Login with Facebook
 ADVANCED
Fuck yeah amendment 64
View Latest Posts in This Forum or All Forums
   Page 10 of 12.  <<First   <Prev   8  9  10  11  12   Next>   Last>>
Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
 
 
By Ian Stewart
Nov 15, 2012

Ryan Williams wrote:
Last week I turned a girl down for a full time position at my store for no other reason than the fact that she was pregnant. Sucks for her, but it's my job to offer and my job to take away.


Best be careful what you say online. Not hiring somebody because they're pregnant is illegal...

Edit: This law only applies to companies with 15 or more employees (including part-time and temporary workers)...so you may legally be in the clear.


FLAG
By Old and Busted
From Centennial, CO
Nov 15, 2012
Stabby

chufftard wrote:
My illogical, dumbshit point is that cannabis is proven to be safer than alcohol on every level, yet you and Ben think it is fine keep people that smoke out of the workforce and keep alcoholics in. The standard of being too burnt to get an education? thanks, but no, I'll stick to weed.

I'll run an alcoholic off my job in a heartbeat. Or someone who got laid last night and is a bit drowsy. Or a skinhead spewing his bullshit. Actually have done all that. And we don't have to offer a job to anybody. Alcohol is present and testable all the way through the hangover. Once its out and doesn't register, they are not disabled other than the general brain-damage they acquire.
Sucks for you, but THC sticks around for 45 days in your fat cells regardless of being high or not. Hit the pipe on Saturday, knock over a load of pipes on someone Tuesday and you are in deep shit; just how it is until they come up with some atomic next-level testing shit.
Nobody owes you a goddamned thing in this world. We have laws to protect folks from things they have no choice over, but YOU are responsible for your decisions. All of us ex-potheads in my business make the decision to abstain so that we can keep on working safely and not endanger our buddies.
And another thing: get hurt on the job and test positive, your Workman's Comp is reduced by 50%. For anything in your system listed as a prohibited substance by your employer's insurance. So we all don't have to pay for your stupidity. Free Market at work son, get used to it.


FLAG
By reboot
From Westminster, CO
Nov 15, 2012

PRRose wrote:
Discrimination in employment based on pregnancy is generally illegal under the Pregancy Discrimination Act of 1978

Only applies to employers w/ 15 or more employees, otherwise you are free to hire whomever you please.


FLAG
By Greg Springer
From Minneapolis
Nov 15, 2012
Friends big puppy

His assumption is not that you are unsafe at work on Tuesday, it's that on Tuesday when you have to take the drug test for knocking those pipes over that you will be screwed.

I understand the risks to my job of smoking, I would hope anyone that smokes does and has thought about how they will deal with it when the time comes.

So long as I perform on the job and am sober I don't see why an employer SHOULD care about what I do in my free-time. I am a rational person and recognize that some employers WILL care what I do in my free-time, so i keep it to myself.


FLAG
By Old and Busted
From Centennial, CO
Nov 15, 2012
Stabby

Everyone knows you are sober if its been at least a few hours. Point is testing has severe limitations, it can't tell the difference. So we as a group have all made the conscientious decision to operate within those limitations. Go out and invent the next level test, use the courts to implement its standards, then retire to an island. And we could then return to off-hours use. That's how life is. One maimed or killed worker is not worth easing standards an iota.
Or choose a job where it don't matter. Personal responsibility.


FLAG
By camhead
From Vandalia, Appalachia
Nov 15, 2012
You stay away from mah pig!

Mike Lane wrote:
Sucks for you, but THC sticks around for 45 days in your fat cells regardless of being high or not. Hit the pipe on Saturday, knock over a load of pipes on someone Tuesday and you are in deep shit; just how it is until they come up with some atomic next-level testing shit.


As was stated in the article I linked up-thread, there is some "next level shit" available right now, which WA is going to start using to enforce DUIs. Hopefully, these tests will become the norm.

It is simply inconsistent that the test used to determine drunkenness on the job determines, well, drunkenness, whereas the test used to determine whether one is stoned on the job only determines whether one smoked in the last 2-4 weeks. And seriously, in your experience, how many people who have failed drug tests, and lost their job because of it, were actually stoned ON THE JOB?

The bottom line, and the big picture, is that enforcement of marijuana laws has always involved punishments much greater than the nature of the crime. We're only just now starting to actually do something about it.


FLAG
By Old and Busted
From Centennial, CO
Nov 15, 2012
Stabby

Your link was dead. If so, then people will be able to use that as a defense in court and a new standard will be set. Good.


FLAG
By camhead
From Vandalia, Appalachia
Nov 15, 2012
You stay away from mah pig!

Mike Lane wrote:
Your link was dead. If so, then people will be able to use that as a defense in court and a new standard will be set. Good.


Link worked fine for me.

www.thestranger.com/seattle/the-straight-dope/Content?oid=15>>>


FLAG
 
By PRRose
From Boulder
Nov 15, 2012

reboot wrote:
Only applies to employers w/ 15 or more employees, otherwise you are free to hire whomever you please.


That's why I said "generally." Also of note is that state laws may provide more coverage--for example, Colorado's anti-discrimination law applies regardless of the employer's size.

On the other hand, even in the absence of a law making it illegal, discriminating in employment on the basis of pregnancy makes one a dick.


FLAG
By Tony B
From Around Boulder, CO
Nov 15, 2012
Got Milk? How about forearm pump? Tony leads "Alan Nelson's Bulging Belly" (5.10, X) on the Lost and Found Flatiron. Belayer is Mark Ruocco. Photo by Bill Wright, 10/06.

Ian Stewart wrote:
There's no nice way to put this: you're stupid.

chufftard wrote:
no your stupid...


The jury has just returned with a decision...


FLAG
By Tony B
From Around Boulder, CO
Nov 15, 2012
Got Milk? How about forearm pump? Tony leads "Alan Nelson's Bulging Belly" (5.10, X) on the Lost and Found Flatiron. Belayer is Mark Ruocco. Photo by Bill Wright, 10/06.

Ian Stewart wrote:
Best be careful what you say online. Not hiring somebody because they're pregnant is illegal... Edit: This law only applies to companies with 15 or more employees (including part-time and temporary workers)...so you may legally be in the clear.

Unless of course the company can show reasonable cause or hardship _ IE hiring someone for a trip to china for business on or about the due date of the mother... OR if the mother says she will need a LOA on critical dates or... if the job requires routinely lifting packages over 40lbs or...|
So I dunno what said pregnant friend might have said, but it's not as simple as implied.


FLAG
By Old and Busted
From Centennial, CO
Nov 15, 2012
Stabby


Yeah. Now it does. Said something about shuffling around first time.


FLAG
By Old and Busted
From Centennial, CO
Nov 15, 2012
Stabby

Hey goddammit^^^^^^^
What sort of sorcery do you have with your profile that vexes my quote function!?!


FLAG
By Ian Stewart
Nov 15, 2012

Tony B wrote:
So I dunno what said pregannt friend might have said, but it's not as simple as implied.


Huh? I wasn't talking about any friend, I was responding to Ryan when he said:

Ryan Williams wrote:
Last week I turned a girl down for a full time position at my store for no other reason than the fact that she was pregnant. Sucks for her, but it's my job to offer and my job to take away.


Which I'm sure wouldn't be the best quote to turn up in court if his store employs more than 15 people and he was sued by the lady he turned away.


FLAG
By Old and Busted
From Centennial, CO
Nov 15, 2012
Stabby

Some good news though is that Dianna DeGette (Denver's Rep) is introducing a law to alter the MJ Fed statute to allow it in state's that vote it in. Hopefully de-fusing a Fed/SCOTUS showdown


FLAG
By PRRose
From Boulder
Nov 15, 2012

chufftard wrote:
"In most studies, smoking one-third of a joint or less has virtually no impact on a driver’s performance. A couple of studies even suggest that pot smokers are less likely to cause an accident than sober drivers." www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2011/11/>>> abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2011/12/02/driving-stoned-safer->>> www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/06/study-marijuana-worsens-di>>>


Those studies seem a bit dubious. One was based on driving simulators, not driving, in which it was observed that stoned drivers drove slower, maintained a greater distance from a car in front of them, and were less likely to pass. Although those are "safer" practices, that doesn't mean they will translate to fewer accidents in real-life driving. Real-world accident avoidance is a complex mix of attention, recognition, reaction time, and appropriate reaction--all of which are adversely affected by being high. It's possible that the safer driving behaviours would make up for the deficit, but it is a bit of a stretch from observing that pot smoking drivers go slow in a simulator to concluding that they therefore cause fewer accidents.

Another study was based on the observed correlation between a state adopting a medical marijuana regime and reduced rates of traffic fataliities (not accidents). Concluding that therefore pot smokers are safer drivers than sober drivers based on that correlation strikes me as ludicrous. First of all, it may be that some drivers will get high instead of drunk (which was a suggestion of the researchers). The decrease would then not be because stoned drivers are safer than sober drivers, but that they are not as dangerous as drunk drivers. Or, maybe stoned driver just don't drive as much.


FLAG
 
By JoshuaJones
From Albuquerque
Nov 15, 2012
Rapping from the top.

Finally our country makes some good decisions regarding MJ! The economy will most definitely be better off. It's ridiculous it's taken this long! I don't even partake anymore but am glad to see the amendment pass;)


FLAG
By Ryan Williams
Administrator
From London (sort of)
Nov 15, 2012
El Chorro

PRRose wrote:
Discrimination in employment based on pregnancy is generally illegal under the Pregancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (in the US) and the Equality Act of 2010 (in the UK).


I know.


FLAG
By Ryan Williams
Administrator
From London (sort of)
Nov 15, 2012
El Chorro

Ian Stewart wrote:
Huh? I wasn't talking about any friend, I was responding to Ryan when he said: Which I'm sure wouldn't be the best quote to turn up in court if his store employs more than 15 people and he was sued by the lady he turned away.


I realize that most of you don't know me in real life and have no way of knowing whether or not I am a moron... but I am not.

The real reason that we did not hire the girl is because she "was all over the place" according to my superior. He made the decision based on a "terrible" interview. No one involved in the hiring process knew anything about whether or not she was pregnant. I only know now because she told one of my sales staff.

I phrased it the way I did to prove a point. People get turned down for jobs all the time for all sorts of illegitimate reasons. There are laws against this, but it doesn't stop employers from doing it.

When I worked in the US, every hiring process that I was a part of probably broke a few employment laws. No one says it out loud, but there were definitely people that we interviewed and didn't hire based on the fact that they had piercings in their face or tattoos on their arms. It was a decision I made with the owner of the business. We agreed that we needed a certain image in our stores.

I suppose the pot thing will be treated the same. If companies have a problem with people who smoke, they will figure out a way not to hire them, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. There is certainly nothing anyone can do about it. It's easy to find another reason not to hire someone, and it's not like there are going to be any equal opportunity laws in place for pot smokers any time soon.


FLAG
By Tony B
From Around Boulder, CO
Nov 15, 2012
Got Milk? How about forearm pump? Tony leads "Alan Nelson's Bulging Belly" (5.10, X) on the Lost and Found Flatiron. Belayer is Mark Ruocco. Photo by Bill Wright, 10/06.

Mike Lane wrote:
Hey goddammit^^^^^^^ What sort of sorcery do you have with your profile that vexes my quote function!?!


When you end your quote with a URL, add a space before the and it will fix it.
Go back and edit and you will see.


FLAG
By Tony B
From Around Boulder, CO
Nov 15, 2012
Got Milk? How about forearm pump? Tony leads "Alan Nelson's Bulging Belly" (5.10, X) on the Lost and Found Flatiron. Belayer is Mark Ruocco. Photo by Bill Wright, 10/06.

Ian Stewart wrote:
Huh? I wasn't talking about any friend, I was responding to Ryan when he said: Which I'm sure wouldn't be the best quote to turn up in court if his store employs more than 15 people and he was sued by the lady he turned away.

Got it, but your response was still over-simplified... so in this case I was just elaborating on your generalization.

Note: the Jury already cleared you of being stupid. That award went to the guy with no punctuation and the incorrect 'your' whilst calling someone stupid.


FLAG
By Ben Brotelho
From Albany, NY
Nov 15, 2012
Epic free solo with a pack on

I feel like everyone here should sit down, share a j, and talk it out!


FLAG
By Tony B
From Around Boulder, CO
Nov 15, 2012
Got Milk? How about forearm pump? Tony leads "Alan Nelson's Bulging Belly" (5.10, X) on the Lost and Found Flatiron. Belayer is Mark Ruocco. Photo by Bill Wright, 10/06.

PS:
reason.com/blog/2012/11/15/ron-paul-and-barney-frank-to-obam>>>
Ron Paul and Barney Frank agree on something. A medical doctor and a budget policy hawk. A rare day.

"We believe that respecting the wishes of the electorates of Colorado and Washington and allowing responsible state authorities to carry out those wishes will provide valuable information in an important national debate. Our request does not mean any permanent waiver of the ability of the federal government to enforce national laws should there be negative consequences of these state decisions – which we do not believe are at all likely – and thus we have as a result of these two states’ decisions a chance to observe in two states the effect of the policy that we continue to believe would be wise for the country as a whole. Those who disagree with us should welcome the opportunity to put their theories to a test."

But everyone knows Ron Paul is 'crazy' though, right? And Governor Gary Johnson too... I believe that the feds DO NOT WANT to allow for a state to succeed at a better way. I believe that the fight is for "status quo +" (meaning all the power and more) that they have now at the federal level.


FLAG
By Scott McMahon
From Boulder, CO
Nov 15, 2012
Bocan

Tony B wrote:
I believe that the feds DO NOT WANT to allow for a state to succeed at a better way. I believe that the fight is for "status quo +" (meaning all the power and more) that they have now at the federal level.


Absolutely...States rights vs. the Fed has been a fight since the beginning.


FLAG
 
By Old and Busted
From Centennial, CO
Nov 15, 2012
Stabby

Tony B wrote:
PS: reason.com/blog/2012/11/15/ron-paul-and-barney-frank-to-obam>>> Ron Paul and Barney Frank agree on something. A medical doctor and a budget policy hawk. A rare day. "We believe that respecting the wishes of the electorates of Colorado and Washington and allowing responsible state authorities to carry out those wishes will provide valuable information in an important national debate. Our request does not mean any permanent waiver of the ability of the federal government to enforce national laws should there be negative consequences of these state decisions – which we do not believe are at all likely – and thus we have as a result of these two states’ decisions a chance to observe in two states the effect of the policy that we continue to believe would be wise for the country as a whole. Those who disagree with us should welcome the opportunity to put their theories to a test." But everyone knows Ron Paul is 'crazy' though, right? And Governor Gary Johnson too... I believe that the feds DO NOT WANT to allow for a state to succeed at a better way. I believe that the fight is for "status quo +" (meaning all the power and more) that they have now at the federal level.

Which makes what DeGette is doing all the more interesting.


FLAG


Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
Page 10 of 12.  <<First   <Prev   8  9  10  11  12   Next>   Last>>