NYC may ban pre-hire marijuana tests for many job applicants

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press


Jennifer Peltz, Associated Press Updated 7:02 pm CDT, Friday, April 12, 2019

NEW YORK (AP) — Many job-seekers would no longer face tests for marijuana use under legislation that New York City is likely to enact, taking a novel step as lawmakers and employers around the U.S. grapple with workplace policies about pot.

The Democrat-led City Council passed a measure Tuesday that would ban pre-employment testing for the drug, with certain exceptions.

. . .

"Private businesses should have the power to determine their own hiring practices — not just in deciding what skills and experience are relevant to certain positions, but also whether the use of a specific drug could have an adverse impact on a prospective employee's ability to perform," Council Republican Leader Steven Matteo said in a statement.

The measure is awaiting action from Mayor Bill de Blasio, a Democrat. A spokeswoman told The New York Times that City Hall supports the legislation; The Associated Press sent an inquiry Friday seeking to confirm the mayor's position.

Read more: https://www.chron.com/news/crime/article/NYC-law-would-ease-job-applicant-drug-test-13762237.php

[at140]

1. Why not? A happy employee makes a good worker..

Besides, workers should be judged by performance, not if they smoked a joint the previous evening.

[sandensea]

2. A sad day for echinacea and goldenseal growers, that's for sure.

Good on Mayor de Blasio.

We need to step out of the 19th century on this issue, frankly - or Middle Ages, in the case of Republicans.

[marlakay]

3. My older daughter is a manager for large business

Hundreds of employees, she comes home stressed and smokes pot to relax.

Thankfully she is in CA and employer does no checks.

She is very organized and can get more done in 3-4 hrs than most people in 8. Pot has helped her let it go end of day.

More businesses should realize that a stressed employee is not a good thing!

[Igel]

8. As an experiment,

there's also no control.

Set up a control and increase the sample sizes and you find that memory formation's impaired and reaction time up to 24 hours later is still really slowed down. Fortunately, as a manager there's little use for either memory formation or actually quick reaction times. Unfortunately for perception, the perception is that neither's affected.

It's that or have a couple of drinks to unwind, I guess, but neither is consequence free.

[melm00se]

4. As a manager

as long as you don't show up under the influence, I couldn't care less what you do at home.

[ck4829]

5. K&R

[Cold War Spook]

6. The use of marijuana is illegal according to the federal government.

These are private companies. Therefore I feel that it is up to an employer to decide. Especially if the company has headquarters in a state where it is still illegal. What is next, do away with all dress codes?

[ProfessorGAC]

7. Doesn't Work For Me

The long standing justifications have been:
- For companies involving risk to health or environment, it protects stakeholders. False on it's face because it takes no added expense to send home those coming in gassed whether on pot or booze.
- Reducing risks lowers insurance premiums. However studies have shown the cost of monitoring offsets the savings.
- People in such firms that do not perform high risk functions are tested out of fairness. That's prima facie ridiculous. Such attempts at "fairness" are inherently subjective, it adds to the random testing population of existing employees thereby further increasing zero return costs, and has no positive influence on those tested FOR THE FUNCTION.

It's anachronistic nonsense.

[CrispyQ]

9. When I walk through corporate it looks like we've already done away with dress codes.

Some people dress nicer on casual Friday with blue jeans than they do during the week, when they look like they're on their way to a picnic. I went to funeral where some people were dressed like they just came in off the golf course. I'm showing my age, I know, but I miss the tradition of dressing respectfully for certain events.

As for weed, my experience in HR/management was that alcohol was a much bigger workplace problem than weed ever was.

[Cold War Spook]

10. I am 75.

As a child, we lived in Boston. I think I was about 6 or 7 when I was fitted for my first suit. I wore a suit when we went out to dinner, the symphony, synagogue or any major function. We did not have a dress code at school, but all the boys wore button-down shirts, slacks, socks and polished shoes. The girls wore dresses or blouses and skirts, socks and shoes. My father sold truck tires and wore a suit even though he sometimes had to crawl under a truck. Even in the 90s, where I worked in Florida as a mainframe computer operator, even though we never saw a customer the men wore suits and the women wore dresses or blouses and skirts. I have never studied what dressing up does to you mentally, but I always have felt better about myself when wearing a suit. And yes, I too believe that alcohol is a bigger problem than weed, which I used far more frequently than alcohol when in the army and in college in the 60s.

[X_Digger]

11. Not sure this'll withstand a legal challenge.

Being a pot smoker isn't a protected class. Employers can test for nicotine and refuse to hire those who smoke cigarettes. Why one and not the other?

And then of course there's this..

There are exceptions for police, construction workers, commercial drivers, child care workers and certain others.

If it were truly up to an individual, freeeeedum, why the exceptions?

[GulfCoast66]

12. Horrible idea.

My employees work around heavy equipment that can and too often does kill people. Not at my company, luckily. Because we follow the rules to the strictly.

My employees, and I for that matter, deserve the right to know that the person operating the equipment that can kill them is not chemically affected.

Don’t get me wrong. I favor legalization. But I want to know my crane operator is not toking it up.

Private business can and should be able to enforce safety standards.

[truthisfreedom]

13. Wow.

Just wow. 2019 is crazy.

[Sgent]

14. With the exception

of Chik-Fil-A, workers comp, and federal / state contracting rules, I doubt most employers really give a shit if an employee smokes when he/she is off -- most employees I know which drug test do it for worker's comp issues or because federal / state contracts require it.