Intentionally violating company policy

[Bart]

For years, companies have fired employees who legally possessed firearms in violation of company policy.

If this man wins his lawsuit, does that mean pizza companies fearing a similar lawsuit won't fire drivers for having a handgun if they have a license? Does that mean a parking lot bill is redundant, because they can't fire people for violating policy if the employee has government permission (concealed handgun license, drug prescription, etc.) to engage in the behavior?

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/06/ ... 277938748/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[C-dub]

I don't know how he can win, but it would be very interesting if he did.

I'm drawing a blank on other legal activities that are against my company's policy.

[Pinkycatcher]

I don't know how he can win, but it would be very interesting if he did.

I'm drawing a blank on other legal activities that are against my company's policy.

Use of company's equipment for personal activity? Looking at NSFW stuff at work? Moving stuff around the office so people can't find it? I can think of a billion things that will get you fired but won't be brought against you in a court of law

[bdickens]

Some company policies are illegal. I can't possibly see how a company can legally have a policy that employees are not allowed to use prescribed medication.

[Pinkycatcher]

Some company policies are illegal. I can't possibly see how a company can legally have a policy that employees are not allowed to use prescribed medication.

If their work requires operating under hazardous conditions and that medicine causes that person to not be able to safely operate it, it would be (smart) company policy to disallow the use of that medication, or disallowing that person to do that job during the medication period (if a lifelong medication, could involve firing the person because they are unable to perform the job)

[The Annoyed Man]

(if a lifelong medication, could involve firing the person because they are unable to perform the job)

It "used to be" that reputable companies would make the effort to offer said employee a chance to take another job within the company that was not affected by the employee's need to take the medication, instead of firing them. After all, it isn't necessarily the employee's fault that they need it.

Sadly, there are few companies left that have that kind of moral code. And it isn't just about morality and compassion for your fellow man. If somebody has been a Framistram operator for the company for 15 years and their medication renders them ineligible for that job, they still have value and something to contribute positively to the company's success. They've had 15 years of immersion in the company's corporate culture. They are familiar with the customers. They know about who does what, and who doesn't. They are an asset, not a liability. And that is the principle difference between a well run company and a poorly run company. The former regards its employees as assets who contribute materially to the company's success. The latter doesn't.

A smart company executive looks first to how the affected employee can continue to contribute their experience and expertise. In return, they will often gain the untrammeled loyalty of a grateful employee. Termination, while it may be necessary, and in such cases is the perfectly legitimate choice, should be the option of last resort to a savvy executive.

[Purplehood]

Framistram Operator. I think I was one. Not sure.

[bdickens]

Well said, TAM.

Also, the same medication, in the same dose, will affect different people differently.

[Oldgringo]

Intentionally violating company policy is not recommended procedure. Everybody repeat after me: "Stanley McChrsytal, Gen. USA RET."

[WildBill]

A smart company executive looks first to how the affected employee can continue to contribute their experience and expertise. In return, they will often gain the untrammeled loyalty of a grateful employee.

Even though the experienced Framistram operator may no longer be safe to operate a Framistram, it doesn't mean that he can't be used as a resource to mentor new operators on how to become experienced safe Framistram operators.

[C-dub]

Okay. Cool.

So, if this guy wins, what are the chances of it being successfully argued that this is the same as a person who has a CHL being denied the ability to have his or her weapon locked in the vehicle while at work? Or, to go one better, to not be able to CC while at work? It seems like this would fly in the face of a property owner's rights. Somehow, if this guy wins, I think it would only apply to prescribed medications.

[jester]

In my experience, most companies will see no loss in productivity if they downsize all Framistram operators.

In general, I think if companies may fire employees for a legal handgun, they should be able to fire employees for legal drugs.

However, back to the original article, I believe marijuana possession still violates Federal law. There may be a provision in Michigan law for medical marijuana but I don't believe there's such in Federal law. (I'm open to being shown differently.) So, a prescription doesn't trump Federal drug laws, just as a CHL doesn't trump Federal gun laws prohibiting handguns on COE property or in Federal facilities located in Texas.

[The Annoyed Man]

In my experience, most companies will see no loss in productivity if they downsize all Framistram operators.

That just goes to show that you have no appreciation for the truly skilled laborer. I'll bet you diss guys who operate bacon stretchers, johnson rods, murphy bars, and left side smoke shifters too. You must be management.