or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › The 2015 Tipping Your Instructor Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The 2015 Tipping Your Instructor Thread - Page 9

post #241 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

I really hope someone challenges that.
Not that I think instructors should be baked, but the disparity is ridiculous. You can go out get hammered on alcohol and the next day be fine, but if you smoked pot that night you'd stil test positive. Makes little sense. Same with customers. They can drink whatever then ski down but lighting up is wrong for some reason.

 

I agree, but there is nothing about pot being legal that gives a pot user employment protection. There is no legal basis for a challenge.

 

I stand corrected about random drug testing at VR, although since being involved in an accident is by definition not something you plan, it's still to some extent random.

post #242 of 264
I think there's plenty of legal basis for challenge but it would require a lot of resources. I guess the easiest would be from someone who had a script for it. It's the impairment issue. You could be sober but still test positive from days ago. Diff then alcohol yet you get fired.
post #243 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

I think there's plenty of legal basis for challenge but it would require a lot of resources. I guess the easiest would be from someone who had a script for it. It's the impairment issue. You could be sober but still test positive from days ago. Diff then alcohol yet you get fired.

 

It's legal to fire someone for having facial hair; it's legal to fire someone for any reason except those explicitly protected.

post #244 of 264
Well that's why you get someone with a prescription. Then you go find out how much the Vail execs drink at a lunch meeting and also wage that pr battle. Likely, they are over the legal limit of 1 drink/hr. It might never make it to court.

This is an issue that is coming nationally in the next few years. It's going to put the spotlight on drinking. The alcohol lobby is obviously large, prob bigger than tobacco 25 years ago so we'll see what happens.
post #245 of 264
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

I think there's plenty of legal basis for challenge but it would require a lot of resources. I guess the easiest would be from someone who had a script for it. It's the impairment issue. You could be sober but still test positive from days ago. Diff then alcohol yet you get fired.

 

I believe the employee handbook for the ski shop where I work is the same as the employee handbook for the instructors. 

[paraphrasing] 

If an employee is involved in an incident or injury he/she is subject to a drug screening. 

If an employee is suspected of being high on the job, he/she is subject to an immediate drug screening. 

 

The suspicious behavior drug screening has quite a process that is clear about how the management needs to go about  it, to protect the employee and the resort.  

post #246 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by bounceswoosh View Post
 

 

It's legal to fire someone for having facial hair; it's legal to fire someone for any reason except those explicitly protected.

I like what your saying regardless of how politically "riskay".

post #247 of 264
The problem with marijuana is we haven't established legal impairment levels. BAC is really a terrible measure from a limits perspective for driving (we don't all "impair" equally), but without it you cannot have alcohol served from any establishment, because that establishment is knowingly impairing its customers beyond the legal limit of zero.

Hence no pot bars. Yet. As to whether a legal limit can be established is an open question, but until then the Colorado Ski Safety Act is in part a traffic safety statute and I would suspect that any level of marijuana impairment in an accident would expose the user to negligence (and the plaintiff has the difficult burden of establishing what constitutes marijuana impairment). Alcohol drinkers might have a BAC defense.

I'm not sure I agree with Bounceswoosh, however. You can terminate somebody on an employment at will basis, but doing so for cause on the basis of non-work hours marijuana consumption is tricky, because that behavior is protected by the state constitution. If Johnny gets drug tested and subsequently fired, and this was not part of a general reduction in force (layoffs), then the cause is at issue.

This stuff is going to have to get worked out in the courts, and it is heavily complicated by testing that can determine usage (a constitutionally protected behavior) but not impairment (subject to employer policy).
post #248 of 264

Some arguments can actually establish that certain recreational drugs in certain circumstances are proven to actually improve acute awareness and performance.

 

"Impairment" is a blatant assumption for the purposes of taking unfair legal advantage by those who feel it is their right to impose personal beliefs on others. 

post #249 of 264
Well impairment is based on diminished capacity to operate a motor vehicle mostly. Pretty simple, though it's usage has migrated. How the number was arrived at I don't know, but as Naybreak pointed out, we needed a number.

As to other drugs, if using speed could help baseball players hit the ball, it certainly could do other things. That however gets into a zero use policy. If an establishment has a zero use policy of a legal substance outside of work, I think it's shakey legal ground.
post #250 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich666 View Post

Some arguments can actually establish that certain recreational drugs in certain circumstances are proven to actually improve acute awareness and performance.

"Impairment" is a blatant assumption for the purposes of taking unfair legal advantage by those who feel it is their right to impose personal beliefs on others. 

Good stuff in the first paragraph, totally agree. That is where alcohol is relatively easy because it is a physical depressant. The uniform number is bad, however, because I am at .08 loosened up in the bumps and somebody else has 3 tons impaling trees.

The second bit about imposing personal beliefs is too libertarian. Impairment should be based in science. Marijuana, at least as I understand it as a non-smoker ( simply lifestyle, not morals ), is effective based on carefully cultivated strains. That isn't flavor, like a craft beer, where the active ingredient is always the same in its effects (within relative reason).

This is actually an argument against legalization. You can't generalize. And therefore, you can never have a BAC type standard, so usage is limited to within the home with zero active effect permissible in public, even if you are only operating yourself.

That's a logical standard. First we decriminalize (libertarian) and then we apply policy reason (progressive) so that people can use within a non-impact to others bounds. It is preposterous to argue that a right to use non-criminally cannot possibly cross the line of negligence. Hell, we can implicate sugar. The idea that you can intentionally alter your mind state and physical capablity while skiing without duty of care is complete and utter bullshit. As to drawing statutory lines that find balance? Our most prevalent corner store drug is plenty well regulated. The next steps with "safer" mind drugs are notably more complex.

And yes, I voted yes. And will do so, given the opportunity, for all so called illegal substances. But that does not mean that I am obligated to experience you in public. This is well established in the concept of peaceful enjoyment, at a bare minimum. So unless science can prove that your harmless alternation does not impact my right to peaceful enjoyment, your stoned ass, heightened to the moon, has to stay at home.
post #251 of 264
Why can't one have a blood thc standard ?
Love the thread drift btw, how much is left on the OT anyway?
post #252 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post


Good stuff in the first paragraph, totally agree. That is where alcohol is relatively easy because it is a physical depressant. The uniform number is bad, however, because I am at .08 loosened up in the bumps and somebody else has 3 tons impaling trees.

The second bit about imposing personal beliefs is too libertarian. Impairment should be based in science. Marijuana, at least as I understand it as a non-smoker ( simply lifestyle, not morals ), is effective based on carefully cultivated strains. That isn't flavor, like a craft beer, where the active ingredient is always the same in its effects (within relative reason).

This is actually an argument against legalization. You can't generalize. And therefore, you can never have a BAC type standard, so usage is limited to within the home with zero active effect permissible in public, even if you are only operating yourself.

That's a logical standard. First we decriminalize (libertarian) and then we apply policy reason (progressive) so that people can use within a non-impact to others bounds. It is preposterous to argue that a right to use non-criminally cannot possibly cross the line of negligence. Hell, we can implicate sugar. The idea that you can intentionally alter your mind state and physical capablity while skiing without duty of care is complete and utter bullshit. As to drawing statutory lines that find balance? Our most prevalent corner store drug is plenty well regulated. The next steps with "safer" mind drugs are notably more complex.

And yes, I voted yes. And will do so, given the opportunity, for all so called illegal substances.

I have to say that this is a well sorted address. It is refreshing to read the well written online!

post #253 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

Why can't one have a blood thc standard ?

I think that's the right question. I have zero knowledge here, so the question I would ask the more well informed would be "How much can be measured and known to be residual (employment screening) and how much is a public policy concern for potential harm to others (active restriction of activity during the "effect" period)?

The moralizing is, in full effect, already resolved.
post #254 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich666 View Post

I have to say that this is a well sorted address. It is refreshing to read the well written online!

I hope we can work it all out - the prison system of morals has to die quickly and permanently 🍻
post #255 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post


I think that's the right question. I have zero knowledge here, so the question I would ask the more well informed would be "How much can be measured and known to be residual (employment screening) and how much is a public policy concern for potential harm to others (active restriction of activity during the "effect" period)?

The moralizing is, in full effect, already resolved.


A little late to the party but thought it might be of some interest.  Some resorts use a saliva test to determine impairment.  The test only detects the presence of substances that were introduced in the last 6hrs, meaning that as long as you aren't high on the clock you should be fine.  I was required to take one for a workman's compensation claim a few years ago and I passed with flying colors!  ;)

post #256 of 264
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HippieFlippinNM View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post


I think that's the right question. I have zero knowledge here, so the question I would ask the more well informed would be "How much can be measured and known to be residual (employment screening) and how much is a public policy concern for potential harm to others (active restriction of activity during the "effect" period)?

The moralizing is, in full effect, already resolved.


A little late to the party but thought it might be of some interest.  Some resorts use a saliva test to determine impairment.  The test only detects the presence of substances that were introduced in the last 6hrs, meaning that as long as you aren't high on the clock you should be fine.  I was required to take one for a workman's compensation claim a few years ago and I passed with flying colors!  ;)


Where have you been?  We were in Colorado and couldn't find you!! 

post #257 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post
 

Where have you been?  We were in Colorado and couldn't find you!! 

 

LOL! That is the quote of the week, in my estimation.

post #258 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post
 


Where have you been?  We were in Colorado and couldn't find you!!

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post
 


Where have you been?  We were in Colorado and couldn't find you!! 

 

I'm everywhere!  You must not have looked hard enough.  When are you coming back?  The Basin is popping off!!

post #259 of 264

There's certainly should be no prohibition against discharging an employee for doing something "bad", whether it's misconduct or poor performance - or even for being under the influence of alcohol or other drug while on duty. There are ways to prove those things, if necessary, other than testing the employee for the presence of any substance in his or her blood/breath/urine/hair. Some states have explicit legal requirements that must be met before an employer may test for the presence of any drug in the employee. For example, an employe may be required to have a written drug and alcohol policy that is distributed to all affected employees, as well as training of the affected employees and the supervisors who'd potentially be accusing any one of them of having a drug in his/her system. There also may be other legal requirements, such as the opportunity for voluntary "rehabilitation". As  for certain employees, such as Commercial Drivers License [CDL] employees and employees working in the nuclear powered electric generating facilities, federal laws and regulations apply.

 

The criteria for establishing numerical limits are based, sometimes, and in part, on scientific testing of the amount of detectable substance in the blood [by testing blood, breath, urine, or hair] as against measurable behavioral deficiencies. Some of the numerical limits, however, are based upon public policy - for example, CDL drivers, or automobile licensees under the age of twenty-one, may be in violation of a law or regulation if ANY amount of the prohibited substance is detected in them while operating a motor vehicle on a public highway.  Many drugs, including alcohol, have a certain relatively brief period during which they're metabolized or excreted. However, the psychotropic substance in marijuana is stored in fat and hair, and it may be detected at various times well after being ingested either by digestion or inhalation. A weekend pot smoker of a joint or two will not have the same amount of the psychotropic substance stored as will an every day heavy user. If an employee stops smoking pot, it is possible to detect the substance as much as month or more after the last use, depending on the level of use - and the drug level in hair basically stays there until the hair falls out or is removed.

 

Some skiers may have noted exceptionally mellow lifties at some areas [not where I've ever instructed], and in a seasonal market in some locations, the level of tolerance for such "mellowness" may obviate any chance that such person will be fired [assuming that the job is getting done and the guests aren't making major complaints]. Other areas are expected to be less tolerant of readily observable "mellowness". 

 

Regardless of political or personal  philosophy, the subject of drugs and the law - and especially drugs and employment - are complex and not always subject to facile resolution, even though DUI laws have no doubt saved many lives and their violation has cost many more. Laws vary from state to state, and attitudes can vary legitimately among cultures, religions, and families. And we don't know all of what there may be to know about drugs. We're imperfect, as is our knowledge, and we all want to do the best we can with the imperfect knowledge we have.

post #260 of 264
Pot on federal land is still illegal. So possession there would be reasonable grounds for termination. Refusing to accept illegal drugs from anyone thus becomes an employee's best option.
post #261 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

Pot on federal land is still illegal. So possession there would be reasonable grounds for termination. Refusing to accept illegal drugs from anyone thus becomes an employee's best option.


In addition, recent case law in Colorado has found that flunking a drug test for marijuana is grounds for termination even though recreational use of marijuana is legal. Employers can establish their own drug policies.

 

Mike

post #262 of 264
What about accepting marijuana items for tips?
post #263 of 264

Way to go. Tog! Back to the subject the OP raised!

post #264 of 264
Again if on federal land, posession is illegal, as is distributing. That hasn't changed. So if caught it's a tip that could land you in jail as well as your client. It goes without saying as an employer operating on federal land, requiring the staff to follow the law means no thanks is the only option in that situation.
Nor is it reasonable for an employee to expect alchohol and drugs to be permissible in the workplace, or for there to be different rules for different departments.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › The 2015 Tipping Your Instructor Thread