Marijuana VS Alcohol debates

[jillio]

That doesn't sound right, a home is a private home. I've never ever heard anyone would get fired based on what they do outside of work. Employers do not "own" their employees. What they do in their personal life is their business not the employer's business.

Why do you think companies do drug tests? If THC is found in your urine, you can loose your job. Doesn't matter where you smoked it.

 

[jillio]

I was going to add that it makes sense cuz I can lose my job too if I was a pot user.

About the other people smoking pot in my home causing my husband losing his job is another issue that I am not sure why his job has that policy. Maybe cuz he works for the govt?

Right. And it doesn't matter if it has been an hour since someone smoked, or 2 weeks. If the THC is in the urine, then they can loose their job, even though they never smoked on the job or came to work high.

 

[Cheri]

Shel-90

I think it is because marijuana is illegal and alcohol is not, as long they're not under the the influence of alcohol, one or two beers wouldn't hurt.

and yes it makes sense.

Jillio, not all jobs offer drug tests. My job did not, I've never had a drug test while working for any companies.

 

[Hwy99]

If the substance that a worker uses at home is still in the body and influencing reactions and behavior, then that becomes the business of the employer.

For example, suppose a bus driver gets high or buzzed at home an hour before he drives a school class on their field trip. He used the substance at home but it still effects his driving ability on the job.

Do you want your surgeon, dentist, or pilot hittin' the bottle or tokin' a joint or poppin' a pill right before going to work?

Yupp true, it's not ok to be drunk or high during the work or right before starting work, but if a worker, like Shel said, became high or drunk a long time before the work are personal use and it's nothing the elympoment can do.

 

[jillio]

Shel-90

I think it is because marijuana is illegal and alcohol is not, as long they're not under the the influence of alcohol, one or two beers wouldn't hurt.

and yes it makes sense.

Jillio, not all jobs offer drug tests. My job did not, I've never had a drug test while working for any companies.

No, all jobs don't make mandatory drug testing a part of the hiring procedure. However, if you get hurt at work, all will automatically drug test because of workman's comp claims. And more and more employers are requiring drug tests before hiring, and also have mandatrory, unnanounced testing anytime the mood hits them.
And certain professions require a drug test. Teaching professions for one. Public transportation drivers. Pharmacy techs and pharmacists. Counselors. Heck, I even know a guy that works at a video store that had to submit to a drug test befor they would hire him. Walmart Distribution Center. Nurses. Home Health Aides. Teacher aides. Day care workers. Government employees. The list goes on and on.

 

[Hwy99]

No, all jobs don't make mandatory drug testing a part of the hiring procedure. However, if you get hurt at work, all will automatically drug test because of workman's comp claims. And more and more employers are requiring drug tests before hiring, and also have mandatrory, unnanounced testing anytime the mood hits them.
And certain professions require a drug test. Teaching professions for one. Public transportation drivers. Pharmacy techs and pharmacists. Counselors. Heck, I even know a guy that works at a video store that had to submit to a drug test befor they would hire him. Walmart Distribution Center. Nurses. Home Health Aides. Teacher aides. Day care workers. Government employees. The list goes on and on.

But I was required to take the pee test when I applied my last job.

 

[jillio]

But I was required to take the pee test when I applied my last job.

Yes, a lot of employers will require it now.

 

[Reba]

One question though and this is adressed to Reba as well...what's the difference between someone drinking a few bottles of beer on a weekend and someone smoking a joint on the same day knowing they wont go to work for another 2 days?

It depends on the employer's policy, and any additional requirements by that specific industry or profession. Yes, they can make the rules. It's up to the employee or prospective employee to decide if they can put up with those rules.

Reba, I undy while being intoxicated on the job is a big NO NO but my husband can lose his job if he smokes pot even if he is not going to work for a few days but wont lose his job if he drinks beer so I guess it is the fact that pot is illegal while alcohol is not.

It's up to the employer or profession to set the rules.

Also, what about the fact that my husband can lose his job if other people smoke pot in our house?

Well, then he shouldn't allow them to smoke pot in your house. It's a matter of priorities. Which is more important to him--friends smoking pot in your house, or keeping his job?

That I dont understand at all. I think it can apply to me as well because I am a teacher and all. I will have to check with my boss about that but I dont want her to wonder why I am asking her. LOL!

Do you have an employee handbook and/or a copy of your employment contract? That might provide the information you want.

Hope I am making sense?

Yes, you are.

 

[Pepsi]

He was caught smoking it on the job,he and another co-worker .

 

[Hwy99]

He was caught smoking it on the job,he and another co-worker .

Ohh... That's shame, I guess.. I am sorry about your loss by his situation

 

[Banjo]

It's up to the employer or profession to set the rules.

Well, then he shouldn't allow them to smoke pot in your house. It's a matter of priorities. Which is more important to him--friends smoking pot in your house, or keeping his job?

An employer should not be able to impose his/her rules onto their employees' households. If it affects the job performance, then that's a different story.

What is it about people having to be submissive to their employers? It's crazy that someone think it's even acceptable for an employer to do this. An employer pay you to perform tasks and follow the rules on your premises and during their work shifts. An employer shouldn't be able to extend its authority beyond that.

I'm sorry, but I don't think we should be slaves to our employers for the sake of keeping our jobs. That's interfering with a personal life separated from its work life. A person shouldn't have to go around their whole lives worrying about what their employers will do to them if they do this and that.

It's just like the Coke and Pepsi situation. If you are a Pepsi employee caught drinking a Coke product, you can get fired which is a ridiculous thing to do. Don't give me that two-bit crap about loyalty. Do you think a lot of corporations are loyal to their employees? Pfft!

Geez.

 

[shel90]

It depends on the employer's policy, and any additional requirements by that specific industry or profession. Yes, they can make the rules. It's up to the employee or prospective employee to decide if they can put up with those rules.



It's up to the employer or profession to set the rules.



Well, then he shouldn't allow them to smoke pot in your house. It's a matter of priorities. Which is more important to him--friends smoking pot in your house, or keeping his job?



Do you have an employee handbook and/or a copy of your employment contract? That might provide the information you want.


Yes, you are.

Yea, I will check my handbook. This thread has gotten me curious.

My hubby and I don't participate nor do illegal substances. Not worth it and we value our jobs more than them. No, we don't allow friends to do anything illegal in our home but luckily almost none of our friends use illegal substances.

I was just playing Devil's advocate cuz that rule about getting fired if other people do pot in our house. The reason I don't like it cuz we could be unaware if someone was going in the bathroom and lighting up. That was what our former roomates did..we had no idea for over a year until we became suspicous and confronted them. So, if for some reason, they got busted during that year without our knowledge, we wud get into trouble also. I just think that's kinda unfair. Anyone cud stash weed in their purses and bring it in my house without our knowledge. I hope not but the point is why r we held liable for someone's decision to light up? Not expecting an answer but just wondering out loud. Ugh!

 

[jillio]

An employer should not be able to impose his/her rules onto their employees' households. If it affects the job performance, then that's a different story.

What is it about people having to be submissive to their employers? It's crazy that someone think it's even acceptable for an employer to do this. An employer pay you to perform tasks and follow the rules on your premises and during their work shifts. An employer shouldn't be able to extend its authority beyond that.

I'm sorry, but I don't think we should be slaves to our employers for the sake of keeping our jobs. That's interfering with a personal life separated from its work life. A person shouldn't have to go around their whole lives worrying about what their employers will do to them if they do this and that.

It's just like the Coke and Pepsi situation. If you are a Pepsi employee caught drinking a Coke product, you can get fired which is a ridiculous thing to do. Don't give me that two-bit crap about loyalty. Do you think a lot of corporations are loyal to their employees? Pfft!

Geez.

I am in total agreement with you. I personally see across the board mandatory drug testing without reasonable cause to be a violation of privacy rights.

 

[Hwy99]

An employer should not be able to impose his/her rules onto their employees' households. If it affects the job performance, then that's a different story.

What is it about people having to be submissive to their employers? It's crazy that someone think it's even acceptable for an employer to do this. An employer pay you to perform tasks and follow the rules on your premises and during their work shifts. An employer shouldn't be able to extend its authority beyond that.

I'm sorry, but I don't think we should be slaves to our employers for the sake of keeping our jobs. That's interfering with a personal life separated from its work life. A person shouldn't have to go around their whole lives worrying about what their employers will do to them if they do this and that.

It's just like the Coke and Pepsi situation. If you are a Pepsi employee caught drinking a Coke product, you can get fired which is a ridiculous thing to do. Don't give me that two-bit crap about loyalty. Do you think a lot of corporations are loyal to their employees? Pfft!

Geez.

Have to agree with you completely.

 

[Pepsi]

I'm sorry to hear that your husband has put you through all of this but my question to you is this: if you are not happy with him smoking pot, why don't you leave him?

Maybe that will be a "wake-up" call for him.

I have been doing something about it.

 

[Jolie77]

One of my co-worker got caught on 2 counts of trafficking with marijuana. So, of course she was fired from the job. If you were to break a law and to be arrested, that also affects the company's reputation because you're setting an example for this company.

Alcohol vs Marijuana Debate has been ongoing for years and years. Since Alcohol is legal and Marijuana isn't - I'd rather be caught with a cup of beer in my hand rather than a joint.

If I were to be caught with possession of marijuana or any other drug paraphernalia, I could be losing a lot more by, losing my job for one, and not only that, I could be losing my children to the welfare system. That is something I would not want to risk to begin with.

 

[shel90]

One of my co-worker got caught on 2 counts of trafficking with marijuana. So, of course she was fired from the job. If you were to break a law and to be arrested, that also affects the company's reputation because you're setting an example for this company.

Alcohol vs Marijuana Debate has been ongoing for years and years. Since Alcohol is legal and Marijuana isn't - I'd rather be caught with a cup of beer in my hand rather than a joint.

If I were to be caught with possession of marijuana or any other drug paraphernalia, I could be losing a lot more by, losing my job for one, and not only that, I could be losing my children to the welfare system. That is something I would not want to risk to begin with.

That is why beer is my best friend and marijuana is my enemy!

 

[Reba]

An employer should not be able to impose his/her rules onto their employees' households. If it affects the job performance, then that's a different story.

"If it affects the job performance" is the key. If an employer believes, or if that particular field of industry (such as public transportation) believes that using drugs or alcohol, or having them in the employee's body system during work hours could impact job performance, safety, or legal standing, then the employer has the right to require employees to stay clean.

Normally, those conditions are stated up front, at the time of employment, so it's no shock to the employee when he/she gets caught.

What is it about people having to be submissive to their employers?

If someone thinks the rules are too onerous then maybe that's not the right job for that someone.

It's crazy that someone think it's even acceptable for an employer to do this. An employer pay you to perform tasks and follow the rules on your premises and during their work shifts. An employer shouldn't be able to extend its authority beyond that.

The problem is, the effects of drugs and alcohol don't shut off just because someone walks thru the door of their place of employment.

If the school bus driver drank a six-pack at home before starting the afternoon pick up of kids, is that OK? The drinking was at home, right?

If your pharmacist popped some illegal pills at home before heading to the drug store to prepare your prescription, is that OK?

If the mechanic got high at home before going to work on your car's brakes is that OK?

...It's just like the Coke and Pepsi situation. If you are a Pepsi employee caught drinking a Coke product, you can get fired which is a ridiculous thing to do.

That's not a public safety issue, so that's not comparable to substance abuse.

Don't give me that two-bit crap about loyalty. Do you think a lot of corporations are loyal to their employees? Pfft!

I never said it had anything to do with corporate loyalty. It's about public safety.

 

[jillio]

"If it affects the job performance" is the key. If an employer believes, or if that particular field of industry (such as public transportation) believes that using drugs or alcohol, or having them in the employee's body system during work hours could impact job performance, safety, or legal standing, then the employer has the right to require employees to stay clean.

Normally, those conditions are stated up front, at the time of employment, so it's no shock to the employee when he/she gets caught.



If someone thinks the rules are too onerous then maybe that's not the right job for that someone.



The problem is, the effects of drugs and alcohol don't shut off just because someone walks thru the door of their place of employment.

If the school bus driver drank a six-pack at home before starting the afternoon pick up of kids, is that OK? The drinking was at home, right?

If your pharmacist popped some illegal pills at home before heading to the drug store to prepare your prescription, is that OK?

If the mechanic got high at home before going to work on your car's brakes is that OK?



That's not a public safety issue, so that's not comparable to substance abuse.



I never said it had anything to do with corporate loyalty. It's about public safety.

But shouldn't we also consider the level of the substance found in the blood. If, for instance, someone drank a beer 6 hours ago, there would still be ethanol detectable in the blood stream, even though the level is not high enough to impair either functioning or judgement. Likewise, someone who took a hit off of a marijuana joint 30 days ago will still show THC in the blood and urine. But the chance of them still being high 30 days later is nonexistent.

 

[Reba]

But shouldn't we also consider the level of the substance found in the blood. If, for instance, someone drank a beer 6 hours ago, there would still be ethanol detectable in the blood stream, even though the level is not high enough to impair either functioning or judgement. Likewise, someone who took a hit off of a marijuana joint 30 days ago will still show THC in the blood and urine. But the chance of them still being high 30 days later is nonexistent.

It's up to the employer or agency responsible to set the standards. It probably varies depending on each organization.

There are all kinds of rules about who gets tested, when, and how. There is no one standard.

Some people get tested pre-employment across the board, some get random testing, some get tested only after accidents occur, some get tested during sweeps; lots of variation.

When I was in the military, it was random. You never knew when they would do tests, and the "donors" were selected by the last digit in your SSN, and that was chosen at random. Once you were selected, you had to stay in the head until you gave, no matter how long it took. If you couldn't go, you stayed in there and drank water until you had to go. In the military, we had to be "observed for positive flow", and the tester would touch the container to check the warmth. Chain of custody was very important. I'd rather get tested than be an observer, but I've done both. Ugh!

Also, if anyone tested positive, they had to be checked again for a second positive. No one could be convicted without two positives in a row.

I don't know what the rules are now.