Nevada bans employers from refusing to hire applicants who fail marijuana tests

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Jun 12, 2019.

  1. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #1
    http://www.foxla.com/news/nevada-ba...yjO40e54JgJOHtX53sXf6-5CVCgcbqWkKarOXCSnllm9A
    wonder how much insurance premiums will go up? we turn down plenty as it's a risk to have someone operate heavy machinery , not only to themselves but to everyone else.
     
  2. Chew Toy McCoy macrumors regular

    Chew Toy McCoy

    Joined:
    May 13, 2016
    #2
    So just come up with some other reason why you aren't hiring them. It would be pretty hard to prove in court that's why they didn't hire you, and then what, they are forced to hire you?
     
  3. vertical smile macrumors 68040

    vertical smile

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2014
    #3
    This is surprising.

    But, rejecting a potential employee due to their drug results would be really hard to prove unless the employer admits it.

    Well, unless they making testing for pot for conditions of employment illegal too.

    I assume that this won’t effect federal government hiring in Nevada, as regardless of local laws, it is still illegal at a federal level.
     
  4. A.Goldberg macrumors 68020

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #4
    I’m rather surprised this passed, but I suppose it needs to be ironed out, especially in stages where MJ is recreationally legal.

    So if there are exceptions where the use of MJ “could impair the safety of others” couldn’t you argue that for essentially all jobs. If you’re a restuarant worker for example couldn’t you claim being under the influence of MJ is dangerous to other employees or patrons- say if you’re handling hot cookware or dealing with customers with food allergies.

    The article also only cites pre-employment drug screen’s in the hiring process? Does that mean you can’t deny someone from being hired due to their positive test but you can after they’re hired if you told them the need to stop and they don’t? ...Especially the bit about employees retesting to rebut results at their own expense. This makes it sound like the law only applies to pre-employment screens, though maybe they’re talking about jobs that are exempt from this law (drivers, EMTs, etc.

    I wonder how this law fits with people employed by the federal govt in NV- I imagine it doesn’t apply. I’d also question how this works with people with federal contracts or security clearances.

    It seems businesses would not want to deal with the associated costs of inevitable raises in liability insurance and potential losses in productivity/efficiency/accuracy, etc and healthcare costs. Yes, we don’t have good data on long term effects of marijuana but we do know there can be negative and potentially profound effects on mental health and for users that smoke, even if it’s less dangerous than cigarettes, inhaling smoke is never a good thing.

    I have very mixed opinions on recreational marijuana, which I’m going to limit this conversation to. Medical marijuana is a different discussion with different implications. I suppose it depends entirely on the situation, which in my line of work, healthcare, MJ use is absolutely a no go) but that aside personally I’m not sure I’d necessarily want to hire someone who uses recreational marijuana given the practical concerns stated above and the fact can’t stop using long enough just to pass a drug test for a job.

    Ultimately it’s essentially impossible to know from testing alone if someone’s high at work. I’d still have question how well someone who smokes daily outside of work will perform on the job. So needless to say this a complicated issue and will be until more acutely specific tests are invented, which I’m not so sure is possible given then pharmacokinetics of THC.
     
  5. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #5
    You couldn’t block them from office work however. This is good.
     
  6. Crowbot macrumors regular

    Crowbot

    Joined:
    May 29, 2018
    Location:
    NYC
    #6
    The problem with drug testing is that it doesn’t distinguish from off-hour use and on the job use. If it’s legal in the state to use pot then testing won’t help much. With alcohol you can check a person’s current condition with a Breathalyzer. With pot (and other drugs) it would require a blood test. Much more expensive to do on a regular basis. I worked for a large medical center and they stopped drug testing for pre-employment because it wasn’t worth the cash. Just securing the pills and keeping an eye on people seemed to be enough.
     
  7. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #7
    iirc, thc is detectable in the body for weeks - alcohol, cocaine, mushrooms - all a matter of hours. So this makes it difficult for businesses (or law enforcement) to figure out when someone was "impaired" on thc, as per the longevity. You can blood test, but you really need a baseline figure to work off of. THC is not like alcohol - yes, in both cases you can develop a tolerance - but the likelihood of being impaired is quite different. Also, due to the lingering presence in the body, you may be punished for what you do on your free time with thc, where you could drink a fifth and do an 8-ball and be fine test-wise 24 hrs later...
     
  8. LordVic macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    #8
    Good move by Nevada.

    Drug tests as barriers to employment should be grossly illegal unless there's a bonofide reasoning for that test. Outside of work hours, what you choose to put in your body is absolutely of ZERO concern of your employer. End of story.

    if I chose to ride a dildo in a brothel, while drunk stoned off my rocker, but show up to work everyday safe, sober and fit for work. They should have zero ability to base employment on what I did in my spare time
     
  9. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #9
    interesting hypotheticals...we should grab a drink. Agreed.
     
  10. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #10
    we drug test after accidents as well gentlemen. if they had drugs in their system they are let go, I don't see that happening any more.
     
  11. Huntn macrumors P6

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #11
    How is this any different from alcohol? One big difference is that they need to come up with a way to determine if you are intoxicated on Mary Jane, not that you’ve had a toke in the last 30 days.
     
  12. The-Real-Deal82 macrumors 604

    The-Real-Deal82

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2013
    Location:
    Wales, United Kingdom
    #12
    Since when do employers admit the real reason why they are not hiring someone if it’s likely to get them in trouble? I turned a guy down for having a pack of cards tattooed on his neck and employed a guy who I felt needed more training but would be a better fit for the company. I didn’t tell him it was because of the tattoo because that would be rather stupid.
     
  13. Crowbot macrumors regular

    Crowbot

    Joined:
    May 29, 2018
    Location:
    NYC
    #13
    I’ve heard that they are working on it for pot but it’ll be a long time before it’s certified as legal evidence.
     
  14. LordVic macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    #14
    I would consider testing for drugs after incident a bonafide reason to test.

    That's the whole part of "Fit for work" that is required.

    it's what goes on outside of the work hours that the business has zero entitlement to know.
    --- Post Merged, Jun 13, 2019 ---
    Again, going to give reference from Canada.

    A Business has the right to let anyone go at anytime. However, letting someone go at anytime, without "cause" comes with penalties and financial requirements for a company.

    So, they can "lie" and claim that they were firing someone for a different reason. But that reason is likely not going to be justification with "cause", which ends up being typically more expensive than keeping the employee on. (typical severance is 1 month of pay per year of employment).

    However, having a history of drugs / alcohol while working, if well documented, would be a "just cause" termination that does not have the same severance requirements as the other type of dismissal.

    HOWEVER, there's a caveat. if the "Just cause" for dismissal is drug or alcohol related due to mental health or addiction, your company has a legal requirement to allow you to take a leave of absence for rehab before they can fire you for it. Drug and Alcohol addiction is a Mental Health issue up here and people cannot be legally let go for mental health causes (would qualify as wrongful dismissal).
     

Share This Page

13 June 12, 2019