Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

n000d1e t1_jeans8p wrote

Doesn’t it say that this is for initial employment?


Librekrieger t1_jeavtub wrote

The first three paragraphs focus on that, but the bulk of the article is more general, and talks repeatedly about impairment.

Being a NORML article, it belabors the point that tests don't tell whether a person is impaired at the moment, only whether the substance has been used.

So I'm interested in any answer to the question, because the article doesn't address it.


SparrowAgnew t1_jeaxshm wrote

WA is an at will employment state. They can fire you if they believe you are impaired. There's no requirement for testing.


Chief_Kief t1_jebfazc wrote

Wait why tf are we an “at will” employment state and why am I only just now learning about this?? We should definitely be lobbying our representatives to change that policy ASAP


SparrowAgnew t1_jebhks4 wrote

The only state that isn't at will is Montana.

Big business owns WA state legislature. There's no chance of them passing reforms on that or allowing an initiative to change it.


Rocketgirl8097 t1_jebk7ka wrote

Personly I like it. A person shouldn't need 30 reams of paper to prove a person's lack of suitability for a job. Its bad enough employers keep deadbeats on way too long as it is. Too afraid of lawsuits.