4 ms·

In the US it’s fairly common policy to have when the employee could present a liability issue, such as driving a company provided vehicle, or operating heavy/da

In the US it’s fairly common policy to have when the employee could present a liability issue, such as driving a company provided vehicle, or operating heavy/dangerous equipment. Drug tests are a “cover our ass” measure and also make getting rid of “that fucking guy” easier. In practice it varies heavily on how it’s implemented, generally a company isn’t really keen to spend the money and time on that shit until after they’ve been burned by incidents. - Could be once on hiring, then only if you really fuck up. This is what my company does. - Could be “random” testing that just so happens to “randomly” catch the obvious fuckwit who walked in after driving to work while probably blitzed and now wants to hop in a sprayer. - Could be genuinely random testing. I work in Agriculture, and my company provides me a work pickup truck (funny enough, my ATV in the back is my actual “work” vehicle if you consider time spent driving) along with fuel, which I can make reasonable personal use of. The tradeoff is they demand the ability to get notified of tickets/points added on my license, and if I start repeatedly getting speeding tickets and ignore the “hey, stop that shit” talk they give me, they’ll ultimately rescind the free vehicle they’ve provided me. Getting a DUI would very likely result in immediate termination. Which I consider fair enough If I worked a desk job and don’t have a situation where altered states of mind would present a massive danger to myself, others, and company equipment, then yeah drug tests can fuck right off.

incahoots 3y ago
>also make getting rid of “that fucking guy” easier. Very much so. An ex-coworker worked for a cardboard factory, attempted to unionize the workforce by providing lunches to workers during talk shops. He was taking liquid cannabis, had a doctors permission, script to get his medical card, only dosed enough for his aliment, and HR was aware. Management had him take a urine analysis, supposedly workforce wide, of course failed due to the cannabis use, fired him the same day. Never missed a day he scheduled, good guy. Working for the city we do routine tests, especially CDL drivers, but from what I understand, they don't look for positive tests for cannabis, so I'm unsure if we're seeing a shift due to the legalization across nearly half the US, or they're specifically looking for opioids. Just figured I'd share a perspective.
- MerelyMortal 3y ago
  Not a lawyer, but seems like a slam dunk medical discrimination case.
  - natpalmer1776 3y ago
    First source I could fine, but I’m sure you can find more: https://www.rkpt.com/business-and-corporate-law/employment-and-labor-law/2022/07/21/can-i-be-fired-for-using-marijuana-with-a-prescription/ https://www.rkpt.com/business-and-corporate-law/employment-a...
    - MerelyMortal 3y ago
      That's a good source, however the issue that I see is that they already knew about it and kept him on. You can't say it's okay to use marajuna and then later say, I had no idea he would test positive for marajuna. They should have reasonably known that he would test positive for marajuna. Maybe it's not a medical discrimination case, but it's definately a case.
      - kube-system 3y ago
        It's a National Labor Relations Act case. Employees have the right to talk about unionization with their coworkers. The employer constructed the other evidence as an excuse (which is what basically any employer knowledgable of the law does), but the previous approval would undermine the validity of that evidence.

incahoots 3y ago

>also make getting rid of “that fucking guy” easier. Very much so. An ex-coworker worked for a cardboard factory, attempted to unionize the workforce by providing lunches to workers during talk shops. He was taking liquid cannabis, had a doctors permission, script to get his medical card, only dosed enough for his aliment, and HR was aware. Management had him take a urine analysis, supposedly workforce wide, of course failed due to the cannabis use, fired him the same day. Never missed a day he scheduled, good guy. Working for the city we do routine tests, especially CDL drivers, but from what I understand, they don't look for positive tests for cannabis, so I'm unsure if we're seeing a shift due to the legalization across nearly half the US, or they're specifically looking for opioids. Just figured I'd share a perspective.

MerelyMortal 3y ago
Not a lawyer, but seems like a slam dunk medical discrimination case.
- natpalmer1776 3y ago
  First source I could fine, but I’m sure you can find more: https://www.rkpt.com/business-and-corporate-law/employment-and-labor-law/2022/07/21/can-i-be-fired-for-using-marijuana-with-a-prescription/ https://www.rkpt.com/business-and-corporate-law/employment-a...
  - MerelyMortal 3y ago
    That's a good source, however the issue that I see is that they already knew about it and kept him on. You can't say it's okay to use marajuna and then later say, I had no idea he would test positive for marajuna. They should have reasonably known that he would test positive for marajuna. Maybe it's not a medical discrimination case, but it's definately a case.
    - kube-system 3y ago
      It's a National Labor Relations Act case. Employees have the right to talk about unionization with their coworkers. The employer constructed the other evidence as an excuse (which is what basically any employer knowledgable of the law does), but the previous approval would undermine the validity of that evidence.