# I feel a boycott coming on...



## terrib (Jul 1, 2010)

Something about this just p'ed me off...this is not right in any way! Bad Walmart![-(

 "Even though Michigan resident Joseph Casias had a prescription from his doctor for medical marijuana, he was fired after a positive test for the substance by his employer, Walmart. 

The news last November he'd been terminated was devastating for Casias, 29, who took great pride in his job, once earning the honor of Associate of the Year. 
"It hurts. It hurts because I care. I care a lot about the store. I always wanted to make sure I do well," he told ABC News. 
Casias started taking the medicine last June to cope with pain from sinus cancer and a brain tumor. He says the rare form of cancer causes him pain constantly and he almost died when he was first diagnosed. 

Casias sprained his knee at work last November and underwent the routine drug test that follows all workplace injuries. Questioned about his positive test, Casias told management about his condition and presented a state card authorizing his marijuana use for medical purposes, but he was fired anyway. Casias says management told him Walmart does not honor medical marijuana cards. "


----------



## Sigg (Jul 1, 2010)

On the one hand I feel bad for the guy because he has cancer and a brain tumor, but on the other hand I don't think Walmart was wrong for following their own policies.


----------



## Blood (Jul 4, 2010)

Sigg said:


> On the one hand I feel bad for the guy because he has cancer and a brain tumor, but on the other hand I don't think Walmart was wrong for following their own policies.


Did it ever occur to you that a particular policy could be wrong, as in unjust?  But I imagine 10 out 10 insurance companies agree with you.


----------



## Sigg (Jul 4, 2010)

Blood said:


> Did it ever occur to you that a particular policy could be wrong, as in unjust? But I imagine 10 out 10 insurance companies agree with you.



Depends on what you mean by "wrong" and "unjust".  If you mean that it somehow violates the law or civil rights, then yeah, it's happened and the company should probably be investigated.  But a general blanket zero tolerance policy (which I imagine they have) is not inherently wrong and is well within the rights of that company to enforce.

What I think really happened is that the policy is there to cover 99.9% of the cases, then this guy has a special .1% case where there is a legit(arguably) reason for using marijuana.  But my guess is that the bureaucracy of such a large company takes away the power from anyone involved to make that exception for him.

Welcome to the machine, as our pals across the pond might say.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jul 4, 2010)

_This_ is why you have a problem with Walmart?!


----------



## JosephB (Jul 4, 2010)

Exceptions can be made and actually written into policy. 

Reminds me of the retarded  zero tolerance weapons rules they have in public schools where they expel kids for things like having nail clippers in their backpacks.

This is simple -- if you have the state card, you're exempt. Duh.


----------



## MeeQ (Jul 4, 2010)

Ilasir Maroa said:


> _This_ is why you have a problem with Walmart?!


 
Touche.

I really hope this isn't the only reason you have a problem with Walmart?


----------



## JosephB (Jul 4, 2010)

They have the best prices on diapers and shotguns. That's why I'm a customer.


----------



## MeeQ (Jul 4, 2010)

Diapers & shotguns

I'm stealing that for a title. Mine now.


----------



## JosephB (Jul 4, 2010)

You can have it for a title. I live it, brother.


----------



## cacafire (Jul 4, 2010)

In San Antonio we have a viable, and superior, alternative: H-E-B. Sweet!


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jul 4, 2010)

We have the Co-op, they do ethical banking as well.


----------



## Sigg (Jul 4, 2010)

coop and migroooooosssss!!!


----------



## caelum (Jul 4, 2010)

But you see, _the corporations_ are at fault.  They just sit there in their big corporation buildings, and they're all corporationy.  And they make money.


----------



## Sigg (Jul 4, 2010)

jealous?


----------



## MeeQ (Jul 4, 2010)

Sigg said:


> jealous?


 
Only of your avatar.


----------



## Blood (Jul 5, 2010)

Sigg said:


> Depends on what you mean by "wrong" and "unjust".  If you mean that it somehow violates the law or civil rights, then yeah, it's happened and the company should probably be investigated.


Yes, I'd say forcing someone to choose between pain and gainful employment constitutes a violation of one's civil rights. And cruel.  



> But a general blanket zero tolerance policy (which I imagine they have) is not inherently wrong and is well within the rights of that company to enforce.


Nor is it inherently right as you seem to imply.  You are free to disagree with company policies, you know, form an opinion. 



> What I think really happened is that the policy is there to cover 99.9% of the cases, then this guy has a special .1% case where there is a legit(arguably) reason for using marijuana.  But my guess is that the bureaucracy of such a large company takes away the power from anyone involved to make that exception for him.


 I would not have fired him, plain and simple. 



> Welcome to the machine, as our pals across the pond might say.


...As I flip the off switch.


----------



## Blood (Jul 5, 2010)

Ilasir Maroa said:


> _This_ is why you have a problem with Walmart?!


What more do you want?!


----------



## MeeQ (Jul 5, 2010)

Blood said:


> What more do you want?!



Your soul... and I now also find myself craving your pimp cane (as you no doubt own one)


----------



## Blood (Jul 5, 2010)

MeeQ said:


> Your soul... and I now also find myself craving your pimp cane (as you no doubt own one)


Oh yes, but it's for women only.  Sorry.


----------



## MeeQ (Jul 5, 2010)

> "But i'm the Juggernaught Bitch! Look at my pimpcane!!!"


----------



## spider8 (Jul 5, 2010)

Sigg said:


> But my guess is that the bureaucracy of such a large company takes away the power from anyone involved to make that exception for him.
> 
> Welcome to the machine, as our pals across the pond might say.


It's the same with my company. We lose 1 employee a year due to alcohol or drugs. No chances, if you get caught you're out. On the one hand, bureaucracy
eliminates the danger of nepotism, on the other, it can seem awfully unfair to lose a carreer over one mistake. Being sacked for these reasons can make you unemployable in certain industries. 

I think the government should step in. It doesn't want people needlessly on the dole getting benefits when they could be working.


----------



## caelum (Jul 5, 2010)

Sigg said:


> jealous?


 I envy no man in life.  Save perhaps Writwithhand whose writing skills, insight of mind, and overall genius inspire me.  Wherefore art thou stolen, Writ?  Wherefore have thy posts of wisdom vanished?  What hell of Earth, or Hades, hath thy keenest visions robbed of me?  Woe is me; I weep.


----------



## garza (Jul 5, 2010)

Walmart has far more serious issues than the firing of one person for smoking pot.


----------



## JosephB (Jul 5, 2010)

spider8 said:


> It's the same with my company. We lose 1 employee a year due to alcohol or drugs. No chances, if you get caught you're out. On the one hand, bureaucracy
> eliminates the danger of nepotism, on the other, it can seem awfully unfair to lose a carreer over one mistake. Being sacked for these reasons can make you unemployable in certain industries.
> 
> I think the government should step in. It doesn't want people needlessly on the dole getting benefits when they could be working.



You don't really say if this is because there is zero tolerance for having drugs or alcohol on the premises, or if an employee is intoxicated or if there is evidence that there is serious problem of drug or alcohol abuse. But if it were my company, I'd give an employee a single chance and no more. Everyone deserves that, I think. But that's it. Ideally, if it's a problem with addiction, it would be good to give someone time off to seek treatment, but that's not always possible. 

One of my former clients will give employees 30 days off to go to treatment, and they even have an arrangement with a rehab facility that will allow employees to stay at the faculty for up to 90 days and return to work.


----------



## Blood (Jul 5, 2010)

garza said:


> Walmart has far more serious issues than the firing of one person for smoking pot.


I agree, and how they treat their employees is reflected in their company policies, which can be and often is exemplified by a singe event.  Just consider the circumstances.  

A valued, dedicated employee and provider of two kids who did nothing wrong except contract cancer and an inoperable brain tumor - that's quite a bit to deal with already -  looses his job because he sought to relieve his pain.  Can't you imagine? Now stack on top of that the weight of losing your livelihood, your medical benefits - as you are certain to accrue such expenses - and the fact that you now have a condition that will prevent you from ever being insured.  You may _not_ be able to collect unemployed compensation since it is their policy to not cover people who get fired for policy violations.  Finding new employment will undoubtedly be more difficult as your condition would be hard to hide and many other companies have the same sort of policies anyway.

Now you can file a law with no guarantees of winning, but you will most likely be dead by then anyway.  Getting fired in this case would be more like shutting and locking that narrow window of opportunity for life any possible saving/prolonging treatment unless some charitable organization comes to your aid.  Now go explain all that to your kids.    

True its just one person, no big deal really unless you're this guy...​






At least the media attention will help his cause.  ​


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 5, 2010)

The assumption being made here is that WalMart fired him for breaking the law, and shouldn't have because he has a permit.
It's very possible they just don't want people around who smoke pot, legal or no.

And thing is, it's their right to decide that.

Sucks, I guess.  But it's not some big flipout.   I would think a stoner would rather steal nuts from squirrels than spend a shift in WalMart  anyway.


----------



## spider8 (Jul 6, 2010)

JosephB said:


> You don't really say if this is because there is zero tolerance for having drugs or alcohol on the premises, or if an employee is intoxicated or if there is evidence that there is serious problem of drug or alcohol abuse. But if it were my company, I'd give an employee a single chance and no more. Everyone deserves that, I think. But that's it. Ideally, if it's a problem with addiction, it would be good to give someone time off to seek treatment, but that's not always possible.
> 
> One of my former clients will give employees 30 days off to go to treatment, and they even have an arrangement with a rehab facility that will allow employees to stay at the faculty for up to 90 days and return to work.


 
Perhaps I should have been more specific. Medical drugs are included. Recently I had flu' and told my manager that I was on Night Nurse which I'm sure isn't allowed. He said 'That's alright.' and didn't check. But as long as I told him , I'm covered, as long as he admits I told him (then it's his ass). He's supposed to check and send me home if it's not allowed, until I'm off it. If he denies I told him then I'm sacked so I make sure I've someone with me when I tell him. He's conveniently forgetful.

If someone smells of alcohol the a quiet, unofficial word in his shell-like is the norm. But if someone else calls the medicentre then it becomes official. In they come with their sample bottles and it's zero tolerance.


----------



## JosephB (Jul 6, 2010)

Do you operate heavy equipment or something?


----------



## The Backward OX (Jul 6, 2010)

I'm just glad it's all the people decades younger than me who'll be facing all this shit in years to come, while I'll be merely pushing up daisies.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jul 6, 2010)

lin said:


> The assumption being made here is that WalMart fired him for breaking the law, and shouldn't have because he has a permit.
> It's very possible they just don't want people around who smoke pot, legal or no.
> 
> And thing is, it's their right to decide that.
> ...




Yeah, they're a private company.  If they want to fire him for smoking legal marijuana, or having cancer, or wearing girly panties, that's really up to them.


----------



## JosephB (Jul 6, 2010)

It's not always so clear cut. There might be safety issues. Maybe he handles stock or something. Big items. So it can be about liability. Despite what some people claim, smoking impairs your judgement. It even messes with some people's depth perception.  If he's a cashier, that might be a different story. 

The problem with zero tolerance is, it doesn't take individuals into consideration. The company I mentioned -- they provide individual attention and consideration, despite having thousands of employees world-wide. It can be done, but it costs money.


----------



## vangoghsear (Jul 6, 2010)

Any number of prescription drugs can be abused for recreational use.  Where does Walmart draw the line on this?  Are all prescription pain killers, many of which are far more dangerous than pot, against their policy?  Did he use it at work, or did the effects show up from use at home?  The factor at issue here is "Doctor's Prescription."  His pain without the medication may have made him more of a danger to Walmart's property, employees, customers and liability requirements than he was under treatment.

I agree that individual cases should be handled with individual attention.


----------



## JosephB (Jul 6, 2010)

Of course, those drugs can be abused. Again, that's where zero tolerance fails. If you're injured or something, and can show why you need the drugs -- why they might be in your system -- then that should be considered. Many, many companies would refer this to human resources. Wall-Mart just can't bothered, and that's what kind of sucks.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 6, 2010)

Not the issue.
They don't want pot users for whatever reason, they don't have to hire them.  Why should they have to get all individual about it?  They don't want pot smokers.  It's their right.


----------



## JosephB (Jul 6, 2010)

But I _never said _it wasn’t their right. More like the right thing to do. All kinds of companies would consider the individual case, and Wal-Mart could too -- if they felt like it. That’s the issue.

I've also made it clear that I'm considering Wall-Mart's position too -- and I'm not demonizing them for it.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 6, 2010)

What the hell?  Who cares?


----------



## JosephB (Jul 6, 2010)

Ha ha. I think everyone else on the planet would see your post as a reply to my comment. But whatever. Have fun.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 6, 2010)

What the hell?  Who cares?


----------



## vangoghsear (Jul 6, 2010)

This is not just about their policy, which is certainly their right.  This is about firing a man for using prescription medicine.  If they thought he was a detriment on the job due to his treatment, they should have placed him on disability, not fired him.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 6, 2010)

Hmm.  Interesting.  But... what does "placed on disability" mean?   They should pay him not to work?

Again, maybe they just don't want any pot smokers on the payroll.

Also...my guess is that when he applied for the job he signed something saying he didn't use dope.  I'd bet a lot on that, actually, it's practically standard procedure, and for a company with that attitude about dope, you just know it was in there.  

Look, I think pot should be legal, frankly.  And object to employers doing blood tests and such (in fact, have walked out on jobs because they required testing, even though I wasn't using anything at the time.)

But it's not like people have a right to have a job.  There are laws saying you can't discriminate for race, religion, sex, disabilities, all kinds of things.  But smoking dope isn't one of them.

It sucks, but it's not illegal or even unethical.

He should get a job at some other store.  (Oops, WalMart drove all the other stores out of business)


----------



## vangoghsear (Jul 6, 2010)

lin said:


> Hmm.  Interesting.  But... what does "placed on disability" mean?   They should pay him not to work?


I'm not sure he would qualify for worker's compensation, but I believe there is a payroll deduction for that, which he would have been paying into for as long as he has worked there should a long term disability arise.  True the employer pays the lion's share, but the worker does contribute.  This would look better on his employment record then being fired for failing a drug test.  Especially considering that in his case it was a prescription medication.

I don't know all the facts, but in this case I think it is really a low class way for Walmart to avoid paying their share of this man's long term disability.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 6, 2010)

Well, that could be, I suppose.   But if they were aware of the disability when they hired him?   And does it really disable him for work?  He was working for WalMart, apparently.   It just disqualifies him for working at WalMart it seems.

I've been discussing this because it's an interesting blend of ethical/legal issues.  But once it hits disability and such it's over my head.  And, like I say, I'd be perfectly happy if all employees were taking a toke now and then.


----------



## JosephB (Jul 6, 2010)

vangoghsear said:


> I'm not sure he would qualify for worker's compensation, but I believe there is a payroll deduction for that, which he would have been paying into for as long as he has worked there should a long term disability arise.  True the employer pays the lion's share, but the worker does contribute.  This would look better on his employment record then being fired for failing a drug test.  Especially considering that in his case it was a prescription medication.
> 
> I don't know all the facts, but in this case I think it is really a low class way for Walmart to avoid paying their share of this man's long term disability.



Worker's Comp generally only applies if someone is injured on the job. Short term and long term disability insurance policies are often offered by employers at a discount, but they are usually voluntary. There probably was deduction for unemployment insurance from his paycheck. Unfortunately, if someone is fired because they break company policy, the company doesn't have to pay. So taking all this into consideration, it's likely he wouldn't receive any sort of compensation from Wall-Mart.

PS, I just asked my Dad about this, who was in the goup insurance business and is pretty familiar with these issues.. Funding for state unemployment comes from taxes payed by the employer. But they only have to pay out if the unemployment isn't the fault of the employee -- so if you are laid off etc.


----------



## vangoghsear (Jul 6, 2010)

Not only was the man able to do his job, he was employee of the year in 2008.

A little more information:

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/midwest/2010/07/02/111274.htm


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jul 6, 2010)

"The doctor-prescribed treatment was not the relevant issue."

Then what was?


----------



## Blood (Jul 6, 2010)

lin said:


> But it's not like people have a right to have a job.  There are laws saying you can't discriminate for race, religion, sex, disabilities, all kinds of things.  But smoking dope isn't one of them.


But it could be, a lawsuit has been filed.  

But NO, this is NOT a question of legal right at all!  

As you pointed out, sort of, there was time when it was legally permissible to discriminate against race in the work place.  Had the argument been made at time, "Well they (any company) have the right because it's company policy and legal," then I suppose the proper response should have been, "Oh yea!  What was I thinking?" and go home.   And nothing would change, and we still have that sort of discrimination today.  

The question is whether or not you think it's bullshit? If you do then you can not defend their policy.  

The act of not wanting someone on your payroll for no other reason then not liking something they do is discrimination, and it may have as much to do with the fact that he has cancer.  Being a liability to himself or others would be a viable reason, but this guy claims that he never smoked on the job or before work or for recreation, just to relieve the pain when it came (and off the clock).

So do you think it's bullshit to fire a dedicated, valued employee who took a prescription drug to relieve his pain, off the clock, or not?    And where will get his insurance now?


----------



## Kat (Jul 7, 2010)

Whether or not he had a state medical card it is still against a federal law. 

It's still bull. That poor guy is just screwed. His best bet is to try for SS but he'll be lucky to get that in a couple years with the way they automatically refuse everyone's first application. It will be hard for him to find another job after this. He won't be able to get unemployment. It's just a lose/lose situation.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 7, 2010)

He might find there are those who sympathize and hire him as a do-gooder badge or to make a point or to bad mouth WalMart or just to be nice.


----------



## Kat (Jul 7, 2010)

If he gets that far. Truthfully taking his story to the press was probably a good move, get the sympathy offers. But in this job market just putting you were terminated from your last position is going to probably knock you out of contention. There are plenty of college graduates, former managers and such seeking minimum wage positions. Why would a company hire someone who was terminated from their last position for drug use, even if with a prescription, when there are so many other equally or better qualified applicants?


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 7, 2010)

Like I say, to make a point, to take a stand.   I used to work for an agency that got jobs for recently released felons.  People hired them for a variety of reasons.


----------



## spider8 (Jul 7, 2010)

JosephB said:


> Do you operate heavy equipment or something?


You could say that. I service trains, try to fix them etc. Live rails the biggest danger. Every time there's an accident, the testers come in and test everyone in the near vicinity. Last time a train derailed, one of the lads got sacked for cannabis.


----------



## vangoghsear (Jul 7, 2010)

lin said:


> Like I say, to make a point, to take a stand.   I used to work for an agency that got jobs for recently released felons.  People hired them for a variety of reasons.


Often they turn out to be excellent workers because they view it as a last chance.  There is a place near us that does that.  The Christian owner of a car dealership and restaurant.  He hires ex cons to work in the restaurant.


----------



## MeeQ (Jul 7, 2010)

Do you get a free dinner with every car purchase?


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 7, 2010)

> Last time a train derailed, one of the lads got sacked for cannabis.



Nothing like prevention after the fact.


----------

