Can a nation-wide corporation ignore a State's laws?

[angelatc]

I'd like to take this out of the realm of theory and ancap application, if you don't mind, and consider the issue at hand. What are the possible avenues that could be taken in order to preserve individual freedom? .

The person who runs the company has the right to hire and fire anybody for any reason.

[angelatc]

In the case of someone whose behavior would otherwise be different, this person is voluntarily agreeing to allow the company to control their behavior in order to stay employed.

Employers do that pretty routinely, actually. I'd like to have a job that would let me start about 11:00 a.m. But so far, no luck.

And while one person might decide that giving up the urine and blood is worth the compensation that he or she is seeking, another might not and will choose employment elsewhere. That's sort of how free markets work. We all have a price. Just not the same price.

[Tod]

When is it the responsibility of people to stand up to an employer who wants no MJ users in the workplace and say, no, I won't let you hire me because I disagree with your policy.

The whole....."they should be forced to hire me"......position requires the belief that the corporation is the victimizer and the potential employee is the victim. But what if the role was reversed and the potential employees stood together and refused to work for the corporation.....the corporation could take the position that the pool of potential employees was victimizing the company by not recognizing the company's wish for an MJ free workplace (depriving the company of employees).

Why not just accept that a mutual voluntary agreement is not achievable and move on to the next potential agreement?

"But what if all the employers take this position?" Then start your own company, create your own job! Companies are not our parents with an obligation to provide jobs for us. Too many people seem to view them that way, and that means the people assume a subservient role, placing themselves under the "care and feeding" of their parental figure, the company. Companies should find it really hard to find an employee because people should be very skeptical of an arrangement where your boss can tell you what you can or cannot do whether it affects the actual job performance. To accept such a position is a very high cost and the company should have to pay a LOT in compensation. But, many people, rather than valuing their freedom, toss it away like a cheap whore and then whine to the pimp (government) afterwards about how the john was driving too hard a bargain.

Most of my working life was as an employee. I've been self-employed now for a full 7 years. It would take a lot for me to become an employee again.



edit: as an aside, this made me think also of how so many people love to complain about companies like Walmart. They complain about how Walmart places too many demands on its suppliers, how it drives businesses out to become the only game in town, which hurts small towns. The solution always seems to be to use the force of government to try to outlaw that sort of store. How come their solution is not to outlaw people from shopping there? Simple, because a lot of people WANT to shop there and are willing to cut their own local business diversity's throat for the savings of a few pennies on some "unnecessary plastic objects" (to steal a phrase from Nanci Griffith) and then also want complain about the loss of business without taking responsibility for their own role in its demise. Walmart wouldn't even exist if people refused to shop there....no need to use the force of government.

[amy31416]

With certain jobs, you have to have certain standards. In an aseptic suite where very expensive diagnostic materials were put into tubes, vials, etc--I had to do some invasive testing of each person hired to work in there. For one--weight. The facilities just would not fit an obese person, nor would they be adept enough to put on the "bunny" suit without contaminating the crap out of everything. Another was smoking. Smoking causes a person to shed more particulate in their breath, as do other things. Bathing--essentially, we only hired females for the suite because women exfoliate and tend to keep themselves cleaner. Black women--mostly black women because their hair isn't generally loose and doesn't fall out as easily (braids were perfect.) No long fingernails (punctures gloves--contamination risk.) No slobs (I had to size people up for cleanliness in general, surreptitiously checking out whether their ears/neck were clean, breath wasn't rank, didn't have strange odors, etc.)

Hell, they were even required to report if they had any sort of STD, yeast infection, etc. If we had another outside position, then they'd go there until everything cleared. And most of these things are the result of things people did on their own time. I had one guy pissed at me because I wouldn't allow him in--he had horses, his fingernails were dirty and I could tell that his boots were likely the same ones he wore into his barn. Another woman was seriously angry with me because I had to give her microbiology testing on her skin (swabs and stuff), and it matched up with the contamination that we were seeing in the product. It cost the company more than 100k before I started doing the testing. Holy $#@!, she was offended. I had to get her out of there, and she'd been working in there a long time.

[Christian Liberty]

I guess we just see it two different ways. I ask the fundamentally reverse question: if an employee can dictate what his employer must tolerate in terms of employee behavior (on or off the job), where does *that* end?

Indeed. Should churches who fire pastors who engage in sexual immorality be punished for doing that if he did it "on his own time"? Its up to the employer, period. The whining about "ancap theory" is ridiculous. Basically its saying "discuss this issue without talking about principles."

oh, and I don't see what's ridiculous about "private security firms" either.

[Deborah K]

Well, I knew this topic would go off into different tangents and blanket statements about the employer's rights, so ONCE AGAIN I reiterate, I have no argument about employers having the right to hire and fire whom they choose. And ONCE AGAIN I reiterate, not all situations that involve employees' rights to do what they want with their own bodies on their own time is so cut-and-dried as the theorists try to make it. Using examples like priests molesting children on their own time is a ridiculous comparison to someone who might need an MM card in order to get alternative cancer treatment. So, if this debate is going to stay based in reality, I would appreciate it if, when you respond, you keep that in mind.

This also is not a "free association" issue. Employers have the responsibility of due process when they hire someone. If the applicant proves to be an unsavory character, the employer will not hire them in the first place. And, I do agree that if an employee is engaging in activity (on his own time) that is illegal and immoral, and reflects badly on the company, the company has a right to deal with the employee as they see fit. This is NOT the issue though.

This is also not an issue of an employer using the temporary services of a subcontractor. Naturally, if they don't know the subcontractor's employees, they have a right to vet in whatever fashion they choose, and the subcontractor has the right to accept or refuse the terms.

And this isn't an issue of someone having the right to be intoxicated while on the job. Of course an employer has the right to terminate in that situation.

It is NOT cut-and-dried. You can't just make blanket statements about employers' rights over employees' rights and use the free market as a justification - not in this instance anyway. In theory, perhaps, but not in the real world.

The issue at hand, is a nationwide company refusing to acknowledge a state law that allows patients with MM cards to use cannabis medicinally. It has NOTHING to do with potential scammer potheads who would attempt to abuse the law, or anything else! It's about exploring different avenues to challenge the company - ideally, legally.

Now, I know that tactic doesn't sit well with a lot of people, especially the ancaps. But, I am of the opinion that one way to fight back when dealing with mega-corporations and corporations in general, when they threaten an individual's liberty, is to beat them at their own game, using existing laws against them. Which is why I appreciated the efforts of Presence. He understood where I was coming from immediately. He didn't try to engage in a debate about theory. You may not agree with my tactic, but don't pigeon-hole me by assuming I believe employers should be forced (lol) to allow employees to run all over them. It's insulting.

[helmuth_hubener]

How's that for practical?

I think this may have come off as in-your-face and rude, like "how do you like that, huh?" which was not my intention. I just meant to be saying "look, this is super-practical!"

I seriously do think that the advice I gave is very practical, and probably the most practical of any suggestion. Just come up with a way to conceal the drug use from the company.

To elaborate a little more, you said this company has 30,000 employees. Surely in that crowd of 30,000 there are many marijuana users. Discreetly asking around, finding other fellow users, would let your friend get real-life advice of what to do and how to do it, from those who clearly have and are succeeding in doing exactly what he wants to do.

Yes, it's satisfying to be able to "beat them at their own game" as you put it. But what that satisfaction is is the feeling of making someone else bend to your will. It can feel good, yes, but:

a) I disagree with it. You don't care about that, but just putting it out there as a note. And:
b) It is a highly, highly ineffective and problematic and wasteful method of dealing with others. It will lead to unintended consequences. It can consume your life. It's a wrong path. It's an impractical path. It's a stupid path. I cannot discourage you from this path strongly enough. And that would be true even if a) weren't the case, even if I agreed with you in principle. For example, if the company was doing something really aggressing against the employees in a libertarian sense, like if they were not only firing the drug test flunkers but turning them in to the feds to have their doors kicked in and be taken to prison. That would be horrible, and I would no longer disagree with you and say they were within their rights to do it. But in that case I would still advice that concealment or disassociation (finding a new job) would be two good strategies.

You and your friend ought to take a step back and ask what you're trying to accomplish. Are you trying to stop your friend's "rights" (or whatever you want to call it) from being violated? If so: follow my advice. Or are you trying to "stick it to 'em!" and "make 'em pay!" If that is your goal, I think that you need to seriously rethink your priorities. Because it that's your goal, nothing can save you. No advice, however good, can save you. Your project is doomed.

[jmdrake]

The issue at hand, is a nationwide company refusing to acknowledge a state law that allows patients with MM cards to use cannabis medicinally. It has NOTHING to do with potential scammer potheads who would attempt to abuse the law, or anything else! It's about exploring different avenues to challenge the company - ideally, legally.

Yeah. I get it. Which brings me back to "What about the risks of losing in federal court?" If the Supreme Court takes the case then says the California statute is null and void due to the supremacy clause, then what? And I ask this question because I don't know. I think the city should be pressured to bar any company that discriminates against medical marijuana patients from doing business with the city. If that fails, then maybe try a lawsuit. But be mindful of the risks.

[Natural Citizen]

The issue at hand, is a nationwide company refusing to acknowledge a state law that allows patients with MM cards to use cannabis medicinally.

Don't you just hate it when we put our fingers in our ears and sing nanny nanny boo boo, we can't hear you? We always want to avoid the more critical terms of contoversy, we do. Heh. Ah well.

[helmuth_hubener]

Here's an additional practical tip:

I encountered today at the One Dollar Store a marijuana home test kit. It can be picked up for the low, low price of (surprise!) one dollar!! Have your friend buy ten of them and experiment for the same cost as .0000000001 hours of legal consultation.

[helmuth_hubener]

Deborah, did you and your friend solve his problem?

As you said:

Well, I knew this topic would go off into different tangents and blanket statements about the employer's rights, so ONCE AGAIN I reiterate, I have no argument about employers having the right to hire and fire whom they choose. And ONCE AGAIN I reiterate, not all situations that involve employees' rights to do what they want with their own bodies on their own time is so cut-and-dried as the theorists try to make it.
...
This also is not a "free association" issue.
...
This is also not an issue of an employer using the temporary services of a subcontractor.
...
And this isn't an issue of someone having the right to be intoxicated while on the job. Of course an employer has the right to terminate in that situation.

That's all the things that are not the issue. As I understand it, the thing that is the issue is: your friend should be able to work for this company and continue to use cannabis.

That's the goal, right? Achieve that goal, and victory is declared, right?

Regardless of the tangents and theories, that's the bottom line, right? Whether our theories (or yours!) are right or wrong, who cares, it doesn't matter to that.

Was my or anyone else's advice helpful? Was the goal achieved?