Clay Putnam, CGCS said: Passing a law or regulation then figuring out the consequences and how to deal with the new law/regulation seems to be commonplace.
"Ready for work" is awfully vague. Who's to determine if a person is ready for work (I don't expect you to answer the question)? Seems like a liability nightmare ready to happen.
Good luck. Hope Prime Minister Garth gets it figured out soon.
You can not drug test so there would be nothing to go to court about. We all know THC stays in your system well after the high has worn off so the presence of any level if testing were done would not necessarily indicate intoxication. I've had people show up high and sent them home (which in itself could be a liability) I've also had excellent workers, I'm quite sure use but seem to have no outward signs of intoxication.
It's a tough call but we are not nearly as litigious up here. Fit for work is about as close as we are going to get to a happy medium.
So far so good from what I have heard and experienced
I'm not a big fan of "garth" either but He may have gotten this one as close to right as he could. The War on Drugs didn't work, Filling jails with stoners and addicts didn't work. Maybe this will, maybe it won't.
Andy, I'd hire your stoned brain over half of the sober individuals I have. I just don't know if we have a large enough smoker to keep you in ribs