1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Dish Discriminates Against Disabled Employee over use of medical marijuana

Discussion in 'The OT' started by SayWhat?, Apr 30, 2013.

  1. May 6, 2013 #61 of 189
    longrider

    longrider Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    4,018
    183
    Apr 21, 2007
    Elizabeth, CO
    That is my issue both with this and the whole random drug testing as far as marijuana is concerned. I don't know the exact time but I would say 2 to 6 hours as the time you are under the influence. However urine tests will be positive for 7 days. An employer has an absolute right to dictate conditions at work but I am very disturbed by the attempt of many employers to control your private life. In this case he could smoke his joint after work and be totally straight the next morning so everybody should be happy
     
  2. May 6, 2013 #62 of 189
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    I don't know how you can say that last part with any certainty.

    Consider alcohol for instance... You could drink after work, and be sober in the morning BUT have a hangover... if that hangover causes you to stay home from work excessively OR perform poorly on those days... then your legal drinking at home could be said to impair your work performance... and this would be without any tests whatsoever.

    So... while you may not still be "high" the next day... that some of it is in your system for days afterwards and can be detected leaves the door open that some of your abilities might be impaired without you directly knowing it.

    Heck... remove drugs and alcohol altogether...

    IF I stay up all night, my judgment is impaired... and it is fully legal for me to not sleep if I want... but my employer might not like the way I am at work on those days.
     
  3. May 6, 2013 #63 of 189
    longrider

    longrider Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    4,018
    183
    Apr 21, 2007
    Elizabeth, CO
    I agree with what you are saying and that should be the standard, if your ability to perform your job is impaired then the employer can do whatever is needed to correct it up to and including termination. However I do see the issue as that makes it much more subjective which can lead to abuse. What is really needed is something like what Colorado is working on for drivers which is a precise nanograms per milliliter THC concentration in blood. The current system is too much like the high school that suspended a student for alcohol use - because he took a dose of COUGH SYRUP that morning.

    For the record I am not a pot user. I have smoked some but it was infrequent and was so infrequent by the time my employer imposed random testing that it was a complete non-issue for me. I just have an issue with the current trend of trying to regulate people private lives.
     
  4. May 6, 2013 #64 of 189
    trh

    trh This Space for Sale

    5,627
    275
    Nov 2, 2007
    NE FL
    Dish, and many other companies, have a policy against using drugs and if you violate the policy, you get terminated. I'm guessing this guy signed a form acknowledging this, yet he willfully violated the terms of his employment. He got caught and he is paying the price.
     
  5. May 6, 2013 #65 of 189
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,540
    1,087
    Nov 13, 2006
    The legality of medical marajuna is of no importance either as far as I am concerned. Alcohol is not illegal if you're over 21 and yet its not allowed at work, so it should be treated no differently, IMHO.
     
  6. May 6, 2013 #66 of 189
    acostapimps

    acostapimps Hall Of Famer

    1,866
    50
    Nov 5, 2011
    Illinois
    Isn't there like any Employement is an anti-drug policy regardless if its legal or not, And if he fail a drug test than there's nothing more to it I think, no one should be exempt from that policy even on alcohol and cigarette smoking indoors if prohibited, Believe what you like as anybody have their opinion, But this issue shouldn't have gone to court, Why should I be exempt from everybody else if I fail a drug test even if medical marijuana is legal on the state as state and federal law is two different things, Contrary to belief that state medical marijuana law is just enough without even noticing the federal law that every company must abide to. And the previous post I made about alcohol and cigarette smoking is true, mostly from liver damage for too much drinking or drunk driving accident fatality rate, same with cigarette smoking with all the health risk that could happen even second hand smoking, It could happen with weed smoking also but it's very rare.
     
  7. May 7, 2013 #67 of 189
    BattleScott

    BattleScott Hall Of Fame

    2,353
    7
    Aug 28, 2006
    I feel like I have to play the law enforcement card here. Law enforcement personnel make decisions about enforcement of laws every day based on judgement. If they didn't, if they simply chose to book every observable violation of a law, you couldn't get within 300 yards of most jails.

    It is too easy to base a judgement on a yes or no call, to remove degrees of right and wrong from the judgement. As I said


    While I dont like the "Zero Tolerance" policies either, I see them as a natural result of an irresponsible society rather than a conscious decision made by those who are in power. We now live in a world where the court of public opinion rules and the threat of liability lawsuits dictate policy more than any amount of common sense.

    More and more, organizations are forced into them because the alternatives are no longer managable. The "Zero Tolerance" position is the only choice in many cases because anything else brings to much risk (remember - the real danger in a lawsuit is the cost of defense, not the verdict in most cases).

    When Dish found out about this employee, they had to act in the manner they did or their ability to act against any other employees guilty of the same violation would be threatened.

    Sadly, society's unwillingness to think for itself has reduced us to the least common denominator and there is no going back now.
     
    1 person likes this.
  8. May 7, 2013 #68 of 189
    Rich

    Rich DBSTalk Club DBSTalk Club

    27,002
    523
    Feb 22, 2007
    Piscataway, NJ
    We had a breathalyzer in our dispensary. If it had been used on the salaried people after lunch a lot of them (including me) would have been nailed. You can pick up levels of pot that are enough to get a person in trouble (we sent folks who got caught to a clinic, if they refused to go, they could have been fired. As far as I know, only one employee refused to go and he was terminated on the spot) a month after using it. Never seemed fair to me. Heroin is out of your system quicker, cocaine is out quicker, and the most insidious drug, alcohol, is out the next day. How do I know this? I attended several seminars before we went to random testing.

    As a side note to Dish, firing a disabled person for using legal marijuana is cruel and unusual punishment. A chemical factory is inherently dangerous and we didn't go berserk, we cared for our people medically if they chose to take that option.

    Rich
     
  9. May 8, 2013 #69 of 189
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,749
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    I am assuming that he worked there more than a month before the test otherwise the "positive" should have been caught by pre-employment screening. Which means he got lucky that his test wasn't the day after his use (and unlucky that the marker stayed in his system so long).

    The "have compassion, he had not used in a month" argument goes away when one realizes that he had shown up for work closer to his date of last use. It helps some to see that he was not an every day or every weekend user ... and perhaps a drug treatment program would have been a better option - but with this drug it is hard to get people to admit that their use (or use by others) is a problem. "It is only weed" is not acceptance that the drug use is a problem.
     
  10. May 8, 2013 #70 of 189
    Rich

    Rich DBSTalk Club DBSTalk Club

    27,002
    523
    Feb 22, 2007
    Piscataway, NJ
     
  11. May 8, 2013 #71 of 189
    Jim5506

    Jim5506 Hall Of Fame

    3,660
    36
    Jun 7, 2004
    So, what if an employee comes to work stoned and injures a co-worker or a client, whose liability is it?
     
  12. May 9, 2013 #72 of 189
    Rich

    Rich DBSTalk Club DBSTalk Club

    27,002
    523
    Feb 22, 2007
    Piscataway, NJ
    The employer.

    Rich
     
  13. May 11, 2013 #73 of 189
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,749
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    He was fortunate to receive unemployment. In some states the agencies try not to pay, and being fired for cause can reduce benefits.
     
  14. May 11, 2013 #74 of 189
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,259
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    Too many folks under the influence of Kool-aide.

    Impairs rational thinking and common sense and the ability to distinguish right from wrong.
     
  15. May 14, 2013 #75 of 189
    Rich

    Rich DBSTalk Club DBSTalk Club

    27,002
    523
    Feb 22, 2007
    Piscataway, NJ
    Doesn't seem to happen in NJ. I've never seen anyone fired without cause. Even those folks who get downsized are actually being fired with cause. What the Unemployment folks do with people who just up and quit is make them wait for quite awhile before paying them. Or, I should say, that's what used to happen. Haven't been involved with business rules for awhile, can just tell how it was back in the 90's. Doesn't seem to have changed that much from what people have told me.

    Rich
     
  16. May 14, 2013 #76 of 189
    Drucifer

    Drucifer Well-Known Member

    9,406
    244
    Feb 12, 2009
    NY Hudson...
    Does Dish also terminate employees that drink alcohol out of hours?
     
  17. May 14, 2013 #77 of 189
    sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    14,599
    370
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    They can if they want to.
     
  18. May 14, 2013 #78 of 189
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    If you show up with alcohol breath or a hangover, I bet they would... which is similar to showing up with drugs in your system.

    I'm not sure why people are trying to make a case that a company cannot fire someone for using drugs. Even if the drugs were legal, I think a company has a right to fire someone for taking them and having them in their system during work hours.
     
    1 person likes this.
  19. May 15, 2013 #79 of 189
    tsmacro

    tsmacro Hall Of Fame

    2,374
    57
    Apr 28, 2005
    East...
    I live in an area where a local large employer doesn't allow their employees to drink. People have been fired for being seen out at dinner having a beer with their meal or having alcoholic beverages in their shopping cart at the grocery store.
     
  20. May 15, 2013 #80 of 189
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    I believe people have also been fired from some jobs for posting drunken pictures of themselves on facebook... falls under a lot of companies' "reflect the company poorly" clauses where they can fire you if you are getting into mischief outside of work that might reflect on them.
     

Share This Page