Comments on: SEIU Gets One Right (By Accident)

By: John Gardner

John Gardner — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 03:37:57 +0000

“Idiots who smoke pot and work at refineries and nuclear plants already are doing so — undetected by employers, if your calculation is correct.” The oil company I worked for had pre-employment, for cause (including accidents) and random testing, with the standard for “action” (entry into a drug program for a first offense and discharge thereafter) only being the presence of THC or cannabis metabolites (that is, no proof of actual impairment). The random testing program is a powerful disincentive for drug use, and our experience (and that of many other companies with hazardous operations) says you are simply quite wrong.

“Reasonable suspicion” of an impaired employee is all that is required to suspend the allegedly impaired employee, pending an investigation, which includes a drug test.” True, but doesn’t go far enough, as most suspensions will not be sustained since there is no legally accepted standard for “impairment”. All we can test for now is the presence of THC or metabolites. If there were a legally accepted/sanctioned standard for impairment (e.g., .08% for alcohol), it would be possible to compel compliance against such a standard. It does not exist.

“as long as the job descriptions in place support the policy” We never included this in our “job characterizations” and don’t believe this is ever required (unless you are telling me that under the proposition employers must justify inclusion in the “drug-free” workplace on a job by job basis.

In conclusion, I realize the public safety issue is “inconvenient”, but it is real and pretending that it isn’t real or can somehow be dealt with quickly and reasonably is simply fantasy. What have you been smoking? :))

By: CalWatchdog

CalWatchdog — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 02:58:25 +0000

Currently, it is still legal for employers to have enforceable workplace drug and alcohol policies. “Reasonable suspicion” of an impaired employee is all that is required to suspend the allegedly impaired employee, pending an investigation, which includes a drug test.

It is not easy but is legal for employers to enforce a drug-free workplace – as long as the job descriptions in place support the policy.

Katy Grimes

By: Steven Greenhut

Steven Greenhut — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 02:39:39 +0000

Idiots who smoke pot and work at refineries and nuclear plants already are doing so — undetected by employers, if your calculation is correct.

By: John Gardner

John Gardner — Sat, 25 Sep 2010 18:39:02 +0000

Can’t wait until we have potheads running our refineries/chemical/gas/nuclear plants, driving big rigs on our highways and performing in countless other jobs which potentially imperil lives and property. If I read the measure correctly, employers will be limited in removing such people only when they can show “actual impairment”, a standard which as far as I know has no legal definition and for which no legal standard has been adopted.

In this case, freedoms just another word for nothin’ left to lose except your life!

By: yep

yep — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 21:45:36 +0000

“It would also make California a laughingstock.”

Now that’s a really funny thing to say.