chutem 0
Quote
B would allow the firing of pilots and TMs. I'm not sure you could fire other employees and get away with it.
As an employer in this state I'll be curious to see how this plays out when run through the courts.
I would think if pilots and TM's are at stake, so are riggers and packers.
That leaves vidiots, AFF-Is and coaches... and I could probably argue a vaild point against the AFF-Is...
"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message
chutem 0
QuoteQuote
B would allow the firing of pilots and TMs. I'm not sure you could fire other employees and get away with it.
As an employer in this state I'll be curious to see how this plays out when run through the courts.
I would think if pilots and TM's are at stake, so are riggers and packers.
That leaves vidiots, AFF-Is and coaches... and I could probably argue a vaild point against the AFF-Is...
B would certainly apply to pilots, I may be stretching it to apply to TMs. I'm not familiar with how this would apply to riggers and packers. How would you argue it with AFF-Is?
Please remember I'm not saying any of this is in any way OK. I'm just looking at the law as written.
Quote
B would certainly apply to pilots, I may be stretching it to apply to TMs. I'm not familiar with how this would apply to riggers and packers. How would you argue it with AFF-Is?
Please remember I'm not saying any of this is in any way OK. I'm just looking at the law as written.
Would you want someone who was possibly impaired teaching a person life saving skills that they will encounter possibly later that day? How about someone who was possibly impaired and with a student that has now gotten away from them, on their back, spinning at 5k? There's not much time to be sluggish.
I know that it is the responsibility of the student to save their life, but it is the responsibility of the instructor to make sure that student is capable of doing so.
If the instructor was under the influence (and maybe even just barely) and something happened to the student that resulted in an investigation, who do you think a jury would side with?
"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message
DSE 5
I'm not a lawyer and you're not the first to point to the law. It's not a secret that a couple SoCal DZ's released a large number of staff last year for positive tests. At least two of those let go had MMJ cards at the time. I don't know the particulars, I just know that tandem/AFF staff were released.
chutem 0
QuoteQuote
B would certainly apply to pilots, I may be stretching it to apply to TMs. I'm not familiar with how this would apply to riggers and packers. How would you argue it with AFF-Is?
Please remember I'm not saying any of this is in any way OK. I'm just looking at the law as written.
Would you want someone who was possibly impaired teaching a person life saving skills that they will encounter possibly later that day? How about someone who was possibly impaired and with a student that has now gotten away from them, on their back, spinning at 5k? There's not much time to be sluggish.
I know that it is the responsibility of the student to save their life, but it is the responsibility of the instructor to make sure that student is capable of doing so.
If the instructor was under the influence (and maybe even just barely) and something happened to the student that resulted in an investigation, who do you think a jury would side with?
You ask questions I thought I answered in the post you responded to, I'm not advocating for MMJ card holders to work on dropzones. If I owned a drop zone I would hope the law would clearly allow me to protect my assets by not hiring MMJ card holders. I'm not sure that is the case here.
An MMJ card doesn't protect you from losing your job if you piss positive on a dropzone. DZ policy makes that determination.
36-2813. Discrimination prohibited
(Caution: 1998 Prop. 105 applies)
A. No school or landlord may refuse to enroll or lease to and may not otherwise penalize a person solely for his status as a cardholder, unless failing to do so would cause the school or landlord to lose a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations.
B. Unless a failure to do so would cause an employer to lose a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations, an employer may not discriminate against a person in hiring, termination or imposing any term or condition of employment or otherwise penalize a person based upon either:
1. The person's status as a cardholder.
2. A registered qualifying patient's positive drug test for marijuana components or metabolites, unless the patient used, possessed or was impaired by marijuana on the premises of the place of employment or during the hours of employment.
C. For the purposes of medical care, including organ transplants, a registered qualifying patient's authorized use of marijuana must be considered the equivalent of the use of any other medication under the direction of a physician and does not constitute the use of an illicit substance or otherwise disqualify a registered qualifying patient from medical care.
D. No person may be denied custody of or visitation or parenting time with a minor, and there is no presumption of neglect or child endangerment for conduct allowed under this chapter, unless the person's behavior creates an unreasonable danger to the safety of the minor as established by clear and convincing evidence.
This is not from California's law.
B would allow the firing of pilots and TMs. I'm not sure you could fire other employees and get away with it.
As an employer in this state I'll be curious to see how this plays out when run through the courts.