DC Bill bans firing staff won fail weed tests.

@techsouth said
Okay, what if the employee stated publicly that a man cannot become a woman in spite of any surgery he may get?

That, too, could lead to lawsuits. Is it okay to fire someone who says that?

On the other hand, what about a surgeon who smoke marijuana on his break when he is at work only for administrative duties?

Is there any room in America for employers who make decisions different than what you approve of?

@jimm619 said
What, if anything, could he be charged with?
Is that much different than the sacred, 'three martini lunch?'
Sounds, to me, that would
all be hashed out in a courtroom.
I am not a lawyer.

@averagejoe1 said
Meant 'who' fail weed tests. If I were an employer, I think I have a right to fire staff who have weed evidence of any nature. The arguments about this will probably be along the lines of the baker who would not bake a gay wedding cake. It is my enterprise, I built it, and here again your govt wants to tell me how to run it.

@kellyjay said
What happens if they come in drunk and fail a sobriety test? Does the same thing apply?

@techsouth said
Now you're moving the goal posts.

We were talking about private companies firing someone, and it was your position that it should be illegal to fire someone for smoking marijuana because smoking marijuana was not legal in the jurisdiction. You support the view that the government can prevent firings for acts that aren't illegal. But if that's your standard, you need to ...[text shortened]... aking the law. At no point was anyone here talking about arresting a person for smoking marijuana.

@techsouth said
Now you're moving the goal posts.

We were talking about private companies firing someone, and it was your position that it should be illegal to fire someone for smoking marijuana because smoking marijuana was not legal in the jurisdiction. You support the view that the government can prevent firings for acts that aren't illegal. But if that's your standard, you need to ...[text shortened]... aking the law. At no point was anyone here talking about arresting a person for smoking marijuana.

@sonhouse said
@AverageJoe1
There was an employee at a Jewish restaurant, where they are not allowed to push buttons on shabot. So this one shabot day, hotter then hell, he goes, SCREW IT and turns on the air conditioner.
He got fired because of the rules established by that restaurant.
And lost in court, who sided with the restaurant, they can make their own rules.

@jimm619
This is true but there is no test saying you smoked marijuana before going to work or the night before and now you are not stoned.
It ticks me off also but there is nothing we can do about that.

I had not smoked in literally 3 months and still tested positive and lost a job because of that.

The company makes the hiring choices and that is settled law as I pointed out in the Jewish restaurant case.

So if an employee comes into his work, say Subway, and starts bringing in a hundred pounds of railroad ties and dumps them on the floor of that Subway, they would and should have the right to kick him out on his ass.

That is of course hyperbole but you get the idea.

If there was a marijuana test that would say YOU SMOKED 20 MINUTES AGO just before that person went to work, it would be a slam dunk that person would be stoned and SHOULD be fired, especially if it is a potentially dangerous job, like I saw in my time working for Goodyear Tire and Rubber co. near Watts California, long story that one🙂 but they have had hands cut off because the worker wasn't paying attention to detail and one case I knew, a rubber cutting machine, basically a hydraulic guillotine and the dude had his hand inside and hit the down button and goodbye hand. They fixed that issue by putting two down buttons on the machine
which required one hand on one button and the other hand on the other button so you could not have your hand under the blade when it comes chomping down on that slab of rubber before it got dumped into the Banbury 27 which was my baby to keep running.
Well, if we had a test that would show you are definitely stoned coming in to work it would be a safe assumption NOBODY would want that person running that major powered cutter would they?

But there is no such test so all we have is you have THC in your pee so you lose.

@vivify said
Weed is legal in DC. So why should anyone get fired for it?

@kellyjay said
What happens if they come in drunk and fail a sobriety test? Does the same thing apply?

@averagejoe1 said
Lib posts got nuthin!! This is a prime example. Hey Shav, you have a bread bakery. The government tells you that you cannot fire a guy who chews gum with A coconut fragrance . You hate coconuts, your granddad choked to death on a coconut shard. Say. “Oh, now I get it.” Whiner ?? The person that wrote this bill is a whiner surely, Obviously given to allowing adults to be all around us. I think I have deduced that you don’t have any children.

@sonhouse said
@jimm619
This is true but there is no test saying you smoked marijuana before going to work or the night before and now you are not stoned.
It ticks me off also but there is nothing we can do about that.

I had not smoked in literally 3 months and still tested positive and lost a job because of that.

The company makes the hiring choices and that is settled law as I po ...[text shortened]... ter would they?

But there is no such test so all we have is you have THC in your pee so you lose.

@averagejoe1 said
Try this one....Should I have the right to fire my receptionist if she comes in tomorrow morning with a nose ring? A nose ring? In a highly respectable office dealing with peoples' lives, peoples' planning?? What if I were a surgeon and she has a diamond inserted thru her lower and upper lips? The patient will see her just before I put him to sleep to start cutting. Can patient demand she leave the room? Libs hate questions, y'all just dictate.

@jimm619 said
Don't be obtuse,
Of course not. intoxicated on the job,
is quite different than smoking a joint, AT HOME, AFTER WORK.
Even the less intelligent posters, here on FORUM, understand this concept.
Small government, right?

@mghrn55
Indeed, there should be limits on what they can fire for, or not hire for, for instance, just being black and they tell you no jobs here, but a white dude comes in a half hour later and they go start monday.

That is what the anti bias laws are about, like saying you are 53 years old and WAY too old to be hired, that is illegal also.

But like I said, there is no test showing you smoked just before coming to work and therefore a sure thing you would be stoned at work and that is too bad, the technology of drug tests are just not that sophisticated at least not right now and till then employer rules on that sort of thing is settled law.