New Pot laws and Resturant Employees

Re:New Pot laws and Resturant Employees (pnwchef)

Sat, 08 Dec 2012 18:50:33 GMT

Jack, when the Employee comes up to you and asks for a munchy break, send him home........pnwc

Re:New Pot laws and Resturant Employees (Ice Cream Man)

Sat, 08 Dec 2012 16:12:21 GMT

I especially like the part about the Police. Like they never smoke pot LOL. Officers take Oath, who ever wrote that should read the news, to most the Oath means the laws that suit them.

Re:New Pot laws and Resturant Employees (Dr of BBQ)

Sat, 08 Dec 2012 08:24:15 GMT

Legal pot complicates drug-free work policies
DENVER (AP) -- Pot may be legal, but workers may want to check with their boss first before they grab the pipe or joint during off hours.

Businesses in Washington state, where the drug is legal, and Colorado, where it will be by January, are trying to figure out how to deal with employees who use it on their own time and then fail a drug test.

It is another uncertainty that has come with pot legalization as many ask how the laws will affect them.

"There's just an incredible amount of gray right now" about how marijuana legalization affects employers, said Sandra Hagen Solin of the Northern Colorado Legislative Alliance, a coalition of chambers of commerce.

Police departments are especially worried. Officers take oaths to protect all laws, state and federal. In this case, pot is still prohibited under federal law.

The Seattle police department is reviewing its policies on drug use by officers or prospective officers, spokesman Sgt. Sean Whitcomb said, adding that it's unlikely off-duty officers will be allowed to use pot. The department might ease its requirement that applicants not have used marijuana in the previous three years.

The Denver police department is reviewing Colorado's marijuana law, which goes into effect in January. The department has no immediate plans to change employment practices, spokesman John White said.

"Marijuana is still illegal at the federal level, so officers would not under any scenario be allowed to use marijuana," White said. White wasn't sure about pre-employment marijuana use.
Other employers, especially those with federal contracts, are concerned what the new laws mean for them. One group of Colorado businesses has pleaded for clarity in a letter to the White House, which hasn't said if it would sue to block the law.
"The uncertainly created will cause havoc for our members and hamper their efforts to maintain drug-free worksites," wrote Mark Latimer, head of the Rocky Mountain chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors.

The havoc Latimer refers to is confusion over a law passed with cigarette smokers in mind. Colorado's Lawful Off-Duty Activities law says workers can't be dismissed for legal behavior off the clock. A case pending in a state appeals court could settle the question.

The case involves Brandon Coats, a telephone operator for Dish Network. Paralyzed in a teenage car crash, he's also been a medical marijuana patient in Colorado since 2009. Coats was fired in 2010 for failing a company drug test, though his employer didn't claim he was ever impaired on the job.
Coats sued to get his job back, but a trial court dismissed his claim in 2011. The judge agreed with Dish Network that medical marijuana use isn't a "lawful activity" covered by the law. Coats appealed, and the state Court of Appeals has agreed to hear the case but hasn't set a date.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, more than half the states have laws that protect workers who smoke cigarettes off the clock. Colorado's law extends to all legal activities, though Washington state doesn't have a similar statute.

"If you're doing it at home and it's not illegal and it's not impairing your work performance, you should be protected," said Coats' lawyer, Michael Evans.

Some employers are required by law to conduct drug testing, including in industries regulated by the U.S. Departments of Transportation, Energy and Defense. In other cases, companies or agencies that receive federal grants or contracts, including universities that get money from the Department of Education and police agencies that obtain grants from the Department of Justice, are required to maintain drug-free workplaces.

One of Washington's biggest private employers, The Boeing Co., generally requires drug tests before employment, upon reasonable suspicion or after accidents. The Washington measure won't change any of that, said company spokeswoman Cathy Rudolph. "The safety and integrity of our operations, products and services is paramount," she said in an email.
For companies like Boeing without random or regular drug testing, it's not entirely clear how such policies can be enforced.
Some lawyers are encouraging companies to take stock of their drug policies. "This is a good time for employers to revisit their policies and make sure they're still consistent with what they want to do, and to talk with their employees about what the policies are," said Mark Berry, an employment lawyer.

Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, a Denver-based chain with locations in the two states, has no plans to revisit its drug policy. Spokesman Kevin Caulfield said the policy already covers legal drugs, such as prescription medication. Marijuana would be treated the same, he said.

"If a drug is legal, as long as it's not abused or misused, it would not be something covered by the policy," Caulfield said.
---
Find Kristen Wyatt at http://www.twitter.com/APkristenwyatt
Johnson reported from Seattle and can be reached at http://www.twitter.com/GeneAPSeattle

Re:New Pot laws and Resturant Employees (Cosmos)

Wed, 14 Nov 2012 21:49:35 GMT

First of all, some of your restaurant employees probably already smoke pot once in a while or habitually and you probably don't know it. Secondly, I expect if legalized, pot smoking could and would be regulated much like drinking on the job...ie: you can't do it because it either illegal (truck drivers...etc..,) or the you, the boss, will have the right to tell them so...Do you let your staff drink on the job? If not, I'm pretty sure you'll have the right to not let them smoke on the job.

Re:New Pot laws and Resturant Employees (Ice Cream Man)

Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:11:13 GMT

mjambro

Ice Cream Man

I think people who smoke pot will keep smoking and those who don't won't. The difference will be less money spent on enforcement.

I think you are either quite naive or just conveniently in denial. You are probably near correct for those perhaps > 40, but I'm sure there will be a significantly increased usage in the 16-30 crowd. That could create problems in the restaurant trade considering the high number of that age group working in the restaurant trade. However, considering alcohol is legal, but typically unacceptable in the work force, I'd guess the same would hold for weed. Agree there will likely be an overall reduced money spent on enforcement, but I suspect cost of traffic mishaps will increase significantly.

I'm hoping the smoking bans in public places (especially restaurants) will include weed.

People who want to smoke or drink will anyway. Everyone knows Pot or Alcohol in excess aren't good for you but you can't stop it so why waste money trying. I'm sure they used your arguments for Prohibition. Catch them in a car and throw away the key but don't punish everyone for some peoples crimes. There are only two groups that benefit from Pot laws, criminals and law enforcement the tax payer just picks up the tab.
As for employees choose well and if that doesn't work choose again the nature of our business is a lot of turn over anyway. I don't think the sky will fall any time soon.
Doc. I've had employees like that, great at first then terrible and no drugs or alcohol were involved.

Re:New Pot laws and Resturant Employees (MetroplexJim)

Wed, 14 Nov 2012 18:29:24 GMT

Bruce Bilmes and Susan Boyle

MetroplexJim

Bruce Bilmes and Susan Boyle

MetroplexJim

Sixteen years ago I read a frightening book: Slouching Towards Gomorrah.

We have arrived.

The book is a rant by a marginalized old man who, like many old men throughout history, can't accept a changing world.

You say "marginalized"; I say "Borked".
(& BTW: despite the recent success of the "wisdom" of Saul Alinsky, "name-calling" - as much fun as it can be - is not rational political discourse).

This is Roadfood.com. There is not supposed to be any political discourse.

You are correct; therefore, I amend my remark: "(& BTW: despite the recent success of the "wisdom" of Saul Alinsky, "name-calling" - as much fun as it can be - is not rational ~~political~~ discourse)".

Re:New Pot laws and Resturant Employees (Dr of BBQ)

Wed, 14 Nov 2012 18:19:52 GMT

"I'm hoping the smoking bans in public places (especially restaurants) will include weed."

Well that's a given.

Re:New Pot laws and Resturant Employees (mjambro)

Wed, 14 Nov 2012 18:14:00 GMT

Ice Cream Man

I think people who smoke pot will keep smoking and those who don't won't. The difference will be less money spent on enforcement.

I think you are either quite naive or just conveniently in denial. You are probably near correct for those perhaps > 40, but I'm sure there will be a significantly increased usage in the 16-30 crowd. That could create problems in the restaurant trade considering the high number of that age group working in the restaurant trade. However, considering alcohol is legal, but typically unacceptable in the work force, I'd guess the same would hold for weed. Agree there will likely be an overall reduced money spent on enforcement, but I suspect cost of traffic mishaps will increase significantly.

I'm hoping the smoking bans in public places (especially restaurants) will include weed.

Re:New Pot laws and Resturant Employees (Bruce Bilmes and Susan Boyle)

Wed, 14 Nov 2012 18:07:31 GMT

Dr of BBQ

And now with some states making pot legal there will be twice as much coming across the Mexican border and it will become an even bigger problem.

I don't think so. I think the locally grown and regulated stuff will squeeze the illegal imports out of the market.

Re:New Pot laws and Resturant Employees (Dr of BBQ)

Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:58:26 GMT

Cheech & Chong's BBQ LMAO That will never happen.
I had a really good clean up man worked one hour (at the widow) in the evening and then cleaned the place. He also worked about 6 hours on Saturday. Then he moved in with a couple of friends that smoked pot for a living and my guy started giving away my food. And not just a sandwich here and there but ribs every time he worked were going out the window to his friends. I talked to him several times finally fired him. He is now a dishwasher and watched closely by his new employer who is a friend of mine. I assume he is still living with his dirt-bag drug friends.
And now with some states making pot legal there will be twice as much coming across the Mexican border and it will become an even bigger problem.

Re:New Pot laws and Resturant Employees (Ice Cream Man)

Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:19:29 GMT

OK Doc. I've got a solution for you. rename your trailer to Cheech & Chong's BBQ. Your new slogan will be, We Smoke Daily.

Re:New Pot laws and Resturant Employees (Bruce Bilmes and Susan Boyle)

Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:14:04 GMT

MetroplexJim

Bruce Bilmes and Susan Boyle

MetroplexJim

Sixteen years ago I read a frightening book: Slouching Towards Gomorrah.

We have arrived.

The book is a rant by a marginalized old man who, like many old men throughout history, can't accept a changing world.

You say "marginalized"; I say "Borked".
(& BTW: despite the recent success of the "wisdom" of Saul Alinsky, "name-calling" - as much fun as it can be - is not rational political discourse).

This is Roadfood.com. There is not supposed to be any political discourse.

Re:New Pot laws and Resturant Employees (DawnT)

Wed, 14 Nov 2012 11:28:38 GMT

The Travelin Man

DawnT

Jack, I'd worry more about stock shrinkage then employee safety if you have foodservice employees smoking pot.

Are you implying that an employee is more likely to steal because they smoked pot? I'm curious what empirical evidence you could provide that might support this theory.

Precisely as Tony said.
It's not really stealing, just eating into your profits.

Re:New Pot laws and Resturant Employees (bartl)

Wed, 14 Nov 2012 09:16:19 GMT

One difference between smoking pot and drinking alcohol: when you drink, you're not forcing everybody around you to also drink (marijuana smoke triggers an allergic reaction in me, so I will admit it's a sore point).

Bart

Re:New Pot laws and Resturant Employees (BBQ Seeker)

Wed, 14 Nov 2012 06:50:43 GMT

I don't know that it really changes anything one does in the every day operation of a business. I still reserve the right to do random drug testing, and send your butt home if I even suspect something being out of whack. I can replace equipment and physical "things" I can't replace limbs or lives and I like everyone who shows up for work at the start of a shift to return home at the end of the shift.

Re:New Pot laws and Resturant Employees (MetroplexJim)

Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:10:31 GMT

Bruce Bilmes and Susan Boyle

MetroplexJim

Sixteen years ago I read a frightening book: Slouching Towards Gomorrah.

We have arrived.

The book is a rant by a marginalized old man who, like many old men throughout history, can't accept a changing world.

You say "marginalized"; I say "Borked".
(& BTW: despite the recent success of the "wisdom" of Saul Alinsky, "name-calling" - as much fun as it can be - is not rational political discourse).

Re:New Pot laws and Resturant Employees (Bruce Bilmes and Susan Boyle)

Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:09:34 GMT

MetroplexJim

Sixteen years ago I read a frightening book: Slouching Towards Gomorrah.

We have arrived.

The book is a rant by a marginalized old man who, like many old men throughout history, can't accept a changing world.

Re:New Pot laws and Resturant Employees (The Travelin Man)

Mon, 12 Nov 2012 23:41:19 GMT

Tony Bad

The Travelin Man

DawnT

Jack, I'd worry more about stock shrinkage then employee safety if you have foodservice employees smoking pot.

Are you implying that an employee is more likely to steal because they smoked pot? I'm curious what empirical evidence you could provide that might support this theory.

How about this...I never ate 20 white castle burgers at a sitting when I was straight.

That sounds like the opposite of shrinkage to me.

Re:New Pot laws and Resturant Employees (Dr of BBQ)

Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:02:50 GMT

Tony, I have tried after a late night of drinking.
LOL
jack

Re:New Pot laws and Resturant Employees (Tony Bad)

Mon, 12 Nov 2012 16:52:12 GMT

The Travelin Man

DawnT

Jack, I'd worry more about stock shrinkage then employee safety if you have foodservice employees smoking pot.

Are you implying that an employee is more likely to steal because they smoked pot? I'm curious what empirical evidence you could provide that might support this theory.

How about this...I never ate 20 white castle burgers at a sitting when I was straight.

Re:New Pot laws and Resturant Employees (The Travelin Man)

Mon, 12 Nov 2012 16:42:17 GMT

DawnT

Jack, I'd worry more about stock shrinkage then employee safety if you have foodservice employees smoking pot.

Are you implying that an employee is more likely to steal because they smoked pot? I'm curious what empirical evidence you could provide that might support this theory.

Re:New Pot laws and Resturant Employees (jcheese)

Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:12:04 GMT

I don't think the laws change anything about being intoxicated. If yer buzzing, ya probably should stay away from the slicer.
I don't think the laws are gonna change many habits.
On the bright side, the munchies can't hurt business. Hell, set up a smoking area.

Re:New Pot laws and Resturant Employees (DawnT)

Sun, 11 Nov 2012 14:33:43 GMT

Jack, I'd worry more about stock shrinkage then employee safety if you have foodservice employees smoking pot. Either way you look at it, it's impairment. Even with driving nowadays, dui doesn't mean alcohol anymore if someone is visibly and physically impaired to operate a vehicle. Just because they don't blow a threshold number, doesn't mean they could go back to driving dangerously even if it's just being caused by an antihistimine tablet. It's still a DUI and the person is a threat to himself and others. So it would be with operating machinery or any other dangerous activity and I'm sure insurance companies agree.

Re:New Pot laws and Resturant Employees (roadkillgrill)

Sun, 11 Nov 2012 14:04:39 GMT

Nothing has really changed except state enforcement and taxation. The Federal laws are unaffected and it's still against Federal law, thus protecting the rights of an employers right to random drug testing, hiring and firing.

Re:New Pot laws and Resturant Employees (Ice Cream Man)

Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:39:53 GMT

I think people who smoke pot will keep smoking and those who don't won't. The difference will be less money spent on enforcement.

Re:New Pot laws and Resturant Employees (MetroplexJim)

Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:18:39 GMT

Sixteen years ago I read a frightening book: Slouching Towards Gomorrah.

We have arrived.

New Pot laws and Resturant Employees (Dr of BBQ)

Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:08:56 GMT

Ok first the new pot laws Colorado and a similar in Washington "Amendment 64 allows people 21 and older to possess up to an ounce of marijuana, grow six pot plants and over the longer term allows for stores to sell it to recreational users."

How are the law changes going to effect the restaurant business? What if your employee wants to smoke a joint while on break? How is it going to effect the Workman's Comp Laws? I have an employee that runs a meat slicer can I tell him he can not smoke pot on break? Or even before he comes to work?

You can (already) tell an employee not to drink (alcohol) on the job or before coming to work (if he/she will still be intoxicated enough to impede production/compromise safety); you can tell an employee not to smoke (around food, etc) and you can even tell an employee not to smoke on your premises. And yes, you can ABSOLUTELY prohibit smoking pot during work hours (even on breaks) because it can affect production and safety. You can even tell the employee that he/she CANNOT report to work within 'XXX' number of hours after smoking pot for the same reason(s).