If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Walmart fires Associate of the Year, cancer patient for medical marijuana use   (tokeofthetown.com) divider line 222
    More: Asinine, cancer patients, unemployment benefits, Battle Creek, drug tests, The Associate, medical marijuana, RANDY JAMES MARTINEZ, Satans  
•       •       •

11011 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Mar 2010 at 8:21 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



222 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-03-14 08:27:09 AM
NeedleGuy: True... Michigan is an at-will employment state so I guess you could say that guy's job went up in smoke.

Solution:

i236.photobucket.com


This is becoming all too common in "Employment At Will" disputes. Maybe it's time to take a new approach?
 
2010-03-14 09:01:29 AM
If I had to choose between medical MJ or a job, I'd choose a job. Real men take OxyContin for pain anyway!!
 
2010-03-14 09:34:26 AM
Attention whore.
 
2010-03-14 09:36:44 AM
EyeHateOnlineIdiots: The propaganda residue of the previous corporate oligarchy's war against cannabis (from the Reefer Madness era) lives on today only in the older people. And they are dying out now. The new voters are mainly unaffected by that propaganda. And they would just laugh at that sort of propaganda were a new campaign against cannabis to be instituted by the corporations today.

This is exactly the prediction that I heard forty years ago when I began smoking.

EyeHateOnlineIdiots:
Still, there are many young people who reflexively react against cannabis. Most of them have been propaganized by mass media entertainment like SOUTH PARK, an odious tribute to intolerance and the cult of stoic workaholism. We can see some of the drones created by this propaganda here on this fark thread.


This is the reality of what happened.

Scruffinator: There isn't an effective method of determining impairment.

Testing for pot isn't done to test for impairment. They are testing character. Therefore there has been no need to develop an accurate impairment test.
 
2010-03-14 10:08:18 AM
Panty Sniffer:
Yeah, I got it the first time. Nice find. I assumed I was right because I usually am, but I was wrong.


I was going to commend you for owning your error, but someone who is right as often as you are hardly needs such praise.
 
2010-03-14 10:14:12 AM
spleef420: dead_dangler: I'd never hire a pothead, and if I found out one of my employees was one, I'd find "some" reason to fire them.

if you have more than five employees I can guarantee at least one of them smokes weed...and it's probably your best employee at that.


LOL, no shiat.

What gets me (even if danglers is a troll) is how people can just go with what they are told even if they know its a lie.

There is mounting evidence that Marijuana both not dangerous and does have benefit. The reason we didn't find out earlier is because governments squashed all research for most of the 20th century.

If dangler is for real, anyone want to bet he is a Beck loving conservative? He has that "tell me what to think" mentality going that is typical of those who prefer blissful ignorance.
 
2010-03-14 10:17:51 AM
Brainsick: Panty Sniffer: The last time I checked, being a pothead is not a protected class

Sec. 4. (a) (new window) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana, and, if the qualifying patient has not specified that a primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility. Any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots shall also be allowed under state law and shall not be included in this amount.

check again


Crap. On further reading, this stands out: "by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau". For want of a comma after "business" Walmart might skate here. Walmart is not a "business licensing board or bureau"
 
2010-03-14 10:18:20 AM
When my wife had cancer, I think I could have literally murdered someone if they tried to interfere with what she needed to keep from vomiting up the pain med. If I'm ever terminally ill and have nothing to lose.......

Marijuana was on the brink of legalization in the late '70s, and it was only the Reagan Revolution that crushed it. Within twelve months of Reagan's inauguration, pot was hard to find, prices more than quadrupled almost instantly, and suddenly cocaine was everywhere.
 
2010-03-14 10:25:39 AM
Or I was right, since the first "or" would be superfluous unless parsed this way:

by a business | ((occupational | professional) licensing (board | bureau)) such that once the condition "is-a-business" (which WalMart clearly is) is satisfied, the rest is needn't be considered.

/not a lawyer
/usually both right and wrong
 
2010-03-14 10:28:26 AM
sunlion: When my wife had cancer, I think I could have literally murdered someone if they tried to interfere with what she needed to keep from vomiting up the pain med. If I'm ever terminally ill and have nothing to lose.......

Marijuana was on the brink of legalization in the late '70s, and it was only the Reagan Revolution that crushed it. Within twelve months of Reagan's inauguration, pot was hard to find, prices more than quadrupled almost instantly, and suddenly cocaine was everywhere.


Well, they needed to diversify out of weapons for Iran in order to fund the Contras.
 
2010-03-14 11:31:31 AM
More_Like_A_Stain 2010-03-14 09:36:44 AM

EyeHateOnlineIdiots: The propaganda residue of the previous corporate oligarchy's war against cannabis (from the Reefer Madness era) lives on today only in the older people. And they are dying out now. The new voters are mainly unaffected by that propaganda. And they would just laugh at that sort of propaganda were a new campaign against cannabis to be instituted by the corporations today.

This is exactly the prediction that I heard forty years ago when I began smoking.

EyeHateOnlineIdiots:
Still, there are many young people who reflexively react against cannabis. Most of them have been propaganized by mass media entertainment like SOUTH PARK, an odious tribute to intolerance and the cult of stoic workaholism. We can see some of the drones created by this propaganda here on this fark thread.

This is the reality of what happened.



And yet we are making headway. Medical MJ laws, etc.
THe fact is that the South Park cult is relatively small compared to the general population. And they are relatively, so therefore they do not vote.
 
2010-03-14 11:57:17 AM
crimsin23: NeedleGuy: In an e-mail from headquarters, Walmart spokesman Greg Rossiter explained the company policy. It states: "In states, such as Michigan, where prescriptions for marijuana can be obtained, an employer can still enforce a policy that requires termination of employment following a positive drug screen. We believe our policy complies with the law and we support decisions based on the policy."

Firing somebody who is doing something legally complies with the law? Maybe Rossiter is the one who should be drug tested because he sounds high.

/doesn't know shiat about MM laws, so maybe he's right

Some companies can fire employees for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason.

/Subby


this. I have no doubt that both my current and previous employers would have done the same thing. I have at least one random drug test every year because I have a company vehicle.

Even if MJ were perfectly legal tomorrow I don't know how anyone could smoke it and keep their job anyway; drug testing must be a huge industry, because it seems like everyone's doing it.
 
2010-03-14 11:59:58 AM
lohphat: If you're in an at-will state then keep your mouth shut about the reasonfor termination.

Becase the employer cited a reason indicating a law was broken when it in fact was not has opened the door to an improper termination and/or libel suit.

Suck it WalMart.


It may not be that a *law* was broken but that the employee signed a document when hired to the effect that he knows that he may be tested for various drugs at any time and evidence of use is grounds for disciplinary action up to and including termination blah blah blah.

I can't remember the last time I took a job where that did *not* occur.
 
2010-03-14 12:19:08 PM
ReggieKray: I'm late to this thread since I had to work (at wal-mart, mind) but I'd just like to say, whether it's medicinal or not, you can't be under the influence of anything while you're on the clock. Clearly he was, since the drug tests come immediately after any workplace accidents occur. Everyone who works there signs the some paper work agreeing to the policy, so he's pretty farked.

Not true, you can test positive for THC and not be under the influence at the time the test was administered.

Link (new window)

Basically, 30 days is common wisdom, but there's some question about that. But the fact of the matter is, you smoke up, you're stoned for a couple hours, but you can still test positive days or weeks later.
 
2010-03-14 12:35:23 PM
This is what happens when you believe in zero tolerance policies. I wonder how many digits the settlement will have...
 
2010-03-14 12:40:23 PM
AndreMA: Or I was right, since the first "or" would be superfluous unless parsed this way:

by a business | ((occupational | professional) licensing (board | bureau)) such that once the condition "is-a-business" (which WalMart clearly is) is satisfied, the rest is needn't be considered.

/not a lawyer
/usually both right and wrong


Reading it as a "business licensing board or bureau" makes no sense because why would a business licensing board care? They are concerned with licensing an entity, which may or may not consist of a single person, whereas the occupational and professional licensing boards are concerned with individuals.
 
2010-03-14 12:58:18 PM
barneyfifesbullet: I like Wally. I shop Wally. Couldn't care less about the cool kids that think they are too hip for the room. It just makes the Wally more pleasant that they are not there.

Besides, where else can I get a frozen pizza and a flower pot at 3am?
The Waltons are billionaires for a reason.

Cancer dude should hire a lawyer, BTW. Looks like he got screwed.


Meijer.

I love having absolutely no reason to ever shop at Walmart.
 
2010-03-14 12:58:41 PM
I'm an attorney in Massachusetts and I don't claim to know Michigan law; however, many at will employment states have an exception for violations of public policy. Depending on the state, the breadth of what constitutes "public policy" is narrow or broad. In Massachusetts, it's fairly broad and can encompass everything from a statute or administrative rule, to "broad notions of public good and civic duty."

The story may be very different in Michigan, but it may be enough to give the guy grounds for a wrongful termination suit. Threat of the suit may be enough to make WalMart settle, in the hope of not having their name dragged further through the mud over this.
 
2010-03-14 01:06:07 PM
Shyran: AndreMA: Or I was right, since the first "or" would be superfluous unless parsed this way:

by a business | ((occupational | professional) licensing (board | bureau)) such that once the condition "is-a-business" (which WalMart clearly is) is satisfied, the rest is needn't be considered.

/not a lawyer
/usually both right and wrong

Reading it as a "business licensing board or bureau" makes no sense because why would a business licensing board care? They are concerned with licensing an entity, which may or may not consist of a single person, whereas the occupational and professional licensing boards are concerned with individuals.


What I'm saying is that the sensible interpretations are limited to:

(1) business
(2) occupational licensing board
(3) professional licensing board
(4) occupational licensing bureau
(5) professional licensing bureau

WallMart is covered under (1)
The municipal bureaucrat that issues a hairdresser's license is covered under (2), (3), (4) or (5) depending on what terminology is used. I imagine it would also cover pseudo- and non-governmental bodies such as those who certify various skills (bar association, maybe?)
 
2010-03-14 02:35:19 PM
AndreMA: Shyran: AndreMA: Or I was right, since the first "or" would be superfluous unless parsed this way:

by a business | ((occupational | professional) licensing (board | bureau)) such that once the condition "is-a-business" (which WalMart clearly is) is satisfied, the rest is needn't be considered.

/not a lawyer
/usually both right and wrong

Reading it as a "business licensing board or bureau" makes no sense because why would a business licensing board care? They are concerned with licensing an entity, which may or may not consist of a single person, whereas the occupational and professional licensing boards are concerned with individuals.

What I'm saying is that the sensible interpretations are limited to:

(1) business
(2) occupational licensing board
(3) professional licensing board
(4) occupational licensing bureau
(5) professional licensing bureau

WallMart is covered under (1)
The municipal bureaucrat that issues a hairdresser's license is covered under (2), (3), (4) or (5) depending on what terminology is used. I imagine it would also cover pseudo- and non-governmental bodies such as those who certify various skills (bar association, maybe?)


Actually, I was agreeing with you on the interpretation, was just expanding on your logic construct.
 
2010-03-14 04:51:00 PM
AndreMA: Brainsick: Panty Sniffer: The last time I checked, being a pothead is not a protected class

Sec. 4. (a) (new window) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana, and, if the qualifying patient has not specified that a primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility. Any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots shall also be allowed under state law and shall not be included in this amount.

check again

Crap. On further reading, this stands out: "by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau". For want of a comma after "business" Walmart might skate here. Walmart is not a "business licensing board or bureau"


I think the comma would actually make it work the OTHER way, e.g. if it read "a business, occupational or professional licensing board" it would mean "business licensing board" and NOT business. Legalease is pretty well-defined, if complicated. Listing three modifiers to a "something" (licensing board) would be done with commas, not two "or"s in a row.
 
2010-03-14 08:06:03 PM
farkityfarker: yukichigai: Fun fact: in Nevada, it's illegal for an employer to terminate or punish an employee for doing anything on their personal time which is legally permissible under State (not Federal) law.

But Alaska Airlines doesn't allow its employees to smoke cigarettes, even on their personal time, and they employ people at the Las Vegas airport.

How does that work? Does Alaska Airlines exempt its Nevada employees from the rule?


They would have to. I think 26 states, maybe more, offer some protection to employees for the use of lawful products off the clock.
 
Displayed 22 of 222 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report