Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
Let’s see how union handles it, however employer has a right to mitigate their losses or potential losses, their is not right to use drugs and work at the employers expense.
I don't know if they have a union but it's irrelevant --- the state law declares they cannot fire somebody on the basis they did.
And again --------- there are no "drugs" involved, NOR is there any evidence that he used anything within the workplace or the workday. AGAIN, the test for cannabinoids DOES NOT identify any kind of current intoxication as would, say, a breathalyzer would identify alcohol content in the blood. It can't. What it does indicate is that the subject had some contact with cannabis some time in the last MONTH. That has zero to do with whether he's impaired in the present.
And AGAIN, if such an employer were actually genuinely interested in worker impairment and workplace safety, they could easily administer a simple reflex test at the start of the shift that would identify ANY such impairment whether from a legal drug, an illegal drug, cannabis, alcohol, creeping illness the worker may or may not be aware of, fatigue, distraction by personal issues, or any other cause, and they would have their answer instantly and they would spend less money doing it and they would be honest about it.
But that's not what they do, is it.
Ever see an employer administering breathalyzer tests to everybody as they come in? Because I worked with an alcoholic who was schnockered every day (and everybody knew it) --- and he was a truck driver. So this is what hypocrisy looks like.
SEE the context. What's going on here is institutional behavior control, right down to "what you're doing at home in your off time". Would you kneel down if an employer insisted they could read all your emails and listen in on all your phone calls? How 'bout if they made installing a camera in your bedroom a condition of employment?
This is the same thing.
I don’t give a damn what the state law is, they have a right to limit risk and if that person got hurt at work, he would most certainly sue the employer because he was a dumb shit.
But the state does. And it doesn't allow this.
We posted this back in 101 and apparently it was ignored but it's not going away. Still looks like this:
>> Section 36-2813 of the AMMA reads, in part:They're not allowed to fire him for that test. Simple as that.
B. Unless a failure to do so would cause an employer to lose a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations, an employer may not discriminate against a person in hiring, termination or imposing any term or condition of employment or otherwise penalize a person based upon either:
1. The person’s status as a cardholder.
2. A registered qualifying patient’s positive drug test for marijuana components or metabolites, unless the patient used, possessed or was impaired by marijuana on the premises of the place of employment or during the hours of employment. <<
And AGAIN --- "risk" is not in play here at all, because, AGAIN --- the piss test does not, and can not, establish impairment. And that simple fact is not going away either.
Like I said, we will see how it plays out, the same as I said before. No difference in my stand.
I know you said that. You always say that, even when presented with the facts. But gods forbid you should actually acknowledge them.
God forbid you don’t get your way all the time. I believe the state law will not stand. What else do you want? You want me to lie to you to make you go away? That is not going to happen. I believe it is a right for a business that takes the risk of hiring employees to determine what they allow as risk. You don’t like my opinion, too bad soo sad.