Employers Can Fire You For Using Marijuana, But Brandon Coats' Case Could Change Everything

[Deborah K]

You'd be surprised. It's like trying to fill a prescription of Oxycontin IR 30's vs. Oxycontin 80's.

I was talking to a pharmacy technician and she mentioned that Oxycontin IR 30's is the one drug that their pharmacy will not fill. There is too much of a hassle involved in it. Apparently the guy whose prescription she denied to fill mentioned after that he'd been to about 10 different pharmacies and not one of them would fill it. I'm not sure of the specific process involved, but apparently there are more hoops to jump through and the pills more heavily monitored.

With regards to the doctor, if they wrote Marinol prescriptions like they did medicinal cannabis recommendations, they'd be indicted with their names slandered in every newspaper across the country. I doubt, really, that it's even an unwritten rule. It's probably codified in regulations somewhere, about the amount of certain drugs they can prescribe in a given period. And as well, they don't want to draw attention to themselves from the DEA. If most doctors prescribed X amount of Marinol (virtually none) and then a flood of prescriptions started coming in from an area from one doctor no less, they'd set up a sting. They'd have an agent go in and subtly imply that they do not really need the drug or that they are an addict. The doctor would soon be indicted thereafter. And for the ones that do not go for their antics, they are harassed and ran out of practice/eventually indicted for something. It's a shame, but it's the truth. These cocksuckers are fascists. They have destroyed the doctor/patient relationship to such a degree that doctors are suspicious of their patients and patients can't get the medicine they need.

Of all the things that annoy me on a given basis, this one probably takes the cake.

^^^^ This! ^^^^

 

[Deborah K]

No, you are different because

1) You actually own something, as opposed to the government, which just steals it
2) You are not threatening violence like the government, just suspension of employment

I find it hard to believe you've been here all this time and yet you don't understand the simple difference between a private employer and the government.

I understand it. And, I think you know that. Do you understand how trading one tyranny for another isn't the answer? So what if an employer doesn't hold a gun to your head - you assume people are going to stand up to the businesses that are unfair and dictatorial, but what you fail to grasp, apparently, is that the unwashed masses acquiesce every time when it comes to their pocketbook. They can just as easily be manipulated by companies as they can by the government.

What if religious businesses for example became the majority and decided to unite against workers by firing them for going to titty bars on their own time (lewd example, I know)? People desperate for work are going to comply. This is my point.

 

[Deborah K]

While I would agree with this in principle,, Piss testing is inherently a violation of a persons privacy.
And it is and never was the "employers" decision. it was mandated by Insurance companies in collusion with government.

It was a bad policy started a few decades ago,, and is now commonplace.

What you do in your private life is no business of any employer.
If it were an actual Job performance issue,, then it is the employers prerogative.

HOWEVER, in this case,, as in others, the employee was an exemplary employee.. fired for no reason other than use of a substance (for medical reasons) in his private life.

Drug testing is the question,, and it needs to end.
If that takes suing employers to make them stop,, fine.

Agreed.

 

[DamianTV]

The Law used to be subject to the concept of Innocent until proven Guilty. Employers and Corporations are not held to the same standards, and dependancy on Employment as a condition of survival has made Employers just as much a form of Authority as any other part of our Govt. This enables the Modern Day Witch Hunt where the most minor of accusations from another is considered valid grounds for Termination.

"Mr. Spacely, George Jetson got his chocolate in my peanut butter!"
"Jetson! Youre FIRED!"

AF has a good point about Corporations not being People. People being spelled with a capital P, recognized as a proper person. Just as there is a difference between Citizen and citizen. Extending the idea of Corporations are NOT PEOPLE, I would have to say that an individual business owner should have more power over his business than any Mega Corporation.

Extend the idea a bit further. Do employers have an inherit Right to terminate any employee for ANY reason? Employment falls more under Contract Law. It requires both parties to agree to the Terms and Conditions of employment. In a world where more and more small businesses fail, less businesses are created, and more people are employed by Mega Corporations, those Terms and Conditions of employment become both non-negotiable and completely incomprehensible to the common man, as it is more of a Book written in Legalese and can only be understood by those who speak the language. The outcome of this can only be Indentured Servitude. There used to exist another name by which these types of Employers were labeled: Robber Barons.

Our old Terms and Conditions of employment used to be so simple that a trained monkey could understand it. "You do this for me and I'll give you something in exchange." It falls under Contract Law as both spoken and written contracts could be considered Binding. But as the powers of the Employers has grown, there are Rights that are assumed. These arent actually Natural Rights, but might be better described as "Cooperative Rights". If self ownership is recognized as a Right of all People, part of what is implied is a Limit to those Rights. People have the ability to define what those Limits are when it pertains to the Rights of others, and Unlimited Rights when applied to what a Person can do unto themselves.

We will have different relationships with each other. As a result, each different relationship will have a different set of Limits. You will allow your spouce to see you naked, on a regular basis, while being seen naked by the TSA we consider to be offensive and intrusive because our relationship with the TSA is considered to be different than that of our spouce. Just as those relationships are different, each relationship with an Employer will also be different. These relationships are formed by cooperation where both parties agree to what is expected of them and what will be provided in exchange. Todays Mega Corporations has all but done away with mutual cooperation and replaced it with demanded obedience. This still is a separation of the idea "Does an Employer have a Right to terminate an Employee for ANY reason?" Only if termination is agreed to as part of the Contract of Employment. That agreement, contract, and definition of the Limitations of the Contract is what allows both an Employer to terminate an Employee as well as empowers an Employee with the ability to Quit their job for ANY reason.

Jobs are Relationships. As explained, EVERY relationship is different. Guess what, there are some jobs that you CAN NOT QUIT. The simplest example is the Military. It is part of the agreement. Other countries are also different and require people who are able to enlist for mandatory minimum periods of time. That is NOT a mutual agreement, that IS abuse of Law. The abuse that can occur typically favors Employers over Employees, but can occur from both sides. I believe also the abuse results from Ignorance as to what a "Right" actually is. Govts do not have any RIGHTS what so ever because they are derived from men and only granted Permissions by those that they govern. Believing any Govt has any Right what so ever stems from a lack of understanding of what a Right is, and its negative form, what a Right is not. It may even be said that evil results not of suspicion, but of ignorance.

Ignorance is what enables one to abuse another. How can you try to enforce any Natural Right if you do not know that you have it? Another Right that people do not understand is a Right to Cooperation. If we have Unlimited Rights unto ourselves and No Rights over another, we need to also be able to define the negative form of those rights, which is where Cooperation comes into play. Our agreements and contracts define what both will be able to do as well as what both will not be able to do. With an Employer, a person would typically agree to have a Supervisor, however, when not at work, that Employee would expect to be free to go about their business as they see fit.

Another issue is the role of Technology in the workplace. Not so much as in surveillance or us monitoring or managing equipment, but that equipment managing us. The machines tell us that it is time to "add more materials", or to make an adjustment to the method of manufacture. Clocks are also machines that tell us when we are expected to be working, and when we are not, depending on the situation. Machines are cost efficient because they replace supervisory roles with better regulated automation. This also has a consequence of enabling people to have Supervision while not working. It would not be cost efficient for a company to hire someone to Supervise what you do while not at home, but with Technology assuming the role of Supervision, it may just as well be. Employers are now demanding that they have a Right to Supervise what you do while not working. First, that Right as a Natural Right does not exist, yet, it does not stop Employers from attempting to claim this as a Natural Right. It is not. It is part of the agreement. But because the agreement is typically written by the Employer, bias will favor the Employer over the Employee as to what those Limits are. Obedience is replacing Cooperation. And eventually, the Employer will claim, through the ignorance of the difference between a Natural Right and a Cooperative Negotiated Right, the Employers will extend the contractual Rights to become damn near Unlimited.

The end result may very well be that we will be Chipped for Supervision, not by Govt, but by Employers, as a mandatory condition for employment.

So for the Employers reading this, what Rights would you claim to have? Would you claim to have the Right to install a Biometric Chip for Supervision of all employees? Would you extend this claim to have a Right to Supervise them while not working? Would you continue to extend this claim to Total Ownership of the employees? Or would you acknowledge that there are LIMITS to what those Rights are? Would you also agree that the source of your Rights comes not as a Natural Right, but the result of cooperation defining what the Limits are to both parties? Edit: as part of those Limits, would it be reasonable to treat employees as Innocents until proven Guilty for violations of valid Limits?

 

[Deborah K]

Damien, that is not 'food for thought', that is 'a delicious meal for thought'. +rep!