Source: http://www.workerscompzone.com/2010/10/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 04:53:20+00:00

Document:
Comments: Comments Off on UP IN SMOKE?
My office is in the heart of Oaksterdam.
Low key pot clubs dot the area. There’s an Oaksterdam gift shop around the corner. A few blocks away is Oaksterdam University. Enrollees can learn how to grow a better stash.
You’d think a libertarian like myself would have no problem with Prop 19.
Drug laws against marijuana haven’t stamped out its use any more than laws regulating sexual transactions have stamped out the world’s oldest profession.
Decriminalizing marijuana and regulating its sale makes a great deal of sense. And while that probably will have less impact on large drug cartels than Prop 19 opponents would claim, it might reduce some of the narco influence.
But what would the impact on the workplace be?
Looking at my voter pamphlet, retired San Jose police chief Joseph McNamara argues that “Prop 19 keeps workplaces safe, by preserving the right of employers to maintain a drug-free workplace”.
Wow, I guess most workers will just still come to the office buzzed on their double lattes and nothing more. Starbucks’ business model is still safe.
Now I’m getting concerned. Will this lead to girl scout cookies and almond roca sales being banned from the office? Can’t have that!
marijuana in his or her system may not be removed from the job until after an accident occurs”.
Now I’m going to be really paranoid all the time. Maybe I should just cave in and smoke myself, to calm my nerves.
Alas, I stopped inhaling years ago. It seemed terribly boring.
As Greg Griggs noted in a piece in Workcompcentral yesterday, the California Chamber of Commerce thinks it threatens the workplace.
I suspect that a fair number of workerscompzone’s readers are in favor of Prop 19. It’s clear that though we are long beyond the days of “Reefer Madness” scares. In my experience, comp defense attorneys hardly ask about marijuana use in depositions. It’s a non-issue in most workers’ comp cases.
Yet, societally, there’s still a great deal of fearmongering over the topic.
On the other hand, Prop 19 is not all that well drafted. Some of the common concerns about the initiative could have been addressed by more careful drafting.
the language of Prop 19.
“Current law: Current law prohibits smoking “tobacco products” in the workplace. See Cal. Lab. Code § 6404.5.
Effect of Proposition 19: Because the current anti-smoking law only applies to tobacco products, the proposition would not prohibit employees from smoking marijuana in the workplace. In fact, employers would be required to allow marijuana smoking at work because Proposition 19 would prohibit denial of “any right or privilege” granted by the Act, without defining what that means.
In defense of Prop 19 proponents. it’s not clear whether courts would broadly construe “tobacco products” to include marijuana.
HAMPERING FEDERAL CONTRACTORS FROM COMPLYING WITH THE LAW?
41 U.S.C. Section 706; Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).
Again, this probably depends on the issue of whether employers can enforce a no use on the job policy. The Cal Chamber argues that they would be unable to enforce a drug free workplace policy because of Prop 19’s prohibition against denying “any right or privilege”.
The Cal Chamber notes that under current case law (Ross v. RagingWire, 42 Cal. 4th 920 (2008)), employers can elect to not hire marijuana users, including medical marijuana users.
The Cal Chamber predicts that both pre-employment marijuana testing and testing of current employees would become much more difficult.
	Pre-employment testing: Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), employers may test applicants for illegal drug use, including marijuana. 42 U.S.C. § 12112 et. seq.; Cal. Gov’t. Code § 12940. Other tests (such as for alcohol use or legal use of a prescription medication) are medical examinations that can only be conducted after making an offer of employment, and if the test is “job-related and consistent with business necessity.” See EEOC Enforcement Guidance: Preemployment Disability-Related Questions and Medical Examinations.
Also, cases interpreting the California Constitution suggest that an employer may conduct pre-employment drug tests, as long as the employer has a legitimate and substantial interest in determining whether an applicant is using drugs. See Loder v. City of Glendale, 14 Cal. 4th 1846 (1997); Pilkington Barnes Hind v. Superior Court, 66 Cal. App. 4th 28 (1998).
	Post-employment testing: The California Constitution protects all individuals’ right to privacy, including private sector employees. Under the Constitution, an employer who wants to test for illegal drug use must balance its interests against the employee’s reasonable expectation of privacy. See Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 7 Cal. 4th 1 (1998). If an employer has a good reason to test (e.g., the employee caused a workplace accident in suspicious circumstances, the employer observes drug activity in the workplace, etc.) and the employee has no reason to believe the employer won’t test, such as a policy stating that the employer does not conduct testing, the employer can conduct the test.
“Current law: Excludes from workers’ compensation liability injuries caused by “alcohol or the unlawful use of a controlled substance.” Cal. Labor Code § 3600. Marijuana is a controlled substance. See Cal. Health and Safety Code § 11054.
Effect of Proposition 19: The definition of “controlled substance” is unchanged by Proposition 19, but marijuana use will no longer be “unlawful,” so marijuana-induced accidents may not be excluded from liability. Employers could face millions of dollars in increased premium costs to insure against the cost of marijuana-related accidents.
“Current law: Employers are not required to accommodate employees’ use of marijuana as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA or FEHA. 42 U.S.C. § 12112 et. seq.; Ross, 42 Cal. 4th 920.
Effect of Proposition 19: Most employees will not even need to request the right to use marijuana as a reasonable accommodation—Proposition 19 would give them the automatic right to use it. But, for employees who have medical problems alleviated by marijuana who want even more rights than the proposition expressly provides—for example, extra breaks to smoke frequently throughout the day, an adjusted schedule to come in late or leave early, or special work conditions like the provision of paraphernalia or a room to smoke—the employee may request a reasonable accommodation for that purpose. Employees who say they have to smoke marijuana for medical reasons would then have a right to be reassigned to easier duties so their job does not interfere with their marijuana smoking.
whether the federal government will interfere and actually enforce the CSA is doubtful, based on the Obama Administration’s decision not enforce federal drug laws against individuals who comply with state medical marijuana use laws. See October 19, 2009, Memorandum from David W. Ogden.
“Current law: The federal Occupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA) and its California analog (Cal- OSHA) require employers to furnish a safe workplace. See 29 U.S.C. § 651 et. seq.; Cal. Lab. Code §6400 et. seq. In California, this includes the duty to create an injury and illness prevention plan that addresses methods and procedures for correcting unsafe or unhealthy conditions. See Cal. Lab. Code § 6401.7.
	Driving on company time: Employers may specifically prohibit employees from being under the influence of alcohol or drugs while driving.
	Department of Transportation (DOT)-regulated industries: Employers must conduct drug testing (pre-employment, random, post-accident, reasonable suspicion, and return to work) of individuals who hold safety-sensitive positions in the transportation industry, and remove those with a positive test result from such positions. See 49 C.F.R. § 40.23. Last year, the DOT issued a notice that the use of medical marijuana is not a valid medical explanation for a positive test result, ensuring medical marijuana users are not excluded from these safety provisions. See DOT Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance Notice, October 22, 2009.
	Driving on company time: Although Proposition 19 specifically “shall not be construed to affect, limit or amend any statute that forbids impairment while engaging in dangerous activities such as driving,” the proposition does not address conduct before driving. According to Proposition 19, unless an employee is “actually impaired,” the employer can not do anything to prevent marijuana use before an employee drives. As a result, the employer could not prevent the inherent public safety threat in letting a marijuana user drive, nor preemptively reduce its liability to third parties for injuries sustained as a result of the use.
“Current law: If an employer takes an adverse action against a poorly performing employee, such as demotion or termination, the employee may claim the adverse action was motivated by discrimination protected by the FEHA. If the employee proves a minimal case for discrimination, the employer must demonstrate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions or face a trial.
“So how is it that someone shows up to work high and the boss says, “OK, go right ahead and drive the forklift!” Let’s put aside for a moment that California is an “at will” employment state, meaning the employer can fire the employee at will for any reason. The answer, of course, is to test the worker for actual impairment” says Belville.
The whole basis for workplace drug testing is the idea that someone would be high on the job and that would impair their performance to the point of causing a workplace safety issue. The problem is that all sorts of things impair an employee, like drowsiness from prescription drugs, fatigue from overwork, distraction due to injury pain, and lack of sleep. Drug testing doesn’t catch those impairments and most often catch employees who have used cannabis away from work days or weeks before when it couldn’t possibly impair workplace performance”, Belville notes.
“If your employee shows up reeking of pot, eyes bloodshot, and you suspect his pot use is actually impairing, you just have to prove it, that’s all. There are loads of peer-reviewed, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies that opponents of cannabis (like you) constantly cite to back up the need for workplace urinalysis. You tell us we have to pee test because these studies show recent cannabis use impairs people.
There you have it. Two very different views.
Prop 19. Nightmare for the employers and many workers. Gateway to crumbling work standards and an ultimate job killer? Poorly drafted measure that will have profound societal consequences?
Or Prop 19, no big deal? A law that employers can cope with if as long as they have testing programs available?
Readers will split on this one. I’d love to hear from some of you on this. Convince me.
Why wasn’t the act drafted to specifically forbid marijuana consumption at work? And why wasn’t an impairment standard specifically outlined by the drafters? When many unions and employees have fought drug testing, what confidence can one have that widespread testing will detect impaired employees? How do we define marijuana impairment anyway?
Voters appear to be moving in a vote NO direction. Otherwise I’ll be joining the NO voters. Some of the Cal Chamber arguments are overblown, but there are just too many questions as drafted.
Recently I kicked off my series “Comp’s Got Talent” with Boxer & Gerson’s own Ralph Paterno.
“The Lady is a Sham”.
Never fear, ye tea partiers in the comp community. You’ll get your day. There’s music for all tastes from compsters.
Some folks are warning us that we’re headed to Fedmageddon.
Let’s hope that the overheated rhetoric of this political season doesn’t lead us into further devolution of the republic.
At a time when many voters seem to be in a blind rage against “Government”, it’s good to look at the facts.
It turns out that common myths are inaccurate. Government workers are not overpaid.
Allegretto’s research concludes that state and local government employees are underpaid about 7% in comparison with their private sector counterparts. She concludes that when benefit packages are included in the analysis there is no difference in pay between government and private sector counterparts.
These results may not stem the concerns over the sustainability of public pension obligations. There’s a new study on that from the Milken Institute. The study analyzes demographic changes and notes that to be sustainable the retirement age will have to be raised and that employee contributions will have to be increased.
In Britain we’re seeing mass public employee layoffs. In France we’re seeing growing unrest over proposed changes in the retirement age and pension eligibility age.
We don’t need a Pensionmageddon in California, but there needs to be a close look at the facts as the next governor wrestles with these issues.
In coming posts I’ll be blogging on last week’s hearings on the WCIRB rate increase recommendation. And I’ll be continuing the Comp’s Got Talent series.
We in the workers’ comp community are a talented bunch aren’t we?
We’ve had winemakers (Fred Zanotto), pro football players (Ron Mix) and novelists (John Peak and Bob Levin).
But it’s music where the comp community shines brightest. From time to time I’ll focus on some of those musicians.
In today’s spotlight is Ralph Paterno, longtime applicant attorney and lien claimant attorney. Ralph currently is of counsel at my office, Boxer and Gerson.
In his spare time, when he’s not advocating for injured workers or tending to his spectacular garden, Ralph is a regular on the Sonoma County music scene.
I’m engaged in a new venture. I hope you’ll check it out.
It’s a video-based series called “Julius and Jake: The Comp Guys”. You’ll be able to find the video segments on You Tube as well as on a dedicated site.
Joining me for the video talk-show format will be Richard Jacobsmeyer of Shaw, Jacobsmeyer, Crain, Claffey and Nix LLP. We’ll be focusing on ongoing workers’ comp issues: case law developments, regulatory changes, industry trends, and legislative efforts.
The genesis of the program was a series of seminars Jacobsmeyer and I did for SCIF this year. At training conferences for SCIF attorneys in Burlingame and San Pedro, Jacobsmeyer and I debated issues surrounding the Almaraz and Guzman decisions.
California’s workers’ comp industry is blessed with a number of top-flight print and web-based journals: the California Workers Compensation Reporter….the Appeals Board Reporter….the Workers’ Comp Executive….the Lexis Nexis Workers Comp Community…..Workcompcentral.com…to name some of the most prominent resources.
And for the last three years I’ve written this workerscompzone blog, trying to focus on industry trends and interesting aspects of the system.
But there has been essentially no video-based analysis of trends in the comp system. We believe the video format can be enjoyed by claims professionals as well as injured workers and employers.
Shouldn’t our system have its Siskel and Ebert? Its Shields and Brooks?
Even its Click and Clack?
So “Julius and Jake: The Comp Guys” was born.
Jake Jacobsmeyer has been a prominent defense attorney in California for years. And before working for the defense, he was one of the Bay Area’s top applicant attorneys. He brings a great deal of experience and perspective to the program.
I (Julius) bring different things to the program. In addition to many years as a partner at Boxer & Gerson (which has one of the largest workers’ comp practice areas of any firm in California) I’ve also served as a judge pro tem at the WCAB. As the writer of the workerscompzone blog, I follow many of the political trends and think tank studies that influence the direction of the industry. And with a wife who has an international trade business, I have frequent opportunities to look at the system from an international perspective.
We’ll be bringing those perspectives to the programs.
Plans for the future include a monthly recap of California workers’ comp events. As important cases are decided or other interesting events unfold, we’ll do special programs. And over time we may film interviews with some of the movers and shakers in California workers’ comp.
Along with the programs we’ll be doing a companion blog. The blog (TheCompGuys.org) will feature the videos and will also include commentaries that have links to some of the primary source material we discuss.
We’ll be giving you our opinions on cases and trends.
If you’re an injured worker or an employer, use caution. The videos are not designed to give legal advice. Cases which are discussed may be overturned. Trends and theories which are discussed may not pan out.
Other attorneys and other stakeholders may have different opinions.
We hope you’ll bookmark the site and come back periodically. As we upload videos I’ll post links on the workerscompzone site.
Great thanks are due to our producer Sam Gold. Sam was an injured worker himself and is a passionate advocate for the rights of injured workers. Sam has produced a show called Injured Worker TV and has started the Injured Worker Television Network. Sam has been generous with his time in helping us film the episodes we’ve done so far, and it’s deeply appreciated.
A Partner at Boxer & Gerson LLP, Julius has practiced worker’s compensation and social security disability law since 1979. He has represented thousands of individuals who have sustained life-changing injuries or illnesses while on the job. In every case, his goal is to secure the medical treatments his clients need.

References: § 6404
 v. 
 v. 
 § 12112
 § 12940
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3600
 § 11054
 § 12112
 § 651
 §6400
 § 6401
 § 40