Submitted by [deleted] t3_112tbmq in RhodeIsland
[deleted]
Comments
SnarkAnthony t1_j8ognut wrote
I worked for an organization that drug tested, and we would tell candidates right in the interview that yes, we do test for marijuana, because we are federally funded and it is still federally illegal.
thatstheteasis95 t1_j8oko5x wrote
But can you deny employeement for it in a legalized state? I know companies still have to test as part of their "work place policy" upon hiring, regardless of the law in a particular State, but does it mean you can deny employment if its rec in said State? Its confusing for me because it comes off as a gray area.
Edit: my last employer told me in the interview that they deny employment in RI even if you have a Medical Card because it's not federally legalized, but I also could've sworn I read that Medical card holders are suppose to be protected in this state since 2006... I could absolutely see employers just being ignorant to law changes or straight out lying, but if it's true, it's still really confusing on what companies can and can't do when it comes to drug testing in a legalized state if they just fall back on the federal law.
SnarkAnthony t1_j8onnj5 wrote
It wasn't employment. It was a nursing program. I was a secretary, and it was the hospital's policy not mine.
Edit: Also, we very intentionally gave candidates a heads up so they could take action before the drug test.
thatstheteasis95 t1_j8orv1j wrote
I guess the real question is if RI made it so you can't test for THC as a condition to employment anymore? Because it wouldn't supersede the Federal law but just make it harder for companies to test to disqualify.
Also. I'm not trying to discredit where you work, or accuse you personally of anything. I just know a lot of companies aren't transparent. I don't know how nursing programs work, what their policies are, or how they come into the convo about employment, in this case.
EpicSteak t1_j8qxzlc wrote
> But can you deny employeement for it in a legalized state?
You can deny employment for any reason at all except for things like race, sex etc
An employer could deny employment to people who drink milk.
Riff_Raff66 t1_j8m44h4 wrote
I'm not stating this as fact, but the way I understand it is, employers workmans comp insurance carriers tend to be the ones who are sticklers for it. If an employer hires you after a positive test, and you get hurt, they can deny a comp claim. That tends to make employers adhere to that rule, because they would be solely responsible to pay any damages. I work as a welder, and my place couldn't care less that you smoke pot, but still have to drug test because of this. For what it's worth, I've gone 6 for 6 using the drinks sold to give you a clean urine test. It's been years, but the ones sold at GNC worked very well. The only issue I had with them was once I was told my sample was too "diluted " and had to do it again. After I drank the stuff the second time, I ate a bowl of mixed veggies with butter and parmesan cheese. This "bulked" up the sample and I passed.
thatstheteasis95 t1_j8m4ydi wrote
That's interesting. I didn't even think workers comp came into play at all with drug testing. To be on the safe side I think I am going to try and "detox" to pass a test, and take vitamin B so my sample isn't diluted. I'm still not sure if I can get hired if I'm positive for THC since the law changed recently.
Riff_Raff66 t1_j8m5cj9 wrote
The drinks I speak of cost about 50 bucks, but are effective. Best of luck to you!
MonicaPVD t1_j8m4wcb wrote
thatstheteasis95 t1_j8m649t wrote
I read this too and I didn't notice anything mentioned about hiring. I guess the answer is employers can deny you still for THC traces.
Low-Dragonfly-5352 t1_j8mgovu wrote
Yes. My company doesn’t care if you have a medical card or live in rec state. If you piss hot for THC you’re gonzo
thatstheteasis95 t1_j8oijg5 wrote
But is it true for after the law was changed or if you're being hired or if you're already an employee, or if they have reason to suspect a current employee is under the influence? That's everything I'm trying to find out.
Low-Dragonfly-5352 t1_j8oo76t wrote
Companies have all the right to refuse your employment for failing a drug test. The federal government doesn’t care what state you’re in or if you have a card or not.
thatstheteasis95 t1_j8oqbs0 wrote
I guess to move on from Federal vs. State because we all know federal is above state laws, I should be asking what if RI makes it so employers can't drug test for THC as a condition to employment? Then it wouldn't supersede the federal law but just make it harder for companies to disqualify you.
Low-Dragonfly-5352 t1_j8oxka9 wrote
It would never happen within the context of your question. Maybe in a decade or more but I’m pretty sure we’re miles away from that. It’s still a drug in most peoples eyes and the only reason it became rec was because RI was losing hundreds of thousands if not millions across the border to Massachusetts. I work in the industry and the one I’ve learned in the 3 short years I’ve been in it, it’s all about money. So I guess it all depends on what benefits the state would get out of preventing private companies from testing for THC. At the moment I don’t see one.
thatstheteasis95 t1_j8p0aiy wrote
I guess the only benefit I could if the state prevented companies from testing for THC is they don't want more people unemployed in the state, seeking benefits, but idk.
cowperthwaite t1_j8owwir wrote
Requires subscription, but I covered this exact Q.
>Now that recreational marijuana is legal in Rhode Island, what does it mean for employees and employers?
>Not a lot, say experts, as Rhode Island already has a drug-testing law that is among the nation's most protective of employees, and cannabis users get special protections under the law that prevent them from being fired for off-duty use.
>Medical marijuana users had already been protected by the state, which banned discrimination against them for using the drug.
>"From a strictly legal standpoint, I don't think much has changed," labor lawyer Matthew Parker said. Parker, with the law firm Whelan Corrente & Flanders LLP in Providence, mostly represents businesses.
.....
>The new law prohibits employers from firing, or disciplining, employees "solely for an employee's private, lawful use of cannabis outside the workplace" so long as they don't work while under the influence.
thatstheteasis95 t1_j8oyqtc wrote
Thank you for posting this. The thing I'm worried about is if employers can still do mandatory drug testing for THC as a condition to hiring. Because while employers can refuse to hire based on a drug test, has the state made it so they can't drug test upon hiring? That wouldn't go over the federal law for THC use in that case, just make it harder. But going by whats here, it would mean RI hasn't made drug testing for THC for hiring limited or prohibited, sadly.
cowperthwaite t1_j8ozf9u wrote
Further down in the article
>Pre-employment drug tests
>Employers are still free to discriminate against recreational marijuana users if they test positive on a pre-employment drug test, Parker said.
>"If they fail the drug test and have no medical note, the employer can rescind the job offer," Parker said.
If you're considering reading the Projo more, we're currently running a really good sale for President's day.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_j8ovnoh wrote
even with the change in the last year, i think it's safe to assume that any employer still requesting drug test could and would use that to deny you. The good news is there's very few employers that aren't upfront about that sort of thing before you even waste time applying.
thatstheteasis95 t1_j8ow473 wrote
I hope the job I'm interviewing doesn't ask me to do a drug test. I'm detoxing anyway, but it would be nice not to worry about it. 🤞
[deleted] OP t1_j8m3tlp wrote
[deleted]
Riff_Raff66 t1_j8m4efj wrote
This reads as if someone is currently employed and not applying for employment
thatstheteasis95 t1_j8m5o10 wrote
Exactly! I already read that section and it sounds like it just makes it so employers can't punish already employed people for THC use but doesn't say anything about hiring employees.
Silentjosh37 t1_j8o3who wrote
It is considered discriminatory hiring practice if they do unless it is under certain circumstances, this changed when it was legalized. They shouldn't even be testing for THC unless it is for specific positions. If they don't hire you based on that and it is not one of the under conditions they are participating in prohibited hiring practices and if they are not following these laws who knows what else they might not be following.
​
21-28.11-29. Prohibited activities.
(d) Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to require employers to
accommodate the use or possession of cannabis, or being under the influence of cannabis, in any workplace or the use of cannabis in any other location while an employee is performing work, including remote work. Employers may implement drug use policies which prohibit the use or possession of cannabis in the workplace or while performing work from being under the influence of cannabis, provided that unless such use is prohibited pursuant to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, an employer shall not fire or take disciplinary action against an employee solely for an employee’s private, lawful use of cannabis outside the workplace and as long as the employee has not and is not working under the influence of cannabis except to the extent that:
(1) The employer is a federal contractor or otherwise subject to federal law or regulations such that failure to take such action would cause the employer to lose a monetary or licensing related benefit thereunder; or
(2) The employee is employed in a job, occupation or profession that is hazardous, dangerous or essential to public welfare and safety. If the employee’s job, occupation or profession involves work that is hazardous, dangerous or essential to public welfare and safety then the employer may adopt and implement policies which prohibit the use or consumption of cannabis within the twenty-four (24) hour period prior to a scheduled work shift or assignment. For purposes
of this section, hazardous, dangerous or essential to public welfare and safety shall include, but not be limited to: operation of an aircraft, watercraft, heavy equipment, heavy machinery, commercial vehicles, school buses or public transportation; use of explosives; public safety first responder jobs; and emergency and surgical medical personnel.
(e) Nothing contained in this chapter shall prevent an employer from refusing to hire, discharging, disciplining, or otherwise taking an adverse employment action against a person with respect to hire, tenure, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of that person’s violation of a workplace drug policy or because that person was working while under the influence of cannabis.
​
thatstheteasis95 t1_j8oggsm wrote
The part I kept reading section "e" > Nothing contained in this chapter shall prevent an employer from refusing to hire..." and it's so confusing to me. So what I'm getting is they can deny you for failing a drug test with THC, but for current employees they can't fire or discipline you for your THC use outside of work? Am I reading this right? Am I just confused because I'm just dumb lol?
Edit: I also forgot to mention that I'm a Pharmacy Tech, so idk if that would fall under "essential," or not.
Silentjosh37 t1_j8ohe1p wrote
This is in regards to if they come into work/interview under the influence etc. The law itself makes it so recreational use can't be a disqualifying factor and a test can't be administered as a preemployment requirement, only if the "workplace drug policy" is violated.
thatstheteasis95 t1_j8oi405 wrote
Thank you for the clarification. This would be the first time I would have to do a drug test since before it's been legalized in the state, so it's all new territory for me.
Silentjosh37 t1_j8omtgj wrote
I am just going by what I have read.... not in any way legal advice lol. But from what I have seen and a number of sites have clarified it that they can't use a test as a disqualifier. In that case they could do the same with alcohol etc.
From what I have heard anecdotally a lot of places of changed their policies to account for this even before the state changed the law.
thatstheteasis95 t1_j8onguf wrote
Yeah, my fiance's got a new job over the summer and his job just said 'we know the law is about to change. Just don't come in high." Lol
0opsypoopsy t1_j8m7kip wrote
I believe that it’s legal to deny employment or fire for failing a drug test for weed because it’s still illegal under federal law. I haven’t looked up laws in a while though.