Legal pot becomes a touchy workplace issue

[LogicSoDeveloped]

DENVER — Last month, Colorado diner owner Mark Rose posted an unusual job description: "Looking for part time experienced breakfast cook. Pays well, must be friendly and a team player, could turn into a full time gig by summer. 420 friendly a must."

With that public declaration, Rose put himself squarely in the camp of employers acknowledging that marijuana use is perfectly legal in Colorado. Perhaps more significant, it also puts him in the camp of employers who officially don't care if their employees use pot off-duty. The phrase "420" is shorthand for someone who uses marijuana.

Rose owns Dot's Diner on the Mountain in the pot-friendly mountain town of Nederland, Colo., just west of Boulder. He says he wanted to hire a marijuana-friendly employee to ensure he didn't have to deal with someone who might complain about his own pot use.

Legalized marijuana in Colorado and Washington state is sparking new conflicts between employers trying to maintain drug-free workplaces and workers who say they're being punished for their off-duty indulgences. Nearly half the states now legalize some sort of marijuana use, either for medical purposes or purely for fun.

"I imagine there will be a great deal of upheaval in the future," says Curtis Graves, a staff attorney with the Mountain States Employers Council, which advises companies on workplace issues. He added, "The law is going to be in flux for another 10 years."

Twenty states now permit the use of marijuana for medical reasons, but employers in those states are under no legal obligation to allow any kind of pot use in the workplace. Colorado has a law that says workers cannot be fired for legal activities while off duty, but the state's courts also have said marijuana use isn't lawful because the federal government still considers it an illegal drug.

source: http://www.9news.com/story/news/local/2014/04/07/legal-pot-becomes-a-touchy-workplace-issue/7443333/

 

[MrPorter]

I can see a lot of workers getting blazed and being awful at their job. Mind you, chefs smoke anyway and there's nothing better than producing a masterpiece ready to be eaten while high

 

[.:Holy::Toast:.]

As an employer I wouldn't want my workers getting stoned and coming to work.
If I couldn't notice a decrease in their work performance because of it then I guess there would be no reason for me to intervene but if my workers were getting blazed and becoming lazy I would not tolerate it.
Whatever the fuck they wanna do in their spare time is their business, weed, meth, crack whatever just don't let it fuck up your work performance.

 

[Crystal Alchemist]

I'm not sure how this applies to places that aren't where I'm from, but here, you'd be hard pressed to find an employee who hadn't just enjoyed a large session prior to their shift. The most prominent places, are kitchens, bakeries, teaching, ANY and ALL labour jobs, (doing general labour sober is unheard of, and for the chronic induglers, down right dangerous).

In fact, I have never worked a job where I didn't have a huge session on day one with the boss. These are all professional establishments, mind you, but any job that takes place outdoors wreaks of pot at all times up here. Most employers I've known are frought with anxiety whenever there's a new hire, as they can't bust out their stash at a moments notice. Productivity usually drops for a week until they're smoked up.

The boss has always been the pusher in my circles.

 

[neversickanymore]

I dont see why people should get pissy when a person puts in an add for people that smoke only.. after all people who smoke have been prevented from getting jobs in the past. So why cant people who dont smoke be denied some jobs now.

 

[Frydea]

^^^ that's how it should be in my opinion. If you don't smoke weed you shouldn't be allowed to find employment.

 

[Crystal Alchemist]

To me, it seems as though people don't grasp the extent to which people smoke up. I am the biggest pot head there can be, and if any national survey asked, I wouldn't freely give them that information, and I don't think most would. So when 2% say they get high, you can bet that's only the non-paranoids. And mind you, 2% of any country is a looooot of people getting high.

And I don't go to school or work sober. It majorly hinders my job performance to not be on medication.

 

[weekend addiction]

Why can't people hire who they want to? Why do we have to force people to be accepting of non-smokers?

 

[slimvictor]

If I were working in a kitchen, I would not care if my co-workers were high or not, as long as they were contributing and working hard.
Operating radar for an airport or flying a plane, I would demand that they be sober, or at least prove that they were able to function at a high level on whatever meds / substances they typically use.
Simple, I think, to me at least.

^^^ that's how it should be in my opinion. If you don't smoke weed you shouldn't be allowed to find employment.

lol

 

[Shadowsblaze]

I was in construction and it seemed everyone got high. The only real trouble is getting hurt and not being covered because of a buzz. And if it was serious and the employer was aware of the use on the job I think both would be facing a shit storm.

 

[_DankOpiAmp_]

They keep grasping at straws to attack weed even after it has been made legal. This could be a non-issue. It is not like people didn't smoke before.