Colorado Politics

Colorado Springs Gazette: Colorado bill would forbid the drug-free workplace

Colorado residents value mutual consent as part of a just, free and safe society.

We rightly imprison people who have sexual relations without mutual consent. Voters in 1992 enacted a constitutional amendment that requires the consent of the governed before governments raise taxes.

We expect voluntary consent by all parties involved in healthy and lawful contracts, transactions and relationships of all kinds.

House Bill 1089 would reduce guarantees of mutual consent, forcing employers to continue paying and employing people they would prefer to part ways with. The bill, introduced by Aurora Democratic State Rep. Jovan Melton, would forbid employers from maintaining drug-free work environments. It is the latest in a series of moves to bolster the profits of Colorado’s marijuana industry by removing barriers to THC consumption.

“The bill prohibits an employer from terminating an employee for the employee’s lawful off-duty activities that are lawful under state law even if those activities are not lawful under federal law,” explains the bill’s summary.

The bill’s text explains “employers are currently allowed to terminate employees for off-duty consumption of marijuana.”

A significant number of employers probably don’t care if employees consume marijuana on their own time. Employers have countless expectations for jobs that range from cleaning toilets to managing nuclear weapons. A one-size-fits-all drug law will not work.

At issue is Colorado’s long tradition of ensuring consensual working relationships among employers and employees. The law defines it as “at-will” employment, meaning an employee can quit for any reason or be fired for nearly any reason. It means neither party is forced by law to continue with any employer-employee relationship for any reason. Think “no-fault divorce.”

The Colorado Department of Labor and Employment explains it like this:

“Colorado follows the legal doctrine of ‘employment-at-will’ … Neither an employer nor an employee is required to give a reason for the separation from employment,” the agency explains. “… Employment-at-will allows employees to seek out the position best suited for their talents and allows employers to seek out the best employees for their needs.”

The Colorado Supreme Court upheld at-will employment with its 1987 ruling in Continental Airlines v. Keenan. Exceptions include terminations motivated by an employee’s disability, race, creed, color, sex, age, religion, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry.

If legislators prohibit employers from maintaining drug-free workforces, expect a lot of good companies to reject Colorado as a place in which to do business. Marijuana stays in a person’s system for weeks, meaning employers have no good way to guarantee marijuana users are not under the influence while doing their jobs. The bill fails to define “off-duty,” which could include moments before clocking in at the job site.

For airlines, trucking companies, military contractors, health care providers, and more, this bill poses serious liability issues.

At-will employment means the government forces no one to keep an employee. It means employers have no need to explain a termination, just as employees may quit for any reason without notice or explanation. It means legislators should defeat this bill, protecting mutual consent as a key element of all working relationships.

Colorado Politics Must-Reads:

Tags

PREV

PREVIOUS

The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel: Should city buy Glacier?

It’s premature to speculate what could become of the Glacier Ice Arena, but it raises another interesting question about the proper role of government. Officials with the city of Grand Junction have toured the ice rink and city staff is evaluating whether buying it and making it a publicly owned amenity makes sense. Free market […]

NEXT

NEXT UP

Grand Junction Daily Sentinel: If market says climate is changing, then it is

In his first year in office, President Donald Trump announced that he was pulling the United States out of the Paris climate agreement. The signal was clear: Do not expect this administration to impede economic growth by adhering to any policy aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It was a stark reversal of the Obama […]


Welcome Back.

Streak: 9 days i

Stories you've missed since your last login:

Stories you've saved for later:

Recommended stories based on your interests:

Edit my interests