testing policy ) and are found to have marijuana in your system, that fact will be reported to *** as a positive drug test. At that time, you will have to go through the same steps that you would go through if you tested positive for cocaine, heroine, or any other illegal drug in order to keep your job. A second positive test within 7 years will result in an automatic termination of your employment.

Simply put: you still can’t smoke marijuana if you wish to work at ***.

If you have any questions regarding this notice m please feel free to call me at Ex. ***.​

Click to expand...

i can understand them writing that. From a business/legal pov.

Sucks balls.

I see a wrongful termination lawsuit coming already....

WeedPublican said:

I see a wrongful termination lawsuit coming already....

Click to expand...

And i welcome it. Don't think it'll change anything though.

WeedPublican said:

I see a wrongful termination lawsuit coming already....

Click to expand...

nothing changes on that front
legal or not you voluntarily work for your employer. He has the right to make those rules

If I remember correctly, the law does contain language that defines an amount of THC that has to be in your system to get a DUI. So as far as the police are concerned, there is an acceptable level of THC. This company is not allowing for that safe level. While it's true that it may not break any laws for them to do this, I would argue that this is a unique circumstance that should be addressed. I not aware of many other legal activities that a company can ban as a condition of employment. I'm sure others on this site can think of some examples.

bedspirit said:

If I remember correctly, the law does contain language that defines an amount of THC that has to be in your system to get a DUI. So as far as the police are concerned, there is an acceptable level of THC. This company is not allowing for that safe level. While it's true that it may not break any laws for them to do this, I would argue that this is a unique circumstance that should be addressed. I not aware of many other legal activities that a company can ban as a condition of employment. I'm sure others on this site can think of some examples.

Click to expand...

Employers can already fire you for having nicotine in your blood if it is their company policy. If they can do that for tobacco they sure can do it for marijuana

bedspirit said:

If I remember correctly, the law does contain language that defines an amount of THC that has to be in your system to get a DUI. So as far as the police are concerned, there is an acceptable level of THC. This company is not allowing for that safe level. While it's true that it may not break any laws for them to do this, I would argue that this is a unique circumstance that should be addressed. I not aware of many other legal activities that a company can ban as a condition of employment. I'm sure others on this site can think of some examples.

Click to expand...

Smoking cigs :/

By Kristen Gerencher, MarketWatch
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- It was the shot heard around U.S. company watercoolers, especially for those who smoke during off hours.
An employer in the business of administering other companies' benefits decided to eliminate smokers from its work force by randomly testing them for nicotine in their blood or urine. The zero-tolerance tobacco policy applies to smokers in general, not just those who light up on company time.
Weyco Inc., an employee-benefits administrator in Okemos, Mich., had been building up to the ultimatum for several years before four employees who opted not to take the smoking test left the company in January, founder and chief executive Howard Weyers said.
In early 2003, Weyco quit hiring tobacco users and by fall had forbidden the staff from smoking on the premises. Starting in 2004, the firm added a tobacco "assessment" of $50 a month per worker who smoked and didn't go to a cessation class. Weyco had given its employees a 15-month advance notice that those who still smoked on or off the company's watch by January 2005 would be terminated, Weyers said.

That's not true in all 50 states:

http://www.businessknowhow.com/manage/smoking-legal.htm

It's not a hopeless situation.

How about requiring random prostate exams. If semen is found in your rectum, you're fired. Actually they should be able to burn you alive like it says in the bible.

They will have to pet me first. cn

Canna Sylvan said:

How about requiring random prostate exams. If semen is found in your rectum, you're fired. Actually they should be able to burn you alive like it says in the bible.

Click to expand...

While were at it, random house searches, everyone should be ok with this since no one ever has anything to hide.

NoDrama said:

While were at it, random house searches, everyone should be ok with this since no one ever has anything to hide.

Click to expand...

You do know that airlines require airline pilots to abstain from alchohol for 24 hours before flying......right?

ChesusRice said:

You do know that airlines require airline pilots to abstain from alchohol for 24 hours before flying......right?

Click to expand...

i used to keep the hot tub open late for pilots who stayed at the hotel i worked at some years ago. they would stay up until 2 or 3 drinking and get 7 am wake up calls. this was before the drunken pilot fiasco that happened in florida some years ago.

ChesusRice said:

You do know that airlines require airline pilots to abstain from alchohol for 24 hours before flying......right?

Click to expand...

Good then, blood tests for every pilot before take off to ensure compliance. While were at it, a Breathalyzer device in every car that must be blown by an authorized user before it will go into gear. Why not give TSA agents the authority to randomly select airline passengers for body cavity searches? After all, terrorists are saying they intend to put devices inside their bodies now. These are things I assume you would be OK with.

Nodrama,
I totally agree. Unless you're a Muslim. Look at how harshly we treated them since 9/11. It's only fair we give them a free pass from TSA, otherwise all we're doing is perpetuating hate, bigotry and racism.

WeedPublican said:

I see a wrongful termination lawsuit coming already....

Click to expand...

How? If they are receiving federal funds, it is required that the company abides by federal laws, which strictly prohibit the consumption of marijuana...
Even if they are not, it is the choice of any private employer to set the restrictions he wants in terms of the social status of his employees; businesses fire employees all the time after finding out they were given a DUI.

ChesusRice said:

nothing changes on that front
legal or not you voluntarily work for your employer. He has the right to make those rules

Click to expand...

so if i choose to employ people and institute a No Liberals policy,, i can fire you if i find out you voted for a democrat green or socialist right?

what about No Sodomy rules in employment contracts?
Tobacco prohibition in employment contracts?
prohibition of abortion in employment contracts?

your employer should not be able to test you and fire you for ANYTHING you do on your own time, including political, sexual,, and recreational activities.

Canna Sylvan said:

How about requiring random prostate exams. If semen is found in your rectum, you're fired. Actually they should be able to burn you alive like it says in the bible.

Click to expand...

STONING is the punishment for sodomy (and not the fun kind) burning was for witches,, and that was only started in the 10th century or so during the first witch hunting craze.

also, it depends on the sort of witch.

some must be hanged, others must be drowned, some must be entombed alive, some must be put in a sack and fired off a cliff, some must be eaten by wild dogs or bears, some must be staked through the heart, others must be decapitated by a sword blessed by a bishop or higher and some must be burnt alive and then drowned...

you can read more about how to find, identify and exterminate witches in the Malleus Malefacarum, "The Witch Hammer" at your local library!