Drug Screening / Testing in EMS

[SliceOfLife]

Yes really. Everything stated is true.


In an "at will" state, your employer can lay you off (not fire) for ANYTHING that is non-discriminatory. They can fire you with "just cause".

I don't want to nitpick and in your state this may be true, but in mine, MA an at-will employee means you can be terminated for any legal, non-discriminatory reason. This does not apply to contract employee's or ones working under a CBA.

If you are terminated for no reason you can collect unemployment. If your company fights it they have to show cause for the termination.

 

[Mountain Res-Q]

I don't want to nitpick and in your state this may be true, but in mine, MA an at-will employee means you can be terminated for any legal, non-discriminatory reason. This does not apply to contract employee's or ones working under a CBA.

If you are terminated for no reason you can collect unemployment. If your company fights it they have to show cause for the termination.

Isn't that what I said? Cause determines unemployment benifits and future re-hiring. No cause means it was a lay off, not firing. Different terminology... same idea. Point was, yes, I can and have laid off for reasons that need not be explained. I have also fired for cause.

 

[ffemt8978]

I don't really know how to post to this or reply to certain messages, but I wasn't replying to Mountain Res-Q when I said 'Exactly'. I was trying to reply to something else.

I'll figure this out soon.

In the lower right hand corner of the post you are responding to is a blue button that says "Quote". Click that, and it will quote that post in your response to make it look like this one.

 

[SliceOfLife]

Isn't that what I said? Cause determines unemployment benefits and future re-hiring. No cause means it was a lay off, not firing. Different terminology... same idea. Point was, yes, I can and have laid off for reasons that need not be explained. I have also fired for cause.

You need to reread what you posted. Specifically you're quote in my post.

Here is part of it

They can fire you with "just cause"

My point is an at-will employee can be terminated without just cause. They will be able to collect but they are still terminated. Eligibility for rehire will be specifically circumstantial. There is nothing baring a company from terminating someone with cause and hiring them back. Unlikely but I have seen it happen.

The terms layoff and fire are really more for the terminated persons self-esteem and don't represent an expectation of rehire, severance or anything else. Have you ever represented a company at an unemployment hearing?

Sorry OP for going way off topic.

 

[hippocratical]

Once again, it's illegal...period. Although you can also abuse alcohol and nicotine, they are still legal substances.

From a legal/contractual standpoint maybe.

From a logical standpoint though this is madness! The list of things that go in and out of legal-state over time (slavery, voting rights, opium use, homosexuality, race-based-laws, rape in marriage, etc, ad nauseum) goes to show that 'legality' is not only dynamic but deeply rooted in human opinion rather than objective science or rationality.

Are you capable to do your job right now? Safely and professionally? Then you're good to go. End of argument.

So you in the past ingested a variety of interesting chemicals? Irrelevant.

We're all in the medical profession, so it boggles my mind that people with the same, if not likely more medical knowledge than me, can seriously defend "Oh alcohol and tobacco is legal so okay, whilst marijuana is illegal so therefore evil" Really? Can you not see the hypocrisy in this?

Add to that, that North Americans are practically rattling from the number of prescribed medications in their systems, that it shocks me more about the fantastic puritan nature of its residents in regards to chemical ingestion. I know (and do know personally) that not all Americans believe this hype, but I would have thought medically trained people would be more rational.

 

[Mountain Res-Q]

Isn't that what I said? Cause determines unemployment benefits and future re-hiring. No cause means it was a lay off, not firing. Different terminology... same idea. Point was, yes, I can and have laid off for reasons that need not be explained. I have also fired for cause.

You need to reread what you posted. Specifically you're quote in my post.

Here is part of it They can fire you with "just cause" My point is an at-will employee can be terminated without just cause. They will be able to collect but they are still terminated. Eligibility for rehire will be specifically circumstantial. There is nothing baring a company from terminating someone with cause and hiring them back. Unlikely but I have seen it happen.

The terms layoff and fire are really more for the terminated persons self-esteem and don't represent an expectation of rehire, severance or anything else. Have you ever represented a company at an unemployment hearing?

Sorry OP for going way off topic.

Ya...... I am either really tired or you are... everything you said is what I said. Your terminology might be different, but the legality is the same. Yes, I have been involved in the termination of employees for cause and the subsequent legal fight for unemployment benefits. Termination in an at will state can be for any non-discriminatory reason; if there is just cause (fired), then unemployment is unlikely. But if an employee is simply terminated (laid off) for any other reason, then unemployment is likely. Some of my more "interesting" terminations: An employee attacking another (with me in between, finger on the trigger), employee violating several OSHA regulations and then ling about it when I caught him, insubordination (refusing to do the job hired for and telling me off when I put my foot down). FIRED MUCH??? In any event, I had cause, but even without cause, they are employed at my pleasure.

 

[SliceOfLife]

Ya...... I am either really tired or you are... everything you said is what I said. Your terminology might be different, but the legality is the same. Yes, I have been involved in the termination of employees for cause and the subsequent legal fight for unemployment benefits. Termination in an at will state can be for any non-discriminatory reason; if there is just cause (fired), then unemployment is unlikely. But if an employee is simply terminated (laid off) for any other reason, then unemployment is likely. Some of my more "interesting" terminations: An employee attacking another (with me in between, finger on the trigger), employee violating several OSHA regulations and then ling about it when I caught him, insubordination (refusing to do the job hired for and telling me off when I put my foot down). FIRED MUCH??? In any event, I had cause, but even without cause, they are employed at my pleasure.

Agreed. I think we are on the same page

 

[Judeau]

So many contradictions and controversy. Truthfully i wouldn't risk it until marijuana has been brought up to the forefront and is dealt with more properly. Honestly, don't risk your job. As much as i used to smoke i knew i had to quit, especially when i'm out in the real world. I drove along time ago while under the effects of marijuana to cities or across states when i was 17. I never got into an accident, and did this for about a year. It doesn't cause the inability for me to drive, but could for someone else. I'm more focused when under the effects and i tend to think more than if i was "Normal"(Literally thinking outside the box). One thing is for sure, you will become extremely tired as the drug's effect wears off. So this could cause a lot of problems. I don't do it anymore, nor do i intend to use it again. No one should go to work intoxicated, period. You have to sacrifice parts of your life to make a better living in this world. We don't make the rules after all. :sad:

 

[Judeau]

From a legal/contractual standpoint maybe.

From a logical standpoint though this is madness! The list of things that go in and out of legal-state over time (slavery, voting rights, opium use, homosexuality, race-based-laws, rape in marriage, etc, ad nauseum) goes to show that 'legality' is not only dynamic but deeply rooted in human opinion rather than objective science or rationality.

Are you capable to do your job right now? Safely and professionally? Then you're good to go. End of argument.

So you in the past ingested a variety of interesting chemicals? Irrelevant.

We're all in the medical profession, so it boggles my mind that people with the same, if not likely more medical knowledge than me, can seriously defend "Oh alcohol and tobacco is legal so okay, whilst marijuana is illegal so therefore evil" Really? Can you not see the hypocrisy in this?

Add to that, that North Americans are practically rattling from the number of prescribed medications in their systems, that it shocks me more about the fantastic puritan nature of its residents in regards to chemical ingestion. I know (and do know personally) that not all Americans believe this hype, but I would have thought medically trained people would be more rational.

So true.... Seriously lets put a two perfectly healthy in a room. One with alcohol, and one with marijuana. Let them use the drug and herb for 24 hours straight and see who lives, and doesn't suffer from profound health issues. All i can say is that the alcoholic will be dead within the first 5 hours of drinking non-stop.

 

[SliceOfLife]

I'll add to this a bit. I have three jobs. Two in EMS and a .gov contract job. Only the government job requires drug testing. I don't know what that means...

 

[Mountain Res-Q]

Agreed. I think we are on the same page

My brain is so fried right now, man, if I was you I would not liken your mental state to mine... lol... the page I am on has big letters, small words, and lots of pictures... and instead of sleeping for a long day tomorrow, I am writing a letter of reprimand for an employee that took a sharpie and signed his name on the First Aid Room (an outside storage room adjacent to FA). :sly:

 

[Sandog]

It is all about priorities. What is important to you?

 

[EMTSTUDENT25]

From a legal/contractual standpoint maybe.

From a logical standpoint though this is madness! The list of things that go in and out of legal-state over time (slavery, voting rights, opium use, homosexuality, race-based-laws, rape in marriage, etc, ad nauseum) goes to show that 'legality' is not only dynamic but deeply rooted in human opinion rather than objective science or rationality.

Are you capable to do your job right now? Safely and professionally? Then you're good to go. End of argument.

So you in the past ingested a variety of interesting chemicals? Irrelevant.

We're all in the medical profession, so it boggles my mind that people with the same, if not likely more medical knowledge than me, can seriously defend "Oh alcohol and tobacco is legal so okay, whilst marijuana is illegal so therefore evil" Really? Can you not see the hypocrisy in this?

Add to that, that North Americans are practically rattling from the number of prescribed medications in their systems, that it shocks me more about the fantastic puritan nature of its residents in regards to chemical ingestion. I know (and do know personally) that not all Americans believe this hype, but I would have thought medically trained people would be more rational.

Ok, not too sure you were understanding my response.

"From a legal/contractual standpoint maybe"......Is that not the ONLY standpoint we SHOULD be refering to for the sake of this post?

You dont have to be in the medical profession to know, that in responsible amounts, consuming alcohol is COMPLETELY legal, where as ANY amount of pot in your system is not...Lets go back to my initial post, shall we?

Simply put, If smoking pot is that important to you, then you have to also be prepared to face the consequences if, god forbid, something were to happen. Why go through school and testing for your certifications just to have it taken away(worse case scenario).

There is no need to debate the topic further. I was making the response to the OP balck and white. I dont look down on anyone who smokes. Thats their choice.

Seriously lets put a two perfectly healthy in a room. One with alcohol, and one with marijuana. Let them use the drug and herb for 24 hours straight and see who lives, and doesn't suffer from profound health issues. All i can say is that the alcoholic will be dead within the first 5 hours of drinking non-stop.

Although I agree 100%, This has no relevance to the original post.