Pages: 1 … 6 7 8 9

 

2011-07-04 22:24:01
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6540|what

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:


What rights at work do you think you have that supersedes the OWNER's rights? Again, if you do not want to get tested, DON'T work there or apply there. It really is THAT simple.
The right to sick leave? Pay? Over time pay? The right not to be discriminated by the owner based on age, sex and ethnicity? Maternity leave? Safe working conditions?

The owners rights don't supercede any of the above do they, lowing?
nope they don't, but we are talking about illegal drug use and an employers right to ensure he does not have to hire someone that engages in it. We are not talking about an employees right to fair compensation.
well the states are legalising marijuana so can the worker discriminate against an employee who engages in it (smokes outside of work)?
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2011-07-04 22:26:58
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6988|132 and Bush

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:


The right to sick leave? Pay? Over time pay? The right not to be discriminated by the owner based on age, sex and ethnicity? Maternity leave? Safe working conditions?

The owners rights don't supercede any of the above do they, lowing?
nope they don't, but we are talking about illegal drug use and an employers right to ensure he does not have to hire someone that engages in it. We are not talking about an employees right to fair compensation.
well the states are legalising marijuana so can the worker discriminate against an employee who engages in it (smokes outside of work)?
No more than alcohol. So long as it does not affect performance. You can't go to work drunk neither.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2011-07-05 00:06:31
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5565|Sydney

Kmar wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:


nope they don't, but we are talking about illegal drug use and an employers right to ensure he does not have to hire someone that engages in it. We are not talking about an employees right to fair compensation.
well the states are legalising marijuana so can the worker discriminate against an employee who engages in it (smokes outside of work)?
No more than alcohol. So long as it does not affect performance. You can't go to work drunk neither.
This is true, but it becomes a grey area when a test is positive. Marijuana can stay in the system for days, even weeks, long after the effects have worn off. If marijuana becomes legal, how does one prove they aren't under its influence when a positive test comes up?
2011-07-05 00:13:33
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6988|132 and Bush

By their performance, and if relevant (depending on the job) their appearance. If someone shows up to work and their hair disheveled with Doritos and cotton candy glued to their face it's safe to safe there's a problem. Otherwise it's not.. since it would be legal.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2011-07-05 00:15:02
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5565|Sydney

Kmar wrote:

By their performance, and if relevant (depending on the job) their appearance. If someone shows up to work and their hair disheveled with Doritos and cotton candy glued to their face it's safe to safe there's a problem. Otherwise it's not.. since it would be legal.
Yeah I agree, but many employers aren't going to become accepting of their employees smoking the day it becomes legal. I suspect if legalisation occurs we will be seeing some law suits and counter law suits occurring.
2011-07-05 00:19:04
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6988|132 and Bush

Sure there's always some sort of breaking in period. But if someone is given the right to recreational use cannabis then there isn't much the employer can do if it doesn't affect the workplace. Each state has it's own wrongful termination laws as it stands right now.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2011-07-05 00:19:59
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5565|Sydney
That is true. I guess it will all work itself out in time, but not without its teething problems.
2011-07-05 00:23:30
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6988|132 and Bush

There are a few states that have "at will" laws. I think Florida is one.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2011-07-05 00:28:19
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5565|Sydney
"At will" laws?
2011-07-05 00:29:34
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6988|132 and Bush

It means the employer can fire you for any reason they want... or no reason at all really.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2011-07-05 00:30:57
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5565|Sydney
Oh. Our former government got voted out of office in the 2007 election for introducing similar laws, among other reasons of course, but polling showed it to be very unpopular with voters.
2011-07-05 00:35:00
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6988|132 and Bush

Yea most states have exceptions (reasons you can not be fired in addition to the federal standard). Then there's implied contracts and such that can also protect the employee.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2011-07-05 00:41:31
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5565|Sydney
Yeah it's actually pretty hard to fire someone these days in Australia. It's been a long time since I read up on it and my memory is pretty hazy as I just haven't needed to (and I won't look it up now because I'm cooking dinner) but you need pretty valid reasons, and usually employers implement a "three strikes and you're out" system, with the first being a verbal warning, the second a written and the third is termination of employment. And the reasons have to be things like misconduct, defamation, illegal activities, turning up under the influence of drugs/alcohol, being late many times, etc. All pretty obvious really, but they can't fire you for things like they don't like your haircut or if you have a beard, unless it is strictly stated within their guidelines. Even then with something like beards (it was an issue for me with one manager at a previous job) they can't make an issue if it is well groomed (mine always is) and if a beard is grown it must be done whilst on leave.

tl;dr employers need to have valid reasons for termination that are preceded by verbal and written warnings. Gross misconduct, fraud and illegal activity can of course result in immediate termination of employment.
2011-07-05 00:46:29
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7062|Canberra, AUS

Jaekus wrote:

Oh. Our former government got voted out of office in the 2007 election for introducing similar laws, among other reasons of course, but polling showed it to be very unpopular with voters.
Understatement of the century.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2011-07-05 00:47:56
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5565|Sydney

Spark wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Oh. Our former government got voted out of office in the 2007 election for introducing similar laws, among other reasons of course, but polling showed it to be very unpopular with voters.
Understatement of the century.
I was trying to remain as objective as possible
2011-07-05 01:32:39
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,820|6493|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

The ACLU is at least consistent on the issue. They oppose employer drug testing too on the grounds that its an invasion of privacy and a workers off time. The problem with drug testing is that it's not instant read, i.e. is this person high or drunk now? If not, what grounds do I have to sanction him for his off duty lifestyle? Unless you are on call 24/7 this is a serious intrusion.

As for welfare recipients, I would toss them into the on call 24/7 pool. Why they aren't asked to do any work at all for the money is beyond me. Have them pick up trash or plant flowers or something. The ACLU would fight that as 'degrading' though
Fine, make them do work and they can be drug tested.

Refusing entitlements because you don't like someone's lifestyle or politics is a slippery slope.
Fuck Israel
2011-07-05 02:21:33
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,820|6493|eXtreme to the maX

Jaekus wrote:

Kmar wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:


well the states are legalising marijuana so can the worker discriminate against an employee who engages in it (smokes outside of work)?
No more than alcohol. So long as it does not affect performance. You can't go to work drunk neither.
This is true, but it becomes a grey area when a test is positive. Marijuana can stay in the system for days, even weeks, long after the effects have worn off. If marijuana becomes legal, how does one prove they aren't under its influence when a positive test comes up?
If someone comes to work still affected by alcohol they'll be fired, the argument will be how cannabis affects people and for how long.
Fuck Israel
2011-07-05 03:46:16
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5565|Sydney

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Kmar wrote:


No more than alcohol. So long as it does not affect performance. You can't go to work drunk neither.
This is true, but it becomes a grey area when a test is positive. Marijuana can stay in the system for days, even weeks, long after the effects have worn off. If marijuana becomes legal, how does one prove they aren't under its influence when a positive test comes up?
If someone comes to work still affected by alcohol they'll be fired, the argument will be how cannabis affects people and for how long.
One could argue that with any alcohol in the system you are under the influence, and thus affected.
The same argument could be applied to a positive test to cannabis, but it is questionable if the effects are there or not.
2011-07-05 04:28:53
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7038|USA

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:


The right to sick leave? Pay? Over time pay? The right not to be discriminated by the owner based on age, sex and ethnicity? Maternity leave? Safe working conditions?

The owners rights don't supercede any of the above do they, lowing?
nope they don't, but we are talking about illegal drug use and an employers right to ensure he does not have to hire someone that engages in it. We are not talking about an employees right to fair compensation.
well the states are legalising marijuana so can the worker discriminate against an employee who engages in it (smokes outside of work)?
Fair question, but I would think it is completely up to the employer. It is, after all, their company and not yours. The employer still has a right to hire who they want and if they still want a drug free work force, well then who are you to say they can not have one?
2011-07-05 04:33:57
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7038|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

The ACLU is at least consistent on the issue. They oppose employer drug testing too on the grounds that its an invasion of privacy and a workers off time. The problem with drug testing is that it's not instant read, i.e. is this person high or drunk now? If not, what grounds do I have to sanction him for his off duty lifestyle? Unless you are on call 24/7 this is a serious intrusion.

As for welfare recipients, I would toss them into the on call 24/7 pool. Why they aren't asked to do any work at all for the money is beyond me. Have them pick up trash or plant flowers or something. The ACLU would fight that as 'degrading' though
Fine, make them do work and they can be drug tested.

Refusing entitlements because you don't like someone's lifestyle or politics is a slippery slope.
Sorry Dilbert, criminal activity is not simply a life style choice. What next are you going to argue that criminals are being discriminated against because they are locked up for their life style choice and law abiding citizens are not?
2011-07-05 05:30:33
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7062|Canberra, AUS
TBF crime is a lifestyle choice. It's just not a very good one, generally speaking.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2011-07-05 05:40:28
globefish23
sophisticated slacker
+334|6711|Graz, Austria

11 Bravo wrote:

so you would be ok with your pilot doing hits of acid every night?
If it makes him fly better...
2011-07-05 09:28:03
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5624|Cleveland, Ohio

11 Bravo wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

maybe i should change my name to lowing

Last edited by 11 Bravo (2011-07-05 09:28:40)

2011-07-05 11:23:08
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5565|Sydney

11 Bravo wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:


maybe i should change my name to lowing
So you can troll more?
2011-07-05 12:29:19
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|7054

Even when I've used headhunters, I at times still had to take drug tests prior to management level employment.  Even a psychological test at one place.  While California does allow "medicinal" use of marijuana, the company I work for does not allow it.  Engineering, where the slightest "out of it" situation could lead to someone's death, you better believe drug testing is at will around here.  And I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

Pages: 1 … 6 7 8 9

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard