Bit of a leap of faith into conspiracy theory there. I don't see projecting that sort of speculation into the discussion as constructive.
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
Bit of a leap of faith into conspiracy theory there. I don't see projecting that sort of speculation into the discussion as constructive.
steadydets
Member
I'm not sure why this isn't clear, but Jhhnn said it as well as I ever could.
It doesn't matter what my opinion on is, it's just the nature of the legal environment.
O
OGShaman
I understand why people are fixated on the fact that he was a security guard as he is in a position where lives may be at stake, but the sad thing is there are a million other industries that would have done the same thing.
I sit at a desk building software and I could get called for a random test any time. Meanwhile damn near the whole office goes to the bar every day after work. It's ridiculous.
I sit at a desk building software and I could get called for a random test any time. Meanwhile damn near the whole office goes to the bar every day after work. It's ridiculous.
Realistically, companies will not knowingly employ criminals. Piss tests reveal pot smokers as criminals. Employers don't care if the law is stupid or not. Most don't care if you live, die, shit or go blind, just that you play the game by the rules. Labor is a commodity, like asswipe.
Okay legal environment right? That would then include the constitution right. Specifically the 4th amendment that prohibits unreasonable search and seizure? I mean if an employee has an accident that harms people and/or property then it's reasonable to test him to make sure he wasn't under the influence of something that caused the accident. To piss someone just to have a shot at being hired though is completely unreasonable and it also invades their right to privacy. What one does off the job is not an employers business. Nor does it always make good sense to fire someone just for coming up dirty. What if an employers top producing employee came up dirty? Does it make sense from a business perspective to axe your top producer just because he or she happens to smoke pot? Perhaps it's a high stress job and the ability to go home and unwind with a few bong hits is what lets this guy or gal be able to keep coming back day after day, week after week and be that top performer? Oh yeah that's right, that could never happen all of us stoners are lazy good for nothing bums with no drive or ambition.
The only reason this business of allowing drug testing for employment has stuck is because people have not stood up for their rights and now it's too late to close the barn door because the horse is already out.
Actually that's wrong, first of all there are quite a few common things that can cause false positives for marijuana, ibuprofen for one, nexium for another. These places that test all their employees don't typically spend the significant amount of extra coin it costs to do the more comprehensive tests that can rule out false positives as false. Then there is the fact that having used at some point recently enough to come up dirty is not enough by itself for criminal charges to be brought so a dirty urine doesn't mark you as a criminal.
O
OGShaman
Electronic tests are coming on the market now that are cheap and disposable and useable right on the job. Personally I will quit my job long before I get tested in my own office though.
O
OGShaman
That's true in my state, but what about yours where at least the state says this is legal? Companies can still test you and fire you though for something you are supposed to be protected from by the state. That's what prompted this thread.
I've been asked before, well why don't you just move to a legal state? For one, I shouldn't have to leave my home, family, and friends over a plant, and I never will. Another reason is issues like this. Even if I am legal in the eyes of the state, I have no protection from losing my job over it.
Personally I view it as a violation of my civil rights. Obviously they don't agree with me though.
yeah, UAs are BS. i can see if there's a problem & it could be determined a person was actually intoxicated? but randomly screening everyone w/ a UA is wrong
it was fun waiting in line w/ this guy & the others. i wondered whether there might be recourse from being seen. many in the crowd turned their backs to the cameras but, they were swarming the place. ~the turning away was even noted on the news
it was fun waiting in line w/ this guy & the others. i wondered whether there might be recourse from being seen. many in the crowd turned their backs to the cameras but, they were swarming the place. ~the turning away was even noted on the news
And that grinds my gears , alcohol & tobacco cost the world billions every year in health care and police & cause the most deaths . Smoke a plant that helps with a medical condition , makes you happy & earns pizza parlours lot of money when you have the munchies & you are prosecuted in the majority of the world .
This world is a F ing mad place .
steadydets
Member
Okay legal environment right? That would then include the constitution right. Specifically the 4th amendment that prohibits unreasonable search and seizure? I mean if an employee has an accident that harms people and/or property then it's reasonable to test him to make sure he wasn't under the influence of something that caused the accident. To piss someone just to have a shot at being hired though is completely unreasonable and it also invades their right to privacy. What one does off the job is not an employers business. Nor does it always make good sense to fire someone just for coming up dirty. What if an employers top producing employee came up dirty? Does it make sense from a business perspective to axe your top producer just because he or she happens to smoke pot? Perhaps it's a high stress job and the ability to go home and unwind with a few bong hits is what lets this guy or gal be able to keep coming back day after day, week after week and be that top performer? Oh yeah that's right, that could never happen all of us stoners are lazy good for nothing bums with no drive or ambition.
The only reason this business of allowing drug testing for employment has stuck is because people have not stood up for their rights and now it's too late to close the barn door because the horse is already out.
I'm sorry to tell you, but everything you just wrote is all conjecture.
I'm speaking strictly within the confines of practicable law, civil and criminal. There will be and probably are test cases being filed right now challenging those statues, but as it stands, corporations have a right to screen whoever for whatever.
This would be a civil matter and the burden of proof, is much less severe.
Understand and lets be clear on one point.
We are discussing a legal perspective, not my personal views.
We are not arguing test cases with imaginary defenses involving stretching the fourth amendment to a point where its unidentifiable.
If you have a test case to prove that, please show me, otherwise I'd like to stick to the topic at hand.
steadydets
Member
You do realize the majority of Americans don't smoke weed right?
And of those that don't smoke, there are great candidates and people who are less of a liability.
There are exceptions to every rule, and believe me, if a company can get their hands on top class talent, whether they have a policy or not, they will grab them even if it means they come with a habit.
But you don't get to be the best by not proving it. And the 'Outliers' (Malcolm Gladwell) will always outperform the mediocre, regardless of habit.
If a company has a general policy that they don't want smokers of tobacco, then that's fine, by why not cannabis?
In the position of someone who has to make business decisions, If I can hire someone that doesn't smoke, drink, or party and is brilliant, over the same brilliant guy who does all of the above, I'll pick the sober one ALL DAY.
I'm his boss, so I'll give myself permission to get loaded on both of our behalf's, but business is business my friend, and all things being equal, the top firms will search for the best candidates with the most productive habits.
Shouldn't we be the last people to have a double standard, since everyone has always had a double standard about us?
steadydets
Member
I think we all have a huge problem with that.
There are times I hear people say "George Washington grew hemp, its in our heritage" and I always wish that he grew some bangin' Gorilla Glue or Bodhi's Goji instead.
If the father of the American revolution toked on a bowl before sailing down the Hudson, we would all be getting high.
But times' are a changin', so lets see which way the wind starts to blow.
Score 1 for the team.....they smelt the funk of the lawsuit.
steadydets
Member
Read it carefully.
He had two part time jobs. One of them, was a security company, and he was still fired because he didn't take the test because "He knew he would fail"
His second part time job, LaborReady, a part time temp agency, reinstated him when they found out he wasn't at work that day.
They originally fired him because they thought he was on line buying pot when he was supposed to be on the job.
This is the key excerpt :
"Boyer was also asked to take a drug test at Kodiak Security, another part-time employer, he said. He planned not to take the tests because he knew he’d fail, he said Wednesday.
When Boyer contacted LaborReady to tell them he’d taken the day off Tuesday to stand in line, Burke said the company rescinded its demand for a drug test.
“Under the law, he can do that,” Burke said.
The company has what Burke called a “reasonable suspicion” drug-testing policy that calls for a urine sample when the company suspects its employees are under-the-influence on the job. Burke said the policy is for the safety of its employees."
I would agree with you completely IF the drug screening for marijuana showed that a person was under the influence rather then just that they had used at sometime in the past 30-60 days. However it does not. Giving someone a job does not entitle a company to make moral judgments about one's lifestyle except in perhaps case like this guy in Washington because he was a security guard. I am however talking in the much bigger sense of employment though where places like Wal-Mart for example test people doing menial labor.
Not just testing either but full background checks, credit history, etc. Sure one can make arguments as to why a company should be able to do that and not hire a guy with a dirty urine for marijuana or a bad credit report. Then again one could also make arguments why that is just the guy one should hire.
Sure, yeah, you're right, as it stands now companies are doing this and that's how it is and that's how it will always be if everyone did like you and just said "Oh well, that's just how it is"
I'm trying to sow the seed though that we shouldn't just accept this sort of thing. Desperation in a bad economy has allowed these corporations to have too much power. Plus there's too much in people's private lives that can come up in a background check or a drug screen that can be taken out of context. For example, I know a guy who was classified as a sex offender because one day when he was drunk he dropped trou and relieved himself in a place where some teenage girls he didn't notice was amble to see him from a couple of dozen yards away. He was charged with exposing himself which is considered a sex crime although it's meant to be used for someone exposing himself deliberately to have others see their "equipment" and not for some drunk fool who didn't make sure nobody was looking when he went to take a piss.
I wonder if anyone in the media considered there was a fear from being seen on camera other then embarrassment or fear of their habit being exposed? I mean criminals target elderly people with lots of scripts for pain pills and the like. So what's to stop a criminal in your neighborhood, who saw you on tv walking out with a big bag of bud thinking he might pay your home a visit that night?
I'm not asking for a double standard, not hiring someone because they smoke tobacco is just as wrong as not hiring someone because they smoke marijuana, as long as they're not doing it on the clock. Why should employers be allowed to dictate my life outside the job as long as it's not affecting my performance on the job? I mean it's not like employers are showing these quality candidates you say they're getting any loyalty. No they suck them up when they are young and they squeeze the best years out of their life. Then when they get near retirement and they're ready to enjoy their pension, whammo companies try to find any little excuse to cut them out of their job and pension and hire two more younger employees for less then what they paid the guy they just screwed out of their pension.
See I think where the mix up is, is you are talking about top firms where people are pulling down 6 figures. There perhaps it makes more sense and maybe putting down the pipe for a few years is part of the sacrifice you make. Typically jobs paying that much are more far reaching in their impact and so perhaps greater scrutiny is justified but being a security guard or working for any of the multitude mid and low level jobs it is not and yet those companies are being just as prying into people's private lives.
If I hire someone all I should really care about is that they show up on time and can do the job they were hired for at an acceptable pace to be worth his employment. What that person does to unwind isn't really my concern as long as it's kept out of the job. I mean it's not like the guy in the story left the store with his newly purchased weed, went to work, and got caught smoking a joint on the roof.
