Forums
Medical Marihuana
General Forum
Medical Marihuana
Discuss workforce management, performance management, retention, communication, motivation, contributing to business results and other topics.
Well Montana now has a medical marihuana act.
I was just wondering if anyone else is in a state that has this and how they have dealt with it in their employee handbook. Do you address it at all? D
1
Cat:Topic ForumsForum:ForumId53
Cat:Topic ForumsForum:ForumId53Discussion:DiscussionId36725
Forums » Topic Forums » General Forum » Medical Marihuana
|
Medical Marihuana
posted at 10/19/2010 7:06 AM EDT
|
Posts: 18
First: 5/20/2009 Last: 4/19/2011 |
My approach is based on the warehouse environment in which the employees work. Heavy equipment is utilized regularly, and we have significant OSHA oversight. Our drug and alcohol policy requires an employee to report any prescription they are taking which may impair their ability to operate equipment, which is readily noted on their prescription. |
|
|
Medical Marihuana
posted at 10/20/2010 9:39 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 3
First: 10/5/2010 Last: 10/20/2010 |
HRPro, were we talking about an illegal drug, then yes, an employer has a "legal, moral or ethical right to terminate the employee for a positive drug test". The problem is, this discussion is about a legal drug, prescribed by a doctor. Do you have a legal, moral, or ethical right to dictate your employee's medical treatment plan? By terminating him for doing so, you are. How about a legal, moral, and ethical right to comply with state laws? If the employee's prescription drug use is a safety issue, then put the employee in a non-safety senstitive position. I believe that in almost every state, you are required to make reasonable acomodations for an employees disabilities and medical conditions. Terminating an employee without attempting to do so, is going to get your company sued. |
|
|
Medical Marihuana
posted at 10/20/2010 11:47 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 1103
First: 3/16/2007 Last: 8/19/2011 |
Reinertson it doen't change anything. The drug, under a bona fide drug and alcohol plan, is not legal. Nor is it legal under federal law. The state law is in essence a smoke screen (no pun intended)
You may proceeed as I suggested or you may choose not to. Choice is yours. I can tell you that there is not one single case that has prevailed in protecting the employment of anyone using so called medical marijuana. |
|
|
Medical Marihuana
posted at 10/20/2010 12:31 PM EDT
|
|
Posts: 562
First: 11/12/2009 Last: 9/14/2011 |
More lawsuits to come on this one for sure.
But I'm in agreement with HRPro on this one. Federal law trumps state law, and federal law says it's an illegal drug. And I would certainly not consider moving an employee under the influence of marijuana to any position regardless of safety issues any more than I would consider moving an employee under the influence of alcohol to any position. It's a productivity thing AND a liability thing. |
|
|
Medical Marihuana
posted at 10/20/2010 2:08 PM EDT
|
|
Posts: 1103
First: 3/16/2007 Last: 8/19/2011 |
One need only look to the Feds reaction to the pending CA elections. They have made it very clear they do not care if CA makes MJ legal, it will remain illegal in their view and they will prosecute as such.
Moral, legal and ethical? I support the law under those circumstances. And I do not make decisions out of fear of being sued. I make decisions basd upon what is right or wrong. Being sued is a cost of doing business. In that I have never lost a suit, or unwisely settled one, I guess that means for now the approach works. |
|
|
Medical Marihuana
posted at 10/21/2010 5:43 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 210
First: 1/4/2003 Last: 7/11/2011 |
I wouldn't bring morals into it.
As an HR professional, I don't govern employees' morals. I support what is in the best interest of my company following applicable laws and policy. HRPRO, you've never lost a suit? Bravo - I can't say the same. I'm not ashamed of that though. I've worked on VERY tough claims, and we have all read about suits and been amazed at the outcomes. I'm actually most proud of the claims that COULD have turned into suits, that didn't, rather than the ones that turned into lawsuits that had no merit so we won. |
|
|
Medical Marihuana
posted at 10/21/2010 7:04 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 1103
First: 3/16/2007 Last: 8/19/2011 |
janimal I didn't say they were all done. I have several that encompass CA and some NE states that I am confident we will lose (they are W&H cases that no one wanted to pay attention to).
Never the less how does one measure law suits avoided? I have heard claims from "metric focused" HR people who state "I avoided millions of dollars in lawsuits because of my excellent employee relations skills." I'm curious as to how they do that. Again, any clown with the cash for a filing fee can file a suit, with or without merit. Most are seeking a settlement of some kind and hope they don't get to court. Organizations that settle quickly (been there too) enable these individuals and the lawyers that feed off of them. Sadly, it does, on occasion, make good business sense to settle for $5K when defending the suit will cost you $20K...a weakness in our system that I personally have no cure for. This is why I still hold that getting sued is a cost of doing business. I do not make decisions based upon the fear of getting sued. (There is risk management and risk avoidance) It isn't real effective to avoid risk and tends to not only paralyze organizations but also make HR look like Chicken Little. |
|
|
Medical Marihuana
posted at 10/21/2010 7:38 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 210
First: 1/4/2003 Last: 7/11/2011 |
HRPro - we are on the same page.
When I hear HR people make claims about the money they have saved, it does seem like a bit of an empty and immeasurable accomplishment that anyone could say. I've seen that remark on many an HR resume and from there I have asked questions to drill down at what they really think they have done. |
|
|
Medical Marihuana
posted at 10/21/2010 8:56 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 410
First: 1/26/2006 Last: 11/15/2010 |
Hi:
While not litigated in all states with such laws, it is rather apparent that an employer has no duty to accommodate an applicant's/employee's medical use of marijuana pursuant to state law--federal law trumps. This has been specifically held by the California Supreme Court, Oregon Supreme Court and a Washington Court of Appeals with respect to their respective state laws. Dave Arnold, Ph.D., J.D. |
Forums » Topic Forums » General Forum » Medical Marihuana
