Since marijuana purchase or usage is no longer a crime in California, it makes sense that employers can no longer punish an employee or prospective employee for off-the-job use.
I do wonder how employers and California labor laws will handle the employee that smoked just before leaving for work and shows up with bloodshot eyes and that "I'm loaded" grin... 🤪
You ask a good question. And based on the wording of the amendment that an employer can take action against an employee who is impaired, my reading of that is the employer could take action. That being said, it could get tricky if the employee sues.
Personally, I don't believe in drug-testing employees at all. Its ridiculously draconian. It never used to be the case. One could argue any such testing is an invasion of privacy.
If someone is frequently loaded at work, one would have to wonder why, or conclude they have an addiction. Eventually it would impact their job performance. At that point, a compassionate employer would help them get the help they need.
Well Street
Since it's no longer considered criminal behavior and assuming it doesn't impair one's work performance, I don't take issue with this amendment.
I'm not super-keen on how easy it's become to get marijuana, but the fact it's still given the same classification as heroin, federally, is a joke.
TMac
I couldn't agree more!
Slipstream
Since marijuana purchase or usage is no longer a crime in California, it makes sense that employers can no longer punish an employee or prospective employee for off-the-job use.
I do wonder how employers and California labor laws will handle the employee that smoked just before leaving for work and shows up with bloodshot eyes and that "I'm loaded" grin... 🤪
TMac
You ask a good question. And based on the wording of the amendment that an employer can take action against an employee who is impaired, my reading of that is the employer could take action. That being said, it could get tricky if the employee sues.
Evangel
Personally, I don't believe in drug-testing employees at all. Its ridiculously draconian. It never used to be the case. One could argue any such testing is an invasion of privacy.
If someone is frequently loaded at work, one would have to wonder why, or conclude they have an addiction. Eventually it would impact their job performance. At that point, a compassionate employer would help them get the help they need.
TMac
You bring up some valid points for sure!