Colorado court: Workers can be fired for using marijuana off-duty

[tod evans]

This is a difficult one for me 'cause I think employers should be able to fire anyone for any reason but I also think smoking weed isn't cause to fire somebody.

In the end I side with the dude writing the check...



Colorado court: Workers can be fired for using marijuana off-duty

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/15/colorado-court-workers-can-be-fired-for-using-marijuana-off-duty/?intcmp=latestnews

Colorado's Supreme Court has ruled that a medical marijuana patient who was fired after failing a drug test cannot get his job back.

The case has big implications for employers and pot smokers in states that have legalized medical or recreational marijuana. Colorado became the first state to legalize recreational pot in 2012.

Though the Colorado case involves medical marijuana, the court's decision could also affect how companies treat employees who use the drug recreationally.

Brandon Coats is a quadriplegic who was fired by Dish Network after failing a drug test in 2010. The company agreed that Coats wasn't high on the job but said it has a zero-tolerance drug policy.

Courts in California, Montana and Washington state also ruled against medical marijuana patients fired for pot use.

[Ronin Truth]

How about getting drunk or smoking tobacco off-duty?

[tod evans]

How about getting drunk off-duty?

I'm good with that too....

I'm also good with the dude writing checks firing your ass for it...

[timosman]

Why did he agree to the drug test ?

[specsaregood]

How about getting drunk or smoking tobacco off-duty?

Sure why not? Some employers already test for alcohol and tobacco.

[luctor-et-emergo]

Well Tod, I fully agree with you that the person writing the check gets to decide who they hire.

I just don't think that when you enter into a contract with a business as an employee your private life is part of this contract. So it's a difficult one here. In a pure free market economy I'd be fully on the side of the employer but as it stands right now.. In this economy there's still a tendency to fire people for stupid reasons like this. In a pure free market economy the reasoning would be more along the lines of, is someone doing their job correctly, are they a good part of the team... A real free market business wouldn't care about what their employees do in their spare time, unless it's impacting their job performance.

So in principle I'm with you, the employer gets to decide. How the world currently works ? I just think it's a shame people are being f-ed with over something that's pretty irrelevant. It really irritates me that it's 2015 and pot is still demonized. As long as it's not normalized into society I'm on the side of this guy. Generally speaking, I'm for the little guy who's not bothering anyone but is being messed with.

[EBounding]

I would imagine prescription medicine is excluded from the "zero-tolerance" policy, so I'm glad they ruled in favor of the worker.

I'm sure more companies will revise their polices as legalization becomes more widespread.


EDIT: Whoops. Misread the title. :o It'd be interesting to see more details.

[luctor-et-emergo]

I would imagine prescription medicine is excluded from the "zero-tolerance" policy, so I'm glad they ruled in favor of the worker.

I'm sure more companies will revise their polices as legalization becomes more widespread.
They did not rule in favor of the worker.

[Slave Mentality]

http://azmarijuana.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Pot-Jobs-420careers.jpg

[dannno]

Here is my question - if they fired him for using a big pharma prescription medication, how would the court rule? If they would rule differently, then I have a big problem with this. Why should the government discriminate against what kind of medicine people use?

[dannno]

http://azmarijuana.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Pot-Jobs-420careers.jpg

Fuuuck man, I could do that..what the hell am I doing at a desk right now?!??

[timosman]

Fuuuck man, I could do that..what the hell am I doing at a desk right now?!??

Hanging out in quiet desperation ?

[dannno]

Hanging out in quiet desperation ?

It's the English way.

[tod evans]

Seeing as how this is a large company it'd be interesting to see them countersued for the fact that this dude was forced to endure employment alongside and under the direct supervision of employees who are still consuming SSRI's and diuretics since both are "controlled" and their use by other employees directly affects his work environment...

The issue doesn't seem to have been litigated well but that doesn't sway my belief that the check writer decides who works and who doesn't...

[tod evans]

Here is my question - if they fired him for using a big pharma prescription medication, how would the court rule? If they would rule differently, then I have a big problem with this. Why should the government discriminate against what kind of medicine people use?

They shouldn't and it's 100% wrong....

I just posted about SSRI's and diuretics..

[luctor-et-emergo]

Fuuuck man, I could do that..what the hell am I doing at a desk right now?!??

250k is enticing.. Ag/plant scientists get 40-45k here, maybe 60 for a research job. I doubt that will last very long though as this market is still volatile and trying to reach some sort of equilibrium.

[Ronin Truth]

Sure why not? Some employers already test for alcohol and tobacco.

Good to be retired and out of the old rat race.

[Cap]

Good to be retired and out of the old rat race.Sure is.

[asurfaholic]

Well Tod, I fully agree with you that the person writing the check gets to decide who they hire.

I just don't think that when you enter into a contract with a business as an employee your private life is part of this contract. So it's a difficult one here. In a pure free market economy I'd be fully on the side of the employer but as it stands right now.. In this economy there's still a tendency to fire people for stupid reasons like this. In a pure free market economy the reasoning would be more along the lines of, is someone doing their job correctly, are they a good part of the team... A real free market business wouldn't care about what their employees do in their spare time, unless it's impacting their job performance.

So in principle I'm with you, the employer gets to decide. How the world currently works ? I just think it's a shame people are being f-ed with over something that's pretty irrelevant. It really irritates me that it's 2015 and pot is still demonized. As long as it's not normalized into society I'm on the side of this guy. Generally speaking, I'm for the little guy who's not bothering anyone but is being messed with.

The thing is that most people in USA who are not top executives do not enter into a contractual employment. They willingly enter a conditional one and do not seek to negotiate any details of employment past hire date and starting salary.

Most people are just glad to be hired in to a new company and probably don't want to "push it" by whipping out a contract agreement form for their entry level position.

[erowe1]

How about getting drunk or smoking tobacco off-duty?

If employers want to make those things criteria for employment, it's none of the state's business.

[timosman]

If employers want to make those things criteria for employment, it's none of the state's business.

What if "those things" violate employees constitutional rights a.k.a. "civil liberties" as some call them ? Does this make the contract void ?

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/short-cvs-employees-forced-report-body-weight-quit-smoking-pay-article-1.1294421

[Brian4Liberty]

This is a difficult one for me 'cause I think employers should be able to fire anyone for any reason but I also think smoking weed isn't cause to fire somebody.


You can fire anyone for any reason until the government tells you that you can't. Protected classes and protected activities.

[tod evans]

You can fire anyone for any reason until the government tells you that you can't. Protected classes and protected activities.

This is exactly why I made the decision to be a one man band who on occasion hires subs...

Early '70's my neighbor ran a several hundred man union masonry shop and every man he fired was let go for personal differences. That probably doesn't float any more..

[libertarianMoney]

Here is my question - if they fired him for using a big pharma prescription medication, how would the court rule? If they would rule differently, then I have a big problem with this. Why should the government discriminate against what kind of medicine people use?

That's what I'm still wondering.

If we're going to beat around the bush saying weed is medicine, should we treat it like any other medicine.

I highly doubt companies can discriminate based on which medications their employee takes. (If they could, wouldn't they intentionally remove high cost employees to lower insurance costs?) Perhaps I don't want people drugged up on anti-depression medicine while they're off the job (or even on the job,) could I fire them? What about if they were getting treated with chemotherapy or something?

The worst part is that this whole problem could have been avoided if they just let the private contracts stand. (The employee signed up for it.) Now we're left with thousands of willy nilly court rulings to define some stupid arbitrary border that almost inevitably will make no sense to anyone that thinks it over.

[erowe1]

What if "those things" violate employees constitutional rights a.k.a. "civil liberties" as some call them ? Does this make the contract void ?


No, that doesn't make the contract void. If I want to enter into a contract that includes my forswearing some constitutional right, the state has no business interfering.

[helmuth_hubener]

I can enter into a contract to be lead trumpeter in an orchestra and sign away my right to choose when to breathe!

[Sola_Fide]

Solution: Don't work for companies who drug test.

[Sola_Fide]

If I drug tested my employees, I would lose 75% of my staff. No way I'm going to do that.

[Brian4Liberty]

Well Tod, I fully agree with you that the person writing the check gets to decide who they hire.

I just don't think that when you enter into a contract with a business as an employee your private life is part of this contract. So it's a difficult one here. In a pure free market economy I'd be fully on the side of the employer but as it stands right now.. In this economy there's still a tendency to fire people for stupid reasons like this. In a pure free market economy the reasoning would be more along the lines of, is someone doing their job correctly, are they a good part of the team... A real free market business wouldn't care about what their employees do in their spare time, unless it's impacting their job performance.

So in principle I'm with you, the employer gets to decide. How the world currently works ? I just think it's a shame people are being f-ed with over something that's pretty irrelevant. It really irritates me that it's 2015 and pot is still demonized. As long as it's not normalized into society I'm on the side of this guy. Generally speaking, I'm for the little guy who's not bothering anyone but is being messed with.

It's an issue of supply and demand. Surplus of labor makes each individual worth less. Employers can make more and less reasonable demands, including what you do in your "off" hours.

[timosman]

It's an issue of supply and demand. Surplus of labor makes each individual worth less. Employers can make more and less reasonable demands, including what you do in your "off" hours.

What about what you think ? Is thinking allowed ? Are there certain subjects that should be avoided ?

[Anti Federalist]

What about what you think ? Is thinking allowed ? Are there certain subjects that should be avoided ?

Of course certain thoughts are taboo and have a "zero tolerance" in the workplace, on or off the clock.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?476664-TX-Teacher-fired-for-FedBook-post-suggesting-racial-segregation-was-a-good-thing

[Anti Federalist]

Just another indicator of the condition of slavery that we live under.

You own nothing, the state lets you borrow it for a time.

You have no home, you are just a squatter on the King's land, living there only at the whim of the local Land Lord and only as long as you pay the yearly tribute.

You do not "work", you sell yourself into a form of polite indentured servitude where your master has the right and ability to reach into your very body to determine your fitness for future "work" and takes a share of your wages before you even see it.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Z3uHEQV-3KY/VT2WVjNxWJI/AAAAAAAAH-c/SpOHKrG8IiY/s1600/Buying_a_Slave.jpg

[Origanalist]

This is exactly why I made the decision to be a one man band who on occasion hires subs...

Early '70's my neighbor ran a several hundred man union masonry shop and every man he fired was let go for personal differences. That probably doesn't float any more..

Same here, although it isn't the only reason. But they are all because of government.

[pcosmar]

You can fire anyone for any reason until the government tells you that you can't. Protected classes and protected activities.

And while I agree with Tod and others that it should be up to the employer.. I have to question why an employer would fire an otherwise productive and profitable employee.. Or to refuse to hire such based of such ridiculous criteria.

And yet in the same conundrum,, someone can use Heroin (OxyContin) or several mind fucking SSRI's with prescriptions and their employment is protected..
Regardless of the employers wishes.

I had given up searching for work here (as pointless) but will be moving elsewhere soon.

I do not think I would be inclined to make my services available to someone that is disrespectful enough to ask for piss or background checks.

[Acala]

What if "those things" violate employees constitutional rights a.k.a. "civil liberties" as some call them ? Does this make the contract void ?

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/short-cvs-employees-forced-report-body-weight-quit-smoking-pay-article-1.1294421

Constitutional rights are only limits on government power, not private action. Private employers do not have to honor Constitutional rights.

[Created4]

Here is my question - if they fired him for using a big pharma prescription medication, how would the court rule? If they would rule differently, then I have a big problem with this. Why should the government discriminate against what kind of medicine people use?

Because marijuana is still classified as an illegal drug at the federal level. That's what this is all about. Dish Network is bound by laws and contracts that are valid in all 50 States. So they have to (or at least it is easiest for their legal department) implement the most restrictive employment terms to cover the whole country.

Dish Network execs could probably care less if the guy uses medical marijuana or not. This was all about the legal issues involved. This case is another good reason to get rid of the federal prohibition on marijuana. It is putting good people out of work.

[ARealConservative]

an employer should be able to fire a person for any idiotic reason they can drum up, just as I can walk out on the job for any idiotic reason I can think of.

[dannno]

an employer should be able to fire a person for any idiotic reason they can drum up, just as I can walk out on the job for any idiotic reason I can think of.

If an employer cannot legally terminate their employee for using big pharma medications, but they can terminate them for using a natural medication - especially one that is legal but is less profitable for big pharma - there is still a huge problem.

[Ronin Truth]

Maybe we just need to get marijuana use classified as a federally recognized handicap and disability like obesity. ;)

[phill4paul]

an employer should be able to fire a person for any idiotic reason they can drum up, just as I can walk out on the job for any idiotic reason I can think of.

And you would have destroyed a reference. Possibly one you had been working for 20 years. Now with 20 years of showing nothing you cannot find another job. The company, however, will get along fine without you. There was a time in which loyalty and hard work on the part of both employees and employers mattered and was rewarded. Not anymore it seems.

[ARealConservative]

And you would have destroyed a reference. Possibly one you had been working for 20 years. Now with 20 years of showing nothing you cannot find another job. The company, however, will get along fine without you. There was a time in which loyalty and hard work on the part of both employees and employers mattered and was rewarded. Not anymore it seems.

employers can gain a reputation that discourages valued employees from considering them. It really isn't different

[luctor-et-emergo]

employers can gain a reputation that discourages valued employees from considering them. It really isn't different

True but the way the market is now -heavily regulated by government and interfered in by plenty lawyers- there is none of that. Therefore I'm with the underdog/little guy, until such time that we enjoy truly free markets.

[ARealConservative]

True but the way the market is now -heavily regulated by government and interfered in by plenty lawyers- there is none of that. Therefore I'm with the underdog/little guy, until such time that we enjoy truly free markets.

the employer is the little guy. workers can collude to raise wage labor and the government protects this collusion. employers practicing the very same act is illegal.

[luctor-et-emergo]

the employer is the little guy. workers can collude to raise wage labor and the government protects this collusion. employers practicing the very same act is illegal.

Those are two totally different things. Completely unconnected.

In the case of businesses being bothered by unions and government then the business is the little guy and I'm on their side.

In the case of a medical marijuana smoker -who is not high on the job (!)- that guy is the little guy. (Because of reasons mentioned in post above)

Two different cases, the whole system is messed up, we don't have to argue about that I think.

[dannno]

the employer is the little guy. workers can collude to raise wage labor and the government protects this collusion. employers practicing the very same act is illegal.

Dish Network is not the little guy. But it isn't about Dish Network, or any little guys... Ultimately, I would think, if the court rules in favor to protect people who use cannabis as medicine then the insurance companies would need to come up with something to accommodate ALL companies because they will all be affected. They will have to setup some type of exception for medicinal use of cannabis. Right now it is the insurance companies that require companies test employees for these substances so they can get reduced rates. The insurance companies and big pharma are really at the end of the line here.

[tod evans]

Obviously courts-n-lawyers aren't the answer here...

The sooner Boobus figures this out the better.

[timosman]

True but the way the market is now -heavily regulated by government and interfered in by plenty lawyers- there is none of that. Therefore I'm with the underdog/little guy, until such time that we enjoy truly free markets.

The problem is the employee, unlike the employer, is not diversified. Losing a job is going from 100% employment to 0% immediately while for the employer losing 1 out of 20,000 employees is not a big deal. If we could have 5 jobs and spending 20% of our time on each than we might have something resembling parity. After all the goal of the employers is to make employees fungible.

[pcosmar]

Does anyone in this thread remember applying for or working a job before piss testing existed?

Does anyone know why it exists? Where it started? Who pushed it?

There are a few of us here that know.. but some of you younger folks who always knew of it as a reality,,,
Have you ever looked into it?

[ARealConservative]

Those are two totally different things. Completely unconnected.

In the case of businesses being bothered by unions and government then the business is the little guy and I'm on their side.

In the case of a medical marijuana smoker -who is not high on the job (!)- that guy is the little guy. (Because of reasons mentioned in post above)

Two different cases, the whole system is messed up, we don't have to argue about that I think.

yes, the system is messed up, but in today's climate, I don't find the employer to be the decision maker very often. the employer - whether it is a corporation, or a single person is heavily regulated by a system they have little voice in.

and stories like this one are aimed to take even more control away from the employer.

[The Northbreather]

It's the English way.
Thought I'd something more to say.

[r3volution 3.0]

Good.

An employer should be able to fire any employee for any reason at any time, just as an employee should be able to quit for any reason at any time.

....unless there was contract stipulating other terms, but that's beside the point in this case.

That said, is it good business practice to fire employees for their off-duty behavior?

So long as it doesn't reflect poorly on the business, I don't think so - but to each his own.

[ARealConservative]

Does anyone in this thread remember applying for or working a job before piss testing existed?

Does anyone know why it exists? Where it started? Who pushed it?

There are a few of us here that know.. but some of you younger folks who always knew of it as a reality,,,
Have you ever looked into it?

it was started by the United States military and gained steam with Reagans executive order mandating a drug free workplace.

[Origanalist]

And while I agree with Tod and others that it should be up to the employer.. I have to question why an employer would fire an otherwise productive and profitable employee.. Or to refuse to hire such based of such ridiculous criteria.

And yet in the same conundrum,, someone can use Heroin (OxyContin) or several mind fucking SSRI's with prescriptions and their employment is protected..
Regardless of the employers wishes.

I had given up searching for work here (as pointless) but will be moving elsewhere soon.

I do not think I would be inclined to make my services available to someone that is disrespectful enough to ask for piss or background checks.

Nor would I.

[presence]

If I drug tested my employees, I would lose 75% of my staff. No way I'm going to do that.


omg a drug involved premises; in before swat arrives.

[Origanalist]

Thought I'd something more to say.

We all have something more to say.

[Origanalist]

And you would have destroyed a reference. Possibly one you had been working for 20 years. Now with 20 years of showing nothing you cannot find another job. The company, however, will get along fine without you. There was a time in which loyalty and hard work on the part of both employees and employers mattered and was rewarded. Not anymore it seems.

These days it's a pretty rare occasion when I "work for a company".

[ARealConservative]

We all have something more to say.

the time is gone, the thread is over

[phill4paul]

These days it's a pretty rare occasion when I "work for a company".

Yup, right there with you.

[pcosmar]

it was started by the United States military and gained steam with Reagans executive order mandating a drug free workplace.

Actually the military tended (way back then) toward rehabilitation.. If the use was a problem.
But yes,, Reagan's Drug Free workplace was the start,, and was pushed into compliance by Insurance companies.
Corporate/State collusion in the War on Drugs (also started under Reagan)

[luctor-et-emergo]

The problem is the employee, unlike the employer, is not diversified. Losing a job is going from 100% employment to 0% immediately while for the employer losing 1 out of 20,000 employees is not a big deal. If we could have 5 jobs and spending 20% of our time on each than we might have something resembling parity. After all the goal of the employers is to make employees fungible.
Exactly which is why I'm self employed.


These days it's a pretty rare occasion when I "work for a company".
Same here.

[Madison320]

If an employer cannot legally terminate their employee for using big pharma medications, but they can terminate them for using a natural medication - especially one that is legal but is less profitable for big pharma - there is still a huge problem.

Yes, but two wrongs don't make a right. An employer and employee should be able to enter into whatever contract they want.

[specsaregood]

omg a drug involved premises; in before swat arrives.

And he is the manager and knowingly allowing it to happen. Seems to me like grounds to seize the property using the RAVE act.

[Anti Federalist]

Does anyone in this thread remember applying for or working a job before piss testing existed?

Does anyone know why it exists? Where it started? Who pushed it?

There are a few of us here that know.. but some of you younger folks who always knew of it as a reality,,,
Have you ever looked into it?

For most of my working life the very concept of an "application" was foreign to me.

You showed up with your sea bag and shook the captain's hand.

[Anti Federalist]

the time is gone, the thread is over

Can't be...

I'm still kicking around on a piece of ground in my home town.

[luctor-et-emergo]

Does anyone in this thread remember applying for or working a job before piss testing existed?

I don't have a clue, I have never applied for a job, people have always asked me to work for them.

[JK/SEA]

Fuuuck man, I could do that..what the hell am I doing at a desk right now?!??

get in line behind me.... I got seniority

[JK/SEA]

where i worked, they would use 'random' testing on employees. If your results were positive, you would have to agree to drug rehab, or get fired.

[Ronin Truth]

Does anyone in this thread remember applying for or working a job before piss testing existed?

Sure, decades before.

Does anyone know why it exists? Where it started? Who pushed it?

I'll SWAG the war on drugs was the beginning. Every POTUS since then.

There are a few of us here that know.. but some of you younger folks who always knew of it as a reality,,,
Have you ever looked into it?

//

[dannno]

Yes, but two wrongs don't make a right. An employer and employee should be able to enter into whatever contract they want.

Ya I agree employers should be allowed to fire people for whatever they want - but - if employers aren't legally allowed to fire you for taking prescribed medication, but they can fire you for taking cannabis when being used as a medication - that isn't right. Take away the entire medical exception so I can fire people who take SSRIs and then we can talk.

In this case in particular, and probably in 99% of the cases the employer only did it based on contracts with their insurance company. The company had no desire to fire him outside of that agreement. If the courts can change the contractual agreements that insurance companies make with companies regarding their antiquated drug testing policies, that would be a positive outcome.

In the mean time, the employer can ALWAYS fire them for poor on the job performance no matter what medication or substance they are using, so honestly I'm not worried about the little guy, I don't think we are taking away to hire and fire pretty much whoever they want to.

[DamianTV]

How about getting drunk or smoking tobacco off-duty?

That IS what is coming.

Followed by eating salt, red meat, premarital sex, not exercising enough, not going to bed at your scheduled time, or ANY form of corporate regulatory disobedience. Remember, even when youre not at work, you are their property and as such, must OBEY 24 / 7 / 365. Now, if people had other jobs they could easily get, they'd tell this employer to go fuck themselves until they had no employees left. Then the employer woudl have to change their policies to be more agreeable with the people they establish a cooperative agreement with instead of a dictatorial corporate human farming policy.

Oh, for the record, there are employers that arleady dictate a zero tobacco policy, period, and I am not okay with that either.

Boiling the Frog one rule at a time.

[oyarde]

This is a difficult one for me 'cause I think employers should be able to fire anyone for any reason but I also think smoking weed isn't cause to fire somebody.

In the end I side with the dude writing the check...



Colorado court: Workers can be fired for using marijuana off-duty

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/15/colorado-court-workers-can-be-fired-for-using-marijuana-off-duty/?intcmp=latestnews

Colorado's Supreme Court has ruled that a medical marijuana patient who was fired after failing a drug test cannot get his job back.

The case has big implications for employers and pot smokers in states that have legalized medical or recreational marijuana. Colorado became the first state to legalize recreational pot in 2012.

Though the Colorado case involves medical marijuana, the court's decision could also affect how companies treat employees who use the drug recreationally.

Brandon Coats is a quadriplegic who was fired by Dish Network after failing a drug test in 2010. The company agreed that Coats wasn't high on the job but said it has a zero-tolerance drug policy.

Courts in California, Montana and Washington state also ruled against medical marijuana patients fired for pot use.

I never had any doubt that this is where this would arrive.If it were legal in my home state it will arrive at the same place.Basically , legal weed will be for the self employed only.

[Brian4Liberty]

Now, if people had other jobs they could easily get, they'd tell this employer to go fuck themselves until they had no employees left. Then the employer woudl have to change their policies to be more agreeable with the people they establish a cooperative agreement with instead of a dictatorial corporate human farming policy.

That's the key. Labor supply and demand.

[Anti Federalist]

That's the key. Labor supply and demand.

And now, forty plus years into "managed trade" where have all the middle class jobs and incomes gone?

Indentured servitude is all that is left.

All done by design.

[Schifference]

I wonder what would happen if a Colorado employer only hired pot smokers and mandated drug testing to insure that they actually still smoked.

[helmuth_hubener]

I wonder what would happen if a Colorado employer only hired pot smokers and mandated drug testing to insure that they actually still smoked. Definitely the best post of the thread! :D

[Acala]

That IS what is coming.

Followed by eating salt, red meat, premarital sex, not exercising enough, not going to bed at your scheduled time, or ANY form of corporate regulatory disobedience. Remember, even when youre not at work, you are their property and as such, must OBEY 24 / 7 / 365. Now, if people had other jobs they could easily get, they'd tell this employer to go fuck themselves until they had no employees left. Then the employer woudl have to change their policies to be more agreeable with the people they establish a cooperative agreement with instead of a dictatorial corporate human farming policy.

Oh, for the record, there are employers that arleady dictate a zero tobacco policy, period, and I am not okay with that either.

Boiling the Frog one rule at a time.

Actually, in the years before corporatism became the norm and businesses stopped giving a crap what the local community thought about them, it was common for business owners to have written codes of conduct for their employees OUTSIDE the workplace. Employers felt that "immoral" conduct by employees reflected badly on the company. They also apparently felt a paternalistic sense of responsibility for employees.

[dannno]

I wonder what would happen if a Colorado employer only hired pot smokers and mandated drug testing to insure that they actually still smoked.

I asked a head shop owner one time if he drug tested his employees - he said he drug tests all new hires, the one with the highest THC level wins!

[mrsat_98]

DiSH Network was rated the worst company to work for two years in a row.
http://blogs.denverpost.com/tech/2013/07/30/dish-network-rated-as-worst-company-to-work-for-in-america-for-second-straight-year/10869/

[Mach]

That IS what is coming.

Followed by eating salt, red meat, premarital sex, not exercising enough, not going to bed at your scheduled time, or ANY form of corporate regulatory disobedience. Remember, even when youre not at work, you are their property and as such, must OBEY 24 / 7 / 365. Now, if people had other jobs they could easily get, they'd tell this employer to go fuck themselves until they had no employees left. Then the employer woudl have to change their policies to be more agreeable with the people they establish a cooperative agreement with instead of a dictatorial corporate human farming policy.

Oh, for the record, there are employers that arleady dictate a zero tobacco policy, period, and I am not okay with that either.

Boiling the Frog one rule at a time.Actually, in the years before corporatism became the norm and businesses stopped giving a crap what the local community thought about them, it was common for business owners to have written codes of conduct for their employees OUTSIDE the workplace. Employers felt that "immoral" conduct by employees reflected badly on the company. They also apparently felt a paternalistic sense of responsibility for employees.

When Henry Ford's Benevolent Secret Police Ruled His Workers (http://jalopnik.com/when-henry-fords-benevolent-secret-police-ruled-his-wo-1549625731) :rolleyes:


To combat the rate of worker attrition, Henry Ford had another brilliant idea. In the beginning of 1914, he more than doubled the minimum worker pay, from $2.34 (or $54.94 in 2014 dollars) a day, to $5 (or $117.39 in 2014 money) a day. The huge pay raise sent shockwaves through the automotive industry, not least of which because now it meant that a Ford worker could easily afford a Ford car.

But that didn't mean they were allowed to buy one.

The $5 a day rate wasn't just free money, that every worker got. Instead, you had to work at the company for at least six months, and you also had to buy in to a new set of rules. The extra pay came at a price.


What started out as a team of 50 "Investigators" eventually morphed into a team of 200 people who probed every aspect of their employees lives. And I mean every aspect.

[cindy25]

employers have to cover healthcare, so anything has to be fair game for firing.

[pcosmar]

employers have to cover healthcare, so anything has to be fair game for firing.

Have to? Why do they have to?

Most jobs I've had didn't.. One of the best employers I had told me the day I started, "I don't carry Insurance,, Don't hurt yourself"

The same man put me in his car and took me to a dentist for a bad tooth. Insurance was not involved.
There was no piss test.. but there were occasional "Safety Breaks". ;)

[paleocon1]

If employers want to make those things criteria for employment, it's none of the state's business.

For corporate style business the State has every right to regulate its creations as it sees fit.

[presence]

In a free world I needn't submit ANY reason to choose to disassociate myself with someone else.

[helmuth_hubener]

For corporate style business the State has every right to regulate its creations as it sees fit.

I disagree strongly.

http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-325-are-corporations-un-libertarian/

[Acala]

Have to? Why do they have to?



I believe that Obamacare requires most employers to provide health insurance.

[pcosmar]

I believe that Obamacare requires most employers to provide health insurance.

It was rhetorical..

I believe the insurance companies were pushing this shit long before Obama.

in fact,,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Maintenance_Organization_Act_of_1973

[Mach]

Once the Federal Law is corrected, everything should, even out.



Legal Use of Marijuana Clashes With Job Rules
SEPT. 7, 2014


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/us/legal-use-of-marijuana-clashes-with-workplace-drug-testing.html?_r=0


Employers and business groups say the screenings identify drug-abusing workers, create a safer workplace, lower their insurance costs and, in some cases, are required by law. But marijuana advocates say the prohibitions amount to discrimination, either against people using marijuana to treat a medical condition or against people who smoke it because they simply have the legal right to do so, off the clock and away from the office.


Mr. Coats’s lawyer, Michael Evans, argues that Mr. Coats’s use of medical marijuana should fall under a state law that prohibits companies from firing workers for legal, off-duty activities that might rankle an employer. Dish Network argues that smoking marijuana can hardly be considered legal because it breaks federal law.

If Dish loses the case, the company wrote in a brief to the court, “Dish (and every other Colorado employer) can no longer maintain a drug-free policy” and companies across the state could risk losing federal contracts because they no longer complied with federal drug-free workplace laws.

[NoOneButPaul]

I'm one of the few people I know in this state (full disclosure I work at a Marijuana grow) who thinks this was the right call.

What's the alternative? A person cannot be fired for having a bad habit? What kind of precedent is that? There's a reason this was a 6-0 call...

[Anti Federalist]

I'm one of the few people I know in this state (full disclosure I work at a Marijuana grow) who thinks this was the right call.

What's the alternative? A person cannot be fired for having a bad habit? What kind of precedent is that? There's a reason this was a 6-0 call...

What if I consider homosexuality or Catholicism or shooting guns to be a "bad habit".

[NoOneButPaul]

What if I consider homosexuality or Catholicism or shooting guns to be a "bad habit".

Then you'd probably be a stupid business owner?

We aren't talking about the government here. You're never going to convince me that it's OK for a person running a business to be forced to keep people on board they don't want around. It's the owner's business and if they want someone fired for being an addict of some kind the government shouldn't have the right to tell the owner who they can hire and who they can fire. If a person has built up a company by himself and demands a certain standard out of his employees there's nothing wrong with that. To claim otherwise opens a Pandora's box where the government gets to decide how you hire and fire people at your own place of business.

[phill4paul]

Then you'd probably be a stupid business owner?

We aren't talking about the government here. You're never going to convince me that it's OK for a person running a business to be forced to keep people on board they don't want around. It's the owner's business and if they want someone fired for being an addict of some kind the government shouldn't have the right to tell the owner who they can hire and who they can fire. If a person has built up a company by himself and demands a certain standard out of his employees there's nothing wrong with that. To claim otherwise opens a Pandora's box where the government gets to decide how you hire and fire people at your own place of business.

And if a company promotes a 20 yr/ retirement and just invents reasons to fire them in the 19th year..what then? I've worked for companies in which this exact scenario has played out.

[Anti Federalist]

Then you'd probably be a stupid business owner?

We aren't talking about the government here. You're never going to convince me that it's OK for a person running a business to be forced to keep people on board they don't want around. It's the owner's business and if they want someone fired for being an addict of some kind the government shouldn't have the right to tell the owner who they can hire and who they can fire. If a person has built up a company by himself and demands a certain standard out of his employees there's nothing wrong with that. To claim otherwise opens a Pandora's box where the government gets to decide how you hire and fire people at your own place of business.

Well, that Pandora's box is already open.

What you are advocating is essentially a polite form of indentured servitude.

I have no issue with being held to whatever standards are deemed necessary or appropriate during business hours, but to open the door to the insurance and big business Mafiosi to dictate every single aspect of my life (and don't say "just get another job", this shit is systemic and becoming global in scope) outside of working hours, just sets up a modern version of the Company Town.

[timosman]

this shit is systemic and becoming global in scope

Yes, this shit is absolutely systemic but some people still think we live in the 50ties. Have you tried getting a job paying a living wage recently ? Didn't think so. :)

[Anti Federalist]

Yes, this shit is absolutely systemic but some people still think we live in the 50ties. Have you tried getting a job paying a living wage recently ? Didn't think so. :)

I know exactly how difficult it is to find one of those jobs.