I saw a tiny news report discussing the rights of employees who use medical marijuana. Apparently, in Oregon, there are 16000 people who are allowed legal medicinal usage. The subject was brought up in court over the rights of these people to use drugs to control pain, versus the rights of employers to fire individuals for drug use.
It was a very short story, but the main point they brought up was, can employers "discriminate" against medicinal users? They also had interviews with each side: One man said it would be dangerous to have people high on marijuana in his line of work (construction), and the other man said he drives a pavement roller at work while high, citing that his boss knows about it and he is careful.
It is an interesting subject. I'm curious to see what everyone else thinks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think if an employer notices an employee's performance adversely affected for any reason then they have a right to terminate. On the other hand, if said employee's performance is enhanced to the benefit of the company, the employer has an obligation to themselves to keep them around.
In terms of basic rights, employers can (or should be able to) hire and fire employees for any reason they see fit.
In terms of rational actions, I agree with Camron above. Fire the guy if he can't do his job, otherwise, it shouldn't much matter.
Yeah. That's where I'm sitting right now.
Everyone's rights have to be considered, and the employers should be no less valid than the employees. If the employer wants to fire someone, no matter the reason, he should be able to. And, the employee has a choice to work for him or not...we aren't a nation of indentured servants.
Post a Comment