Mary Jane and Sam Walton...

[quote name='UncleBob']I don't see it as gray.[/QUOTE]

In terms of the termination, it is black and white. Any employer in Michigan can terminate any employee for any reason including no reason at all.

...

In terms of the unemployment claim, there can be some wiggle room. Wal-Mart cannot determine whether or not federal law has been violated. They're not the government yet.
Does the employee have any charges against him?

Even if a federal agency is citing the employee for the violation, I'm pretty sure the employee is considered innocent until proven guilty.

Now, Bob, what was the name of that employee you were libeling here and do you represent Wal-Mart?
 
I like how Bob is suddenly coming out for federal law all of a sudden. Makes me smile inside.

No actually who gives a shit. You asked if it matters if the federal gov't isn't enforcing a law in certain cases. If they think it's a bullshit law (imo and holder's, it is) they won't enforce that law.

As Andrew Jackson said: "John Marshall (Chief Justice of the SCOTUS) has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can,"
Too bad the ruling was SCOTUS declaring Jackson forcing Cherokee out of Georgia was unconstitutional...
 
IRHari: I'm actually just in "favor" (not really the word I'd use...) of the decision to terminate the employee. The policy is clear. Heck, it's even posted (or supposed to be) near the computers you use to apply. Go check it out. :)

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']In terms of the unemployment claim, there can be some wiggle room. Wal-Mart cannot determine whether or not federal law has been violated. They're not the government yet.[/quote]

Walmart did not determine if federal law had been violated. Walmart, through use of trained, certified medical professional, determined the individual had a substance classified as illegal in his system. Which is a clear violation of company policy. Which is *usually* a valid reason to deny an unemployment claim.

The handful of articles I've read tend to go two ways - if it is left up to the state to determine, the employee will likely get unemployment. If Walmart manages to push it Federal, then they'll likely win.

Now, Bob, what was the name of that employee you were libeling here and do you represent Wal-Mart?
Click to expand...
Obviously, no, I don't represent Walmart. If you're going to start dragging people's jobs into the equation in an attempt to get them fired, then bad form. With that said, who did I libel?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Obviously, no, I don't represent Walmart. If you're going to start dragging people's jobs into the equation in an attempt to get them fired, then bad form. With that said, who did I libel?[/QUOTE]

Isn't the thrust of your argument that the fired employee violated both company law and federal law?
 
Based on the information provided in the story. Where the individual in question says things like "I was told they do not accept or honor my medical marijuana card,"
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Based on the information provided in the story. Where the individual in question says things like "I was told they do not accept or honor my medical marijuana card,"[/QUOTE]

But there wasn't a trial involving a judge and some lawyers, right?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You do realize that something does not have to go through court in order to be factual, right?[/QUOTE]

Sure, but usually there is a trial to determine if a law has been broken.

BTW, how is your census coming along? I got mine yesterday.
 
FoC - There doesn't *have* to be a trial. I went 60 in a 55 eariler. I was speeding. I broke the law. Do you think there has to be a trial to determine that?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']FoC - There doesn't *have* to be a trial. I went 60 in a 55 eariler. I was speeding. I broke the law. Do you think there has to be a trial to determine that?[/QUOTE]

Are you going to pay the penalty for breaking the law?
 
Just because you don't get caught, it doesn't mean you're innocent. How many hourly Walmart employees do you think smoke pot on a regular basis? How many actually get caught?

This guy drove through a speed trap at 95 MPH. He got caught.
 
*UPDATE*.

Not surprising, Walmart wins.
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/02/judge_upholds_walmarts_firing.html

Surprising - the judge ruled in favor of Walmart due to technicalities with commas. Bah.

Hopefully, the inevitable appeal will actually address the substance of the case. Part of me wonders if the judge didn't rule this way in an attempt to actually avoid ruling on the law itself and preempting the state/federal dispute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top