Is it ok for a company to fire you for MMJ use?

[Silurian]

Er...what was the question again?

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Silurian

Er...what was the question again?

Yes we do wander a bit

To clarify the original question was

Why is it ok to fire someone for marijuana use, which is legal in their states, but not someone who drinks alcohol daily?
Both are legal. One is accepted, the other is not. Legal means legal.


First off the term "OK" is a bit too vague to really answer definitively .

The question should be is it legal ? and or is it constitutional ?

Arguably the answer is we don't know definitively . So far there have been court cases that said yes a company can fire you (even for medical use ) and court cases that say no they can't if used for medical reasons.... I suppose Time will tell

[RP]

Employers can and do set standards of conduct for employees and expect those to be followed for continued employment. It seems a bit naive to use legality as the determination for what an employee should be able to do on the job without getting terminated. Getting away from the marijuana/alcohol conundrum, even though it's legal to wear t-shirts, shorts and sandals, you wouldn't last very long at a law office or other business environment if you dressed in that manner....

I was once fired from a state job for "falsifying state documents" which sounds a lot worse than I signed out at 4 PM even though I left at 3:55 PM. I should add that this was a practice that been encouraged both prior and post-offense by different supervisors in the same agency. And yes, I was reinstated with back pay, but such things do happen...

[DCCougar]

Depends on the job, which depends on the employer.

[Bob Womack]

Do remember that "right to work" states are also "right to fire" states. There, an employer can let you go for any reason or no reason whatsoever. In the those states, the right of companies to set their own standards for employee conduct and hire and fire on those bases is in force.

Also remember that any company that is regulated by Federal law or regulation will tend to seek to follow Federal standards above state standards just to keep its nose clean.

Transportation, communication, power generation, drug handling, money handling, etc., companies all have Federal agencies watching over them, and are licensed by them, and bound to follow the Federal code, usually all of it, including the discrimination codes and drug usage codes. Ah, the joys of allowing the Federal bureaucracy to flourish! As we say in the South, "That'll learn you, durn you!"

I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.

Bob

[robj144]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Yes we do wander a bit

To clarify the original question was

Why is it ok to fire someone for marijuana use, which is legal in their states, but not someone who drinks alcohol daily?
Both are legal. One is accepted, the other is not. Legal means legal.


First off the term "OK" is a bit too vague to really answer definitively .

The question should be is it legal ? and or is it constitutional ?

Arguably the answer is we don't know definitively . So far there have been court cases that said yes a company can fire you (even for medical use ) and court cases that say no they can't if used for medical reasons.... I suppose Time will tell

I don't think anyone saw me reply on page 1:

Several articles online address this quite thoroughly. Here's one of them:

https://qz.com/work/1109564/you-can-...hen-its-legal/

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

Do remember that "right to work" states are also "right to fire" states. There, an employer can let you go for any reason or no reason whatsoever In the those states, the right of companies to set their own standards for employee conduct and hire and fire on those bases is in force.

Yes and no. And again not really quite so cut and dry.
First you are confusing '"Right to work" which has to do with hiring, with "Employment At Will" which has to do with termination .
The only thing "right to work" basically does is allow you to be hired without belonging to a union.

"At will" allows for when no contract exists, either the employer or the employee to terminate for any reason EXCEPT discrimination or violation of other civil rights.
And interestingly enough at least one "At Will" State Mass.
Where the Supreme Judicial Court of Mass. ruled a California sales and marketing firm discriminated against an employee of its Massachusetts operation who uses marijuana to treat Crohn’s disease when it fired her for flunking a drug test.

article here
https://www.bostonglobe.com/business...35J/story.html

I am not a lawyer but I live with one .........

[buddyhu]

Originally Posted by robj144

I don't think anyone saw me reply on page 1:

Several articles online address this quite thoroughly. Here's one of them:

https://qz.com/work/1109564/you-can-...hen-its-legal/

Saw your first reply, but only read the article in response to your second attempt.

Fine article! Thanks.

[Nyghthawk]

I live in Texas. We are a "Fire at Will" state. Some call that "Right to Work" as if that made it more palatable. Here you can be fired just cause I feel like it.

[ahorsewithnonam]

Originally Posted by Nyghthawk

I live in Texas. We are a "Fire at Will" state. Some call that "Right to Work" as if that made it more palatable. Here you can be fired just cause I feel like it.

Same here in Ohio. And I think my employer is planning to use it on me.

[jhmulkey]

Originally Posted by KevWind

There is a good Eastern philosophy quote to consider---- " The lesson is always obvious to the teacher"
Because I don't try to speculate what I think people "obviously" mean. I take them at their actual words. So it's good you clarified your meaning.

"drug-free" is a commonly-used phrase that needs no more clarification for the vast majority of people than "Eastern" does in "Eastern philosophy." Most people know when you say "Eastern philosophy," you're not referring to the Eastern US or Eastern Germany, for example. When people hear "drug-free workplace," they're not thinking Advil

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by jhmulkey

"drug-free" is a commonly-used phrase that needs no more clarification for the vast majority of people than "Eastern" does in "Eastern philosophy." Most people know when you say "Eastern philosophy," you're not referring to the Eastern US or Eastern Germany, for example. When people hear "drug-free workplace," they're not thinking Advil

Not sure the analogy really holds equally, but I am willing to concede the point.
The reason I said "Eastern" philosophy was I was not sure if calling it a Buddhist philosophy was venturing into the no fly zone.

But my actual point all along has been that the notion that, simply because it is a Federal Schedule 1 Substance it is automatically an enforceable termination offence (regardless of particular circumstance) is not quite as cut and dry or simple as some are maintaining.
That is of course unless those doing so are also willing to then stipulate that by extension , states rights are irrelevant.

[Nyghthawk]

Originally Posted by Silurian

Er...what was the question again?

I don't think anyone else got the short-term memory loss joke. Now if you had mentioned Twinkies, Ding Dongs, and Crispy Cheetos they might have gotten that!

[1neeto]

Originally Posted by jhmulkey

"drug-free" is a commonly-used phrase that needs no more clarification for the vast majority of people than "Eastern" does in "Eastern philosophy." Most people know when you say "Eastern philosophy," you're not referring to the Eastern US or Eastern Germany, for example. When people hear "drug-free workplace," they're not thinking Advil

I wanted to say something similar but no way I’d put it as eloquently as you did.

“Do you wish me a good morning, or mean that it is a good morning whether I want it or not; or that you feel good this morning; or that it is a morning to be good on?”
J. R.R Tolkien

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by 1neeto

I wanted to say something similar but no way I’d put it as eloquently as you did.

“Do you wish me a good morning, or mean that it is a good morning whether I want it or not; or that you feel good this morning; or that it is a morning to be good on?”
J. R.R Tolkien

While we can "assume" it is meaning "wish you a good morning", In point of fact it can indeed mean any one of those different meanings.

But I will grant that apparently it was only I, that was confused about your exact meaning, my apologies for my confusion

None the less can we agree that more clarity is still preferable to less clarity? Particularly in discussions that have the potential to go way sideways, in a big hurry.