So my bookkeeper comes to work stinking of weed....

PHeller wrote: In reply to bearmtnmartin: Remember, you're allowed to have your opinion as long as it doesn't differ from those of a few people on this forum. How dare you run your business the way you want, you crazy Canadian you.

I know, right? What is it with Canadians and their free thinking?

PHeller wrote: In reply to bearmtnmartin: Remember, you're allowed to have your opinion as long as it doesn't differ from those of a few people on this forum. How dare you run your business the way you want, you crazy Canadian you.

I'm just expressing my opinion too. He is allowed to have one as well. But then he made the argument that he couldn't just fire her or else he'd be on the hook, which isn't an opinion anymore, and in fact is false.

Once again guys, I expect a bit more from grm. Cripes x 2.

But then he made the argument that he couldn't just fire her or else he'd be on the hook,

He would be on the hook for severance. You don't need a reason to fire somebody, but you do have to pay accordingly

Just to be clear here, I was not speaking about my employee, who may or may not be a recreational drug user on her own time. I do not at this point have reason to consider that to be an addiction. My comment about a hypothetical drug addicted employee was valid, and almost certainly applicable in the US as well as Canada. You cannot fire an employee without just cause, and without documentation as to the reasons. If you try that in Canada there is an excellent chance that the employee would have you explaining yourself to a Judge. I have hired and fired enough people by now that I have a pretty good idea where I stand. If an employee can show that they have an addiction, then the courts will consider them to be ill, and you cannot fire someone for being sick.

You're rage addiction caused you to fire them without cause.

You're sick and need help, the courts can't possibly punish you for that.

Now say you're sorry, get a note from your shrink, bring the employee back and document something you can use to can them.

bearmtnmartin wrote: Just to be clear here, I was not speaking about my employee, who may or may not be a recreational drug user on her own time. I do not at this point have reason to consider that to be an addiction. My comment about a hypothetical drug addicted employee was valid, and almost certainly applicable in the US as well as Canada. You cannot fire an employee without just cause, and without documentation as to the reasons. If you try that in Canada there is an excellent chance that the employee would have you explaining yourself to a Judge. I have hired and fired enough people by now that I have a pretty good idea where I stand. If an employee can show that they have an addiction, then the courts will consider them to be ill, and you cannot fire someone for being sick.

in NC you can fire someone just by saying …. "you're fired" .. no reason given … and no severance pay required … now if they apply for unemployment compensation and you want to fight that, then yeah, you'd have to back up why they were fired

wbjones wrote:

bearmtnmartin wrote: Just to be clear here, I was not speaking about my employee, who may or may not be a recreational drug user on her own time. I do not at this point have reason to consider that to be an addiction. My comment about a hypothetical drug addicted employee was valid, and almost certainly applicable in the US as well as Canada. You cannot fire an employee without just cause, and without documentation as to the reasons. If you try that in Canada there is an excellent chance that the employee would have you explaining yourself to a Judge. I have hired and fired enough people by now that I have a pretty good idea where I stand. If an employee can show that they have an addiction, then the courts will consider them to be ill, and you cannot fire someone for being sick.

in NC you can fire someone just by saying …. "you're fired" .. no reason given … and no severance pay required … now if they apply for unemployment compensation and you want to fight that, then yeah, you'd have to back up why they were fired

Same thing in Florida, no reason needed.

In reply to bearmtnmartin:

Just because this person smelled like weed doesn't mean she smoked it so that's not what I'm getting at, but, if you have a rule in your employee handbook that it is against the rules to be under the influence while at work, then the reason for firing would be violation of company policy. However if no such rule exists then either your OK with it or you have a conversation about what is appropriate, add it to the revised company policy and proceed accordingly.

Do you have any proof that she was high while on the clock? From the information you gave I do not.

Edit; Do you have a employee handbook?

Have a conversation with her about your concerns with another trusted non judgmental employee, If she gets confrontational have her tested on the spot. Or put her in charge of Brownies for Wednesday potluck.

wbjones wrote: I don't see a positive at a pre-employment piss test ever becoming legal … if you show alcohol in your test, odds are you won't be hired … THC stays in the system MUCH longer … the hiring co. wouldn't have anyway to know if you'd fired one up on the way to the test of if it was from the last weekend … then there are the jobs (like I had that ANY positive test at any time is cause for suspension … we made parts for the aero-space industry) ANYTHING in your system better have a prescription to back it up … so even if pot becomes legal as beer … you still wouldn't be able to smoke and work there

The above has got to be the worst misconception surrounding it. THC does not stay in your system more than a few hours, maybe 7 or 8 if you ate it, THC-COOH, the metabolite that doesn't do jack squat, and what drug testing is usually looking for, does.

Hair testing will give usage patterns, this is how an employer tells if you're a drunk or not, looking at the pattern of ethanol metabolite deposits.

Personally, I don't think anybody should be fired/hired based on anything besides the quality of their work. Unless your showing up to work on drugs, whatever.

You cannot fire an employee without just cause, and without documentation as to the reasons

Not true. You don't need a reason, and you don't need to tell them why either, but you are on the hook for severance. You are not required to pay severance for a just cause firing.

I used to smoke weed when I worked IT and was considered an "invaluable employee" and was getting all As and Bs in college at the time. Since then however I joined the military, my enlistment ended, and got a civilian job so that that hasn't happened in a good long time.

mndsm wrote:

PHeller wrote: In reply to bearmtnmartin: Remember, you're allowed to have your opinion as long as it doesn't differ from those of a few people on this forum. How dare you run your business the way you want, you crazy Canadian you.

I know, right? What is it with Canadians and their free thinking?

lol canada has multiple laws that can jail you for your opinion or "incitement"

Kenny_McCormic wrote:

wbjones wrote: I don't see a positive at a pre-employment piss test ever becoming legal … if you show alcohol in your test, odds are you won't be hired … THC stays in the system MUCH longer … the hiring co. wouldn't have anyway to know if you'd fired one up on the way to the test of if it was from the last weekend … then there are the jobs (like I had that ANY positive test at any time is cause for suspension … we made parts for the aero-space industry) ANYTHING in your system better have a prescription to back it up … so even if pot becomes legal as beer … you still wouldn't be able to smoke and work there

The above has got to be the worst misconception surrounding it. THC does not stay in your system more than a few hours, maybe 7 or 8 if you ate it, THC-COOH, the metabolite that doesn't do jack squat, and what drug testing is usually looking for, does. Hair testing will give usage patterns, this is how an employer tells if you're a drunk or not, looking at the pattern of ethanol metabolite deposits. Personally, I don't think anybody should be fired/hired based on anything besides the quality of their work. Unless your showing up to work on drugs, whatever.

THC-COOH, the metabolite that doesn't do jack squat, and what drug testing is usually looking for, does.

yes, you are correct … I was only stating it in a way that most would understand (without having to go into the explanation or what THC-COOH was)

Kenny_McCormic wrote:

wbjones wrote: I don't see a positive at a pre-employment piss test ever becoming legal … if you show alcohol in your test, odds are you won't be hired … THC stays in the system MUCH longer … the hiring co. wouldn't have anyway to know if you'd fired one up on the way to the test of if it was from the last weekend … then there are the jobs (like I had that ANY positive test at any time is cause for suspension … we made parts for the aero-space industry) ANYTHING in your system better have a prescription to back it up … so even if pot becomes legal as beer … you still wouldn't be able to smoke and work there

The above has got to be the worst misconception surrounding it. THC does not stay in your system more than a few hours, maybe 7 or 8 if you ate it, THC-COOH, the metabolite that doesn't do jack squat, and what drug testing is usually looking for, does. Hair testing will give usage patterns, this is how an employer tells if you're a drunk or not, looking at the pattern of ethanol metabolite deposits. Personally, I don't think anybody should be fired/hired based on anything besides the quality of their work. Unless your showing up to work on drugs, whatever.

like I said … tell the FAA that .. I wouldn't like to place ANY odds on how far that argument would get you at a dismissal hearing …

pie in the sky world … sure … reality … NO ...

Kenny_McCormic wrote: Hair testing will give usage patterns, this is how an employer tells if you're a drunk or not...

Falling on the floor is a pretty good indicator.