Tag Archives: employer

Transportation & Supply Issues in Cannabis Staffing: How to Get Unstuck

By Melita Balestieri
No Comments

Anyone in cannabis will tell you that complex transportation and supply issues are stalling industry growth and impacting employers’ ability to hire teams for the critical roles that keep product moving on schedule.

Since the onset of COVID-19 in March 2020, global and domestic supply chains have suffered bottlenecks caused by ever-changing public health policies and ongoing materials and labor shortages. While the status of transportation as an essential business kept other essential sectors, such as cannabis and grocery, chugging along, the current situation is still challenging.

Transportation remains the biggest supply-side problem, with the American Trucking Association reporting a shortage of an estimated 80,000 truckers in October 2021. The Bureau of Labor Statistics also continues to report high numbers of job openings across supply-chain jobs such as warehousing and transportation.

Cannabis businesses, from multistate operators to distributors to delivery service startups, are hardly immune to these issues. In fact, they face the additional hurdle of restrictive federal regulations, including the illegality of transporting cannabis across state borders. For example, this stipulation means that the over-saturation of flower in California cannot be addressed in a naturally symbiotic manner by shipping to states whose markets demand more flower, such as Arizona and New Mexico.

In the aggregate, these challenges impact employers’ operational and logistics goals and diminish candidates’ interest to work in a highly scrutinized industry. Many trucking companies have found it a challenge to attract drivers. Low pay, grueling schedules, and zero-tolerance cannabis testing for drivers despite legalization have led to an exodus of truckers in the U.S. and Canada.

Despite these obstacles, cannabis employers can still embrace smart strategies to attract quality employees and create much-needed stability to thrive in the rapidly changing marketplace.

Cannabis, COVID & the Great Resignation

In recent months, when it seemed America was finally emerging from COVID’s long shadow, the Great Resignation dampened business optimism. Employee turnover hit cannabis hard—especially in California, where other challenges like a thriving illicit market, high taxes and wholesale price compression have impacted companies’ ability to operate smoothly. Transportation and supply issues compound the problems.

For example, even transporting federally legal hemp in California and elsewhere has its headaches. Our company’s trimmer certification course uses hemp for training purposes. We ship the hemp directly to students’ homes so they can participate in virtual training sessions. Although our company has certified that the course packet contains only hemp, the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) will not ship it, regardless of whether the delivery location is in or out of state. We therefore must rely on a private carrier to transport the course packets to class participants, which is more time consuming and costly

Staffing Strategies for Transportation & Supply Jobs

Cannabis employers have several traditional and non-traditional tools at their disposal to address transportation and supply-related staffing.

While standard ecommerce jobs are synonymous with turnover, here lies an opportunity for cannabis operators to differentiate themselves. This is the cannabis industry, after all, and plenty of individuals who might not normally be interested in the transportation or supply aspect of ecommerce, might be far more open to those types of roles if they know the jobs involve cannabis.

What can employers do to attract these more receptive candidates to their organizations? Hone in on workers who have a passion for the plant. In job descriptions, position cannabis messaging front and center and conduct outreach through LinkedIn groups and other social media platforms to groups and individuals that have a cannabis focus.

Salary and Benefits

These days, a competitive salary simply is not enough to entice the right employees. A solid benefits package goes a long way to establishing trust between employers and employees and provides employees with a level of comfort and reassurance that they are supported during these tumultuous times. For example, companies must prioritize healthcare benefits and consider including coverage for part-time workers on the supply side of the cannabis industry.

Bonuses

Bonuses are another great way to catch the eye of potential employees, but bonuses must be developed within a framework designed for retention. Cannabis employers who establish performance bonuses and loyalty bonuses also increase that ever-important aspect of trust within their companies.

Safety

A transparent and robust HR plan that addresses safety concerns—COVID and beyond—can affect employees’ comfort for certain supply or transport positions that may involve increased public exposure or enhanced personal safety risks. Be clear with employees about the system that’s in place to support them in the event of unforeseen emergencies or injuries.

Procedures

Cannabis employers should also be aware of the importance of having compliance-focused internal transportation standard operating procedures and protections for employees. These policies can be a key factor in attracting both drivers and additional transport and supply experts from other regulated transport industries such as food, agriculture and pharmaceuticals. Candidates without a cannabis background will be more drawn to companies that provide a well-developed and safe infrastructure.

Smart Cannabis Staffing Solutions: The Time is Now

Federal cannabis legalization is coming, and with that nationwide sea change other issues in cannabis supply and transport will emerge. How will cannabis transport consolidate? Will the nation’s top carriers simply take over?

Regardless of what those answers might be, the need to embrace smart staffing solutions now is imperative. Providing a solid base wage with health benefits, and making it clear to current employees and job candidates that there’s an internal infrastructure of support—from HR to loyalty bonuses—is the best way to tackle the transportation and supply issues to position your company for future success.

Why the Cannabis Industry Must Combat Degree Inflation

By Tori Gates
3 Comments

The hiring process is evolving: major U.S. employers are reconsidering the significance of higher learning. An employer’s undue emphasis on university education while hiring is called “degree inflation.” As the hiring manager for NisonCo, a cannabis public relations, marketing and SEO agency, I have learned a college degree is not the best predictor of employee success.

NisonCo was established during the dawning of the modern cannabis legalization movement. At the time, our small staff included individuals with and without college degrees. I evaluated both groups of employees and learned they gave equal contributions to the team. Limiting our pool of potential candidates to university graduates would have hindered the growth of our company.

Accordingly, at NisonCo a college degree is not required to work. We believe degree inflation impedes hiring, increases payroll, encourages turnover and perpetuates social injustice. For these reasons, NisonCo encourages your cannabis company to emphasize a candidate’s skills and drive during the hiring process rather than their education. 

Degree Inflation Increased in the Aftermath of The Great Recession 

The Great Recession in 2008 caused a massive downturn in the U.S. economy. By 2010, the workforce had lost nearly 9 million jobs. The unemployed entered a tight labor market, and employers had the luxury of limiting potential candidates to college graduates. After the economic downturn, the number of employers requiring a college degree increased by 10%. 

Employers added degree requirements to positions previously staffed by high school graduates. In 2015, 67% of job postings for production supervisors required a degree, while only 16% of current production supervisors possessed degrees. The Great Recession pushed Americans without a college degree out of the labor market. 

Technological Advancements and Social Movements Confront Degree Inflation

The importance of technical skills began declining when automation entered the workforce in the 1980s. Employers suddenly required soft skills like relationship management to serve customers and resolve conflicts with partners successfully. A technologically advanced economy requires problem-solving and people skills. These skills are not usually acquired while attaining a college degree.

Most employers confirmed degree inflation prevents them from hiring equipped employees.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, companies laid off millions of employees. Many unemployed people reconsidered their relationship with work and decided to leave unfulfilling jobs. Employers are now in dire need of staff, and they no longer have the privilege of requiring a college degree during the hiring process. This degree inflation prevents recovery from the economic downturn caused by the pandemic. 

The Black Lives Matter movement highlighted the need to deliver social justice to historically marginalized communities. Americans are learning these communities need economic opportunities to achieve social justice. For this reason, employers are reexamining hiring practices and identifying barriers to equity. Employers like NisonCo have recognized since company inception that degree requirements impede social justice.

Degree Inflation is Bad for your Cannabis Business

The Harvard Business School polled business leaders on their perception of the performance of employees with and without degrees. The polling revealed the hidden costs of degree inflation: pending positions, payroll premiums, poor productivity and high turnover. Undoubtedly, degree inflation is not suitable for your cannabis business.

Most employers confirmed degree inflation prevents them from hiring equipped employees. They admit that candidates without degrees may possess the skills needed to thrive in most positions. Often, degree inflation prevents the discovery of competent candidates without degrees.

Most respondents revealed that degree inflation places a premium on wages for college graduates. Many respondents also confirmed those with and without degrees provide equal contributions to their teams. Degree inflation adds unnecessary payroll and training costs to a company’s budget.

Many employers believe staff members with university degrees demand higher salaries and benefits than staff without degrees. Additionally, most respondents admitted employees with degrees demonstrate low productivity and experience high job dissatisfaction. As a result, employers witness increased turnover among college graduates. In my experience, degree inflation can prevent employers from finding productive, satisfied, and loyal employees.

5 Ways Your Cannabis Company Can Oppose Degree Inflation

  1. Review Your Company’s Job Descriptions and Assess Contributions to Degree Inflation 

I recommend reviewing your company’s positions and determining if they are prone to degree inflation. Evaluate job descriptions written by leaders in the cannabis industry to understand if your degree requirements contribute to degree inflation and consider dropping degree requirements for positions that are common contributors to degree inflation.

  1. Identify the Technical and Soft Skills Needed for Positions in Your Company

I advocate for analyzing the technical and soft skills needed for positions in your cannabis company. Review your job descriptions to determine if they require soft skills a candidate without a degree could possess. Delete degree requirements from job descriptions that do not need technical education provided by universities. Additionally, review the vetting process for candidates and remove onerous education requirements for positions requiring additional soft skills.

  1. Analyze the Costs of Your Company’s Contribution to Degree Inflation

Understanding your cannabis company’s contribution to degree inflation lowers the costs of sustaining it. Developing metrics for evaluating contributions to degree inflation helps assess the charges to your company. Realizing your company’s potential cost savings helps maintain a commitment to combating degree inflation.

  1. Develop Your Company’s Pipeline of Non-Degree Employees

Your cannabis company should develop alternative talent pipelines to attract non-degree employees. Investments in training create talent pipelines that give your company access to new pools of competent and productive candidates. Investments in training attract employees without college degrees and confront degree inflation. 

  1. Expand Your Company’s Territory for Recruiting New Employees

I recommend expanding your company’s geographic footprint while recruiting. Establishing relationships with partners in new territories provides access to new pools of non-degree talent. Expansion of your recruiting territory withstands degree inflation. 

The Cannabis Industry Should Commit to Combatting Degree Inflation

Legalizing cannabis began as a social justice movement to benefit historically marginalized communities, and the maturation of our industry can deliver social justice to these communities. The cannabis industry has a prime opportunity to be an excellent example for other sectors confronting degree inflation. Our industry must demonstrate how different sectors can resist the urge to support it.

Think Your Cannabis Business Complies with Temp and Part-Time Employment Regulations? You Might Be Surprised

By Stacy Bryant
No Comments

As a fast-growing cannabis company, ensuring your business stays compliant with regulatory agencies of all kinds—planning departments, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) and so on—is critical for survival. But is your business also compliant with temporary and part-time employment regulations? Violating these often-overlooked regulations can land your company in hot water at best and force you to shut your doors at worst. Here’s what you need to know about risks, regulations, compliance issues and more.

The 30,000-Foot View: Part-Time and Temporary Employees 

Cannabis has proven itself to be a high-turnover industry. But in the ever-shifting, post-COVID landscape, many cannabis employers are seeing the financial and logistical benefits of hiring part-time and temporary workers.

Though the terms “part-time” and “temporary” are sometimes used interchangeably, the fact is, there are legal differences in the definitions of part-time versus temporary work. For starters, temporary employees must work for less than a year at a specific organization, and their work must have a defined end date. Temporary employees, or “temps,” often fill vacant roles in a temporary capacity, such as roles previously occupied by someone on parental leave.

Many full-time employees in the cultivation space are defined as “agricultural workers”

Part-time employees, on the other hand, can work indefinitely for a company—but they must work less than 40 hours per week. And, side note, if a part-time employee works more than 1,000 hours in a calendar year, they could be eligible for retirement benefits—so hiring managers, bear that in mind.

For employers, there are some tangible benefits in hiring part-time or temporary workers. For starters, there are often fewer upfront costs associated with hiring part-time workers (like workers’ compensation and healthcare). Establishing a strong part-time and temp employment strategy also allows for employers to quickly scale up or down based on market tendencies or shifts.

Understanding the Risks of Hiring Part-Time or Temporary Workers

While hiring part-time and temporary workers can help businesses stay agile and responsive to market demands or fill vacancies created by recent resignations, many businesses hire these types of employees without a full understanding of associated regulations. And it can get even trickier: many full-time cannabis industry workers in the cultivation space aren’t considered “employees” at all—they’re defined by the federal government as “agricultural workers.”

It’s essential that businesses classify part-time workers and independent contractors correctly. Attempting to claim a worker is part-time when they’re really a full-time employee (a practice known as “misclassification”) can save a business tax dollars in the short-term but lead to sanctions and hefty penalties down the line. For example, if a worker is misclassified and the Department of Industrial Relations finds out, they can sue the former employer for unpaid wages.

Potential fallout from noncompliance with classification or wage and hour issues includes massive fines, potential litigation and more. Federal agencies are extremely sensitive to cannabis business regulatory violations, it’s vital to adhere to proper staffing regulations and compliance. The wrong kind of attention can tank your business’s reputation and halt your operations altogether. I’ve personally worked with numerous cannabis businesses in their hiring and payroll initiatives, and I’ll say this: It may seem like a headache to cross all the “Ts” and dot all the “Is” in the beginning, but it will make a massive difference down the line.

Understanding the Regulations for Hiring Part-Time or Temporary Workers 

All employers must adhere to the regulations set forth by the Fair Labor Standards Act, which mandates that part-time employees must be treated the same as full-time employees. That means they must be paid minimum wage, be paid overtime should they exceed their determined hours, have the opportunity to take job-protected unpaid leave, and so on. I really want to stress how essential it is that employers classify their workers appropriately.

It’s also worth noting that many states have specific regulatory structures for employment, both full- and part-time.

In the heavily regulated cannabis industry, employers must exercise strict due diligence to meet all OSHA standards. Additionally, they must identify all occupational hazards and account for employees’ overtime and double time. Grow operations must also adhere to the Field Sanitation Provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which includes providing toilets, drinking water, hand sanitation facilities and hygiene information.

Avoiding Compliance Problems with Planning and Diligence 

There’s a lot more to hiring workers than businesses realize, especially in cannabis. Most companies don’t intend to be noncompliant with regulations—they simply don’t know the regulations, or they’re overwhelmed by hiring and growing so quickly. To make sure you’re compliant, you might consider building out your HR team, educating yourself as the business leader and reaching out to staffing and HR professionals in the space who can answer your questions. In this rapidly growing industry, which seems to shift and change every day, planting your feet firmly on solid regulatory ground will serve to benefit you in the event of federal legalization, massive business growth or initiatives you may want to undertake in the future.

Updates in Employment Law: CA, WA & CO

By Conor Dale
No Comments

A number of laws have gone into effect in 2021 which may have a major impact on cannabis industry employers; clearly understanding the changing legal landscape is essential to avoid and limit potential liability in the new year and beyond. Below is a brief summary of some relevant new employment laws in cannabis friendly states:

California:

  • Expansion of family and medical leave: California has long required employers to provide job protected medical and family leave if an employee worked at a jobsite with 50 or more employees within a 75-mile radius.
  • Senate Bill 1383 now requires all employers with five or more employees to provide up to twelve weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for employees to bond with a new child or to care for themselves or a family member suffering from a serious health condition. To be eligible for the leave, an employee must have at least 12 months of service with the employer and have performed at least 1,250 hours of work in the previous 12-month period. While on leave, employees are entitled to continue to participate in an employer’s health insurance plan and to return to their job or a comparable position at the conclusion of their job-protected leave. Previously exempt small employers should be aware of these obligations moving forward.
  • Employer Pay Reporting Requirements: Under Senate Bill 973, employers with 100 or more employees that are required to file an annual Employer Information Report, colloquially known as the EEO-1 report, must submit annual information on its employees’ pay data to the state’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH). The report must include the number of the employer’s employees by race, ethnicity and sex in specific job categories and pay ranges and their associated work hours and earnings.
  • The first report is due on March 31, 2021, and the DFEH has prepared an online portal to assist employers in submitting this information. These reports can be complex and address highly sensitive information, so employers are strongly advised to contact counsel for assistance in preparing and submitting their first report.

Washington

  • Increased pay requirements: Washington’s inflation-based minimum wage system has increased the minimum wage to $13.69 per hour in 2021. Employers with 50 or fewer employees must also pay salaried employees at least $827 per week (or $43,004 per year) and employers with more than 50 employees must pay at least $965 per week (or $50,180 per year) starting January 1st.

Colorado

  • Equal Pay for Equal Work Act: Beginning in 2021, all employers with at least one employee must: (1) provide formal notice to Colorado employees of promotional opportunities; and (2) disclose pay rates or ranges in job postings that could be performed in Colorado (this includes virtual or remote work positions).
  • The Equal Pay for Equal Work Act generally requires employers to take reasonable efforts to promptly announce, post, or otherwise communicate all opportunities to all current employees prior to making a promotion decision. An employer must communicate promotional opportunities when it has or anticipates a vacancy or a new position that could be considered a promotion for current employees in light of pay, benefits, status, duties or further potential promotions.
  • Under the law, job postings must also include: (1) the rate of pay or pay range for the position; (2) a general description of bonuses, commissions or other forms of compensation offered with the job; and (3) a description of the employment benefits associated with the position.

Cannabis industry employers face a range of new laws, even absent the continued legal burden of managing employees during the COVID 19 pandemic. Employers should consider carefully reviewing all applicable laws and seeking guidance from counsel when needed.

California Employment Laws, COVID-19 & Cannabis: How New Regulations Impact Cannabis Businesses

By Conor Dale
1 Comment

As employers in the cannabis industry adapt to making their businesses run and thrive in the age of COVID-19, federal, state and local jurisdictions have issued new laws and regulations providing rules and guidance on returning employees to work. Employers in the industry should be aware of, and prepare for, these rules moving forward.

Federal guidance regarding COVID testing and employees’ return to the workplace:

Since March, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued guidance and frequently asked questions (FAQ) concerning employment-related COVID-19 topics. In its September update, the EEOC answered practical questions relating to COVID testing, questions to employees regarding COVID, and employee medical information.

Employee testing

The EEOC has already stated that employers may administer COVID-19 tests before initially permitting employees to enter the workplace. In its September FAQs, the EEOC confirms that employers may conduct periodic tests to ensure that employees are COVID free and do not pose a threat to coworkers and customers. The EEOC also clarified that employers administering regular COVID-19 tests is consistent with current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance and that following recommendations by the CDC or other public health authorities such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding employee testing and screening is appropriate. The EEOC acknowledges that the CDC and FDA may revise their recommendations based on new information, and reminds employers to keep apprised of these updates.

COVID questions for employees

The EEOC also confirmed that employers may ask employees returning to the workplace if they have been tested for COVID-19, which, presumably, permits employers to ask if the employee’s test was positive or negative. Please note that an employer’s right to ask employees about COVID testing is based on the potential threat that infected employees could pose to others if they physically return to work. As a result, the EEOC clarified that asking employees who exclusively work remotely and/or do not physically interact with other employees or customers about potential COVID-19 status would not be appropriate. The EEOC also stated that an employer may not directly ask whether an employee’s family members have COVID-19 or symptoms associated with COVID-19. This is because the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) generally prohibits employers from asking employees medical questions about family members. However, the EEOC clarified employers may ask employees if they have had contact with anyone diagnosed with COVID-19 or who may have symptoms associated with the disease.

Sharing information about employees with COVID

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires employers to confidentially maintain information regarding employees’ medical condition. The EEOC’s updated FAQS clarify that managers who learn that an employee has COVID may report this information to appropriate individuals within their organization in order to comply with public health guidance, such as relaying this information to government contact tracing programs. Employers should consider directing managers on how, and to whom, to make such reports, and specifically instruct employees who have a need to know about the COVID status of their coworkers to maintain the confidentiality of that information. The EEOC also clarified that workers may report to managers about the COVID status of a coworker in the same workplace.

California state guidance on employees returning to work

The state of California also recently released a “COVID-19 Employer Playbook” which provides guidance on employees to return to work. That playbook states that employees with COVID related symptoms may return to work 24 hours after their last fever, without the use of fever-reducing medications, if there had been an improvement in symptoms and at least 10 days had passed since symptoms first appeared. This was also indicated in the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Order, issued in June, about responding to COVID-19 in the Workplace.

More recently, on August 24th, the CDPH released similar guidance which reiterates when employees who have tested positive for COVID could return to the workplace when: (1) at least 10 days have passed since symptoms first appeared; (2) at least 24 hours have passed with no fever (without the use of fever-reducing medications), and (3) their other symptoms have improved. Conversely, individuals who test positive for COVID and who never develop symptoms may return to work or school 10 days after the date of their first positive test.

Employers should also check local public health orders for their county when determining how and when to return an employee who has recovered from COVID-19. It is important to also confer with your employment counsel when implementing new policies and procedures related to COVID-19, particularly given that the guidance issued by government authorities continues to evolve at a rapid pace.

Return to work laws on the horizon

Finally, a number of local governments in California such as the City of San Francisco, Oakland and Los Angeles have enacted return-to-work ordinances generally requiring employers to offer available positions to former employees who have been separated from employment due to coronavirus related business slowdowns or government-issued shutdown orders. The California legislature is also in the process of enacting a potential law that would similarly require employers in the state to offer vacant job positions to former employees whose employment ended due to COVID.

While the San Francisco ordinance only addresses positions in San Francisco and the Oakland and Los Angeles ordinances primarily address large employers in the hospitality and restaurant industries, cannabis industry employers should strongly consider offering vacant job positions to former employees whose employment ended due to COVID in order to comply with these ordinances and other potentially applicable future laws and in an effort to avoid potential legal claims from former employees.

Employers are strongly advised to consult with counsel to make sure they are following the requirements of these new laws and regulations.

Cannabis & COVID: Changes, Advances & Opportunities

By Laura Bianchi
No Comments

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic sent shockwaves around the world, and they’re still rippling today. Businesses had to quickly pivot from in-person transactions and services to virtual operations, or close down until stay at home orders and other restrictions eased or lifted. While it varies from state to state, due to statutory and rule based operating requirements, requiring facilities to be open a certain amount of hours per week, many were deemed essential. These circumstances create a huge set of complex challenges for anyone in business to navigate, from workers and their families to management and owners, let alone vendors and ancillary businesses.

The bright side is being in an industry where plot twists are not uncommon. Cannabis is legal and highly regulated state by state, illegal on a federal level, so it’s always full of strategic problems to solve. With so many people, businesses, ever-shifting regulations, and financial interests at stake, the need for strategic legal services are the constant. From a purely business and regulatory standpoint, the pandemic has provided some in the cannabis industry with quantum leaps forward in operations and service, and many of them may likely become the new norm.

For people with anxiety (#everydemographic2020) and other debilitating medical conditions, perception is shifting towards the importance and benefits of cannabis as a medicine and alternative therapeutic treatment option, on pace with a larger global trend towards personal and shared wellness. There’s more freedom for consumers to participate recreationally in states with adult use programs too. Extended families and friends in other states may not have the same access to cannabis. We live in a socially driven world, and the awareness of the medicinal properties of cannabis has rapidly grown nationwide across broad demographics. The gateway drug stereotype and stigma is slowly but surely fading away.

Momentum and shift in consumer behavior, need and the shifting perspective of healthcare providers is affecting more state regulators. They’ve worked with the cannabis industry to modify and adjust operational rules as needed to ensure medicinal access during the ever-changing COVID climate. Although current rules and regulations haven’t been lifted in any way, this is a step in the right direction. However, recreational states are less likely to consider that portion of the cannabis market essential and look for ways to prioritize medical dispensaries over recreational.

Medical Cannabis Businesses Deemed Essential

The most immediate problems to solve in many states were social distancing and waiting areas – where to keep patients/customers? There are state guidelines and regulations for operations during COVID, plus CDC general safety and sanitation considerations for workers and consumers alike. Lawyers and regulators are working to make sure that these stores are open and operating safely, have established safety protocols, number of customers allowed inside the store, minimum hours of operation, and to allow for special elderly hours and accommodating patients with compromised immune systems.

One of the biggest operational changes has been an increase in the facilitation of online ordering and curbside pickup to help keep patients safe. Employees are wearing gloves and PPE as an added precaution. This puts the health of the patients and employees first, while still allowing businesses to operate.

More and more patients are not all that enthusiastic about making in-person appointments that may put them at risk. In every state, people waver between venturing out for necessities so they’re buying larger quantities and stocking up when they can, and cannabis is no different. Cash-paying customers must still pay in-person. As federal regulations continue to hinder additional payment options and protections, demand for change grows on both sides.

Staffing in a Pandemic

Like all employers, it’s easier for larger cannabis companies to accommodate employees who are sick or may have been exposed. It’s often more difficult for smaller operations. For many employees, the decision to go into work sick means rent and food, because the employer can’t offer additional sick pay.

In most states, employees have to have some type of state card to work in a store. It’s hard to find replacements and pay for sick leave. There’s no call for a temp agency solution due to clearance needed by cannabis employees. If the business has to shut down, it might not be able to bounce back. So in some states, cannabis businesses have suffered setbacks, but not to the extent as other industries such as hospitality, food and beverage, and tourism.

Crunching the Numbers

The cannabis industry is also excluded from PPP loans and other federal aid. True plant-touching cannabis companies can’t access those funds, adding extra financial stress to operations. The irony is for the majority of cannabis operations nationwide, the biggest change was not the increased regulatory requirements for social distancing, sanitation and safety, it was handling the incredible increase in product demand under circumstances that include financial and staffing stress.

One Arizona-based dispensary was averaging around $300K a month before COVID-19. Today, business has more than tripled to nearly $1 million a month. In mature legal state Colorado, a record $155 million in recreational product sales for June reflects a six percent increase over the previous month’s sales. The Colorado Department of Revenue collected $33.6 million from the industry in June. Colorado’s medical dispensary sales record was set in May, just shy of $43 million, dropping down to about $40.8 million in June. Both are still setting records for business volume. For 2020, revenue already exceeds $203.3 million, in contrast to roughly $302.5 million in cannabis-related revenue in 2019.

Heightened Supply, Demand & Opportunities

Heightened demand and the search for new market ventures means investors are taking notice. People sheltering or working from home are spending more time online, too. Many are searching for healthcare; others for promising investment opportunities. Legalization has been a long journey, state by state. Everyone inside the cannabis and hemp industries has learned to roll with the punches – expect ongoing legal needs, and to do strategic short- and long-term planning. How to anticipate change and pivot on a dime. It’s a must.

With the healthcare system struggling or strained in many areas of the country, non-essential primary care has shifted to telemedicine. Federally, the DEA granted permission to do so that extends for the duration of the COVID-19 public health emergency. The problem? State-level regulations may prohibit the prescription of Schedule III drugs via telemedicine, or limit the amount and refills. For essential healthcare, limited appointments or emergency-only availability remains a concern. Innovative new cannabis products help fill that gap.

There will be more challenges as elections approach and beyond. For those in cannabis, we’re used to being ready for anything. Stay tuned.

A Joint Problem: How Cannabis Testing Policies Affect Applicants’ Attraction Toward an Organization

By Prachi
No Comments

Employees with substance abuse issues could cause problems for their employers. Recent legalization of cannabis has prompted organization to re-evaluate their drug testing policies in anticipation of increased usage among employees and potential hires (Rotermann, 2020). Cannabis use has increased from 14.9% to 16.8% post-legalization in Canada. Policies that enable routine cannabis-testing of employees, though beneficial in some cases, might negatively affect the perceptions of individuals toward the organizations that hold these policies. Specifically, job applicants may perceive the administration of such policies as unfair. I investigated the influence of cannabis testing policy and its perceived fairness on job applicants’ perception of organizational attractiveness and their intention to apply to a job vacancy.

A recruitment notice was presented to potential participants, which included a link to the survey. After reading and signing the consent form, participants were randomly assigned one of the three drug testing conditions (severe, moderate, none). Severe drug testing policies include testing pre-employment, randomly during the employment period, and in response to suspicious behavior. Moderate drug testing policies include administering drug testing pre-employment and in cases of suspicion. None is the control (i.e., no testing policy in place). The corresponding vignette was presented, followed by the survey questionnaire (measures on organizational attractiveness, intention to apply, perceived fairness, and perceived stigma), demographic questions, and questions on cannabis usage.

Cannabis user’s perceived fairness of cannabis testing was higher within organizations with no compared to severe testing situations (Figure 1). However, for individuals who do not ingest cannabis, the perceived fairness was higher for organizations with severe compared to no cannabis testing policy. This suggests that cannabis users deem cannabis testing as unfair regardless of the type of policy. This supports previous research findings on recreational use of cannabis and job seekers’ perception of drug testing (Paronto et al., 2002). Based on Gilliland’s (1993) model of organizational justice and perceived fairness, there are 10 procedural rules categorized into three categories: formal characteristics of selection system, explanations offered during the selection process, and interpersonal treatments that help form the applicants’ perceived fairness. In the current study, the no-cannabis testing job advertisement was seen as valid (one of Gilliland’s procedural rules is selection information) and honest (one of Gilliland’s procedural rules is honesty) by the cannabis users; however, moderate and severe testing was not seen in the same light, which might explain why we see decreased perceived fairness for cannabis testing. Those two procedural rules violate reasonableness leading to decreased perception of organizational fairness among cannabis users for cannabis testing.

The current study also supported past research by confirming that the individuals who ingest cannabis demonstrated increased levels of organizational attractiveness and intention to apply to organizations that had none compared to severe cannabis testing policies. If the organization is testing for cannabis use pre-employment or randomly, in addition to post-accident/suspicious behavior (i.e., severe policy), cannabis users’ level of organization attractiveness and intention to apply is much lower. This could be due to the fact that cannabis has been legalized in Canada and 11 states in the US  (Leafly, 2020). Individuals might feel that severe testing is an invasion of their privacy given that they are not doing anything illegal. Furthermore, job applicants perceived drug-testing as harassment toward individuals and claimed it represents a repressive work environment. Given that, this feeling could prevent an applicant from applying or considering the available job.

Implications: This study has important implications for employers and organizations in general. Even though it is important to have cannabis testing policies in place, it is equally important to consider the impact of cannabis testing on the potential talent pool. Such perceptions of drug testing may lead talented applicants to self-select out of the job pool. This would lead to a decreased number of applicants for a job available to the employer. Therefore, knowing the attitudes and intentions of individuals who ingest cannabis toward moderate and severe testing policies will provide employers with solid research-based evidence from which to design programs and policies surrounding cannabis testing.

Heightened EPL Exposure Hits Cannabis Businesses When Laying Off Employees

By Patrick Ryder
No Comments

Even though it’s valued at more than $15 billion, the burgeoning global cannabis industry has experienced recent layoffs. By the end of 2019, more than 600 cannabis employees got pink slips. Industry experts expect more of the same in 2020 as investigations, lawsuits and slumping valuations plague the industry.

Unfortunately for employers, layoffs are where the issues begin – not end. Especially for those without established policies and procedures. Without rules and regulations governing employment practices, business owners and operators are at considerable risk.

The 11 states where cannabis is legal for recreational use and the 33 where it’s medically legal tend to have more onerous employment practices liability (EPL) laws, where liability is often assumed by the employer for mistakes like poorly handled layoffs. This is further compounded by the fact that HR departments at fledgling cannabis companies tend to be small or non-existent and often ill prepared to deal with the legalities that come with termination.

Ensuring the right practices are in place prior to any layoffs is critical. Is your company facing employee terminations? Are you knowledgeable of how to handle it? Consider the following best practices:

  1. Document problematic employees. Create a folder for each employee and document the details when problematic situations escalate to the point they need to be addressed. Should employees of a protected class engage in an EEOC, class action or personal lawsuit after they’re terminated, you’ll need this documentation to support your actions.
  2. Create a formal termination procedure. Make sure the procedure includes well-thought-out details of your review process, including how employee performance is evaluated and what happens when those standards aren’t met. Spell out which behaviors are grounds for dismissal. When talking to the employee about a termination, have another employee or manager in the room to avoid claims of mishandling later on, typically their direct manager, someone from HR or your in-house attorney. Determine how the distribution of final compensation such as medical insurance or PTO will be handled so you’re prepared to answer those questions. These procedures should be spelled out in an employee handbook given to all at onboarding so there are no surprises.
  3. Retain a qualified EPL attorney. Create a relationship with a qualified EPL attorney (not your cousin who does divorce law) to help you set policies and procedures initially and to consult with when a unique or particularly difficult situation arises.
  4. Get the right EPL coverage. An EPL policy will defend a business from claims of breach of employment contraction, negligent evaluation, failure to employ or promote, wrongful termination, deprivation of career opportunity and mismanagement of employee benefits plans. Your EPL coverage will be determined by your location, clientele, employee profile and what you see as your biggest risks. When discussing the policy with your broker, weigh the following considerations to EPL coverage:
    • Reimbursement coverage versus pay on behalf. Should the policy pay your defense costs directly, or will you lay out the money and they’ll reimburse?
    • The definition of a claim and wrongful act will be different for each EPL policy.
    • EPL policy’s limit structure. Do you want defense limits to be outside or inside the coverage?

Having to lay off employees is never an easy choice for an employer. Make sure you and your business do everything right before and during the process so that the aftermath isn’t even more difficult, filled with lawsuits and liability claims.

Best Practices for Workforce Reduction

By Conor Dale
No Comments

Due to anticipated contractions in the industry and concerns over a potential nationwide recession, cannabis industry employers may be planning on implementing large scale reduction in force (RIF) layoffs or employee furloughs to reduce payroll. While RIFs can provide business-saving cost reductions, they can subject an employer to substantial potential legal liability, including but not limited to class action lawsuits and enforcement actions from state and federal agencies. Understanding and addressing potential legal pitfalls before implementing an RIF can help in materially limiting an employer’s potential legal exposure.

Employers should first consider potential cost saving alternatives to implementing mass employee layoffs. Such steps can include reducing the salaries and/or work hours for current employees, temporarily freezing company operations for limited periods, or placing non-critical positions in a limited paid leave of absence at reduced wages. While each of these steps bear their own risks, they may assist in avoiding mass employee layoffs.

Next, federal law and the laws of certain states require employers to provide written notice to employees and local governments at least 60 days before implementing mass layoffs. For example, under the federal Work Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, an employer must generally provide a written notice to employees regarding an impending reduction in force when it: (1) permanently or temporarily shuts down a worksite which results in an employment loss of 50 or more employees; (2) lays off between 50 to 499 workers at a single worksite when such layoffs constitute at least 33% of the employer’s workforce; (3) lays off at least 500 employees within a 30 day period; (4) implements a wide scale temporary layoff of more than 6 months; or (5) reduces the work hours of 50 or more employees by at least 50% during each month of any six month period. Please note that the WARN Act aggregates layoffs over 90 days; thus, an employer conducting a series of smaller layoffs may still need to provide employees with a WARN notice. An employer who fails to provide a required notice could owe each impacted employee up to 60 days’ back pay, which includes but is not limited to the cost of potential employment benefits.

An employer should also take steps to limit potential discrimination claims based on an RIF. It is illegal for an employer to select an employee for layoff because of their protected characteristics, including but not limited to race, religion, gender or age. The primary defense to such a discrimination lawsuit is to prove the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the layoff decision. As a result, employers are strongly encouraged to create a formal RIF plan which documents the legitimate reasons for layoff decisions. The RIF plan should expressly articulate the cost-saving grounds for the RIF and the goals to be achieved by its implementation; these grounds and goals should be the sole reason for any subsequent layoff decision.

Employers are strongly encouraged to consult with legal counsel before implementing an RIFFor example, an employer should identify all necessary positions and employee skills needed for a company’s current and future business operations in order to identify non-essential positions that may be subject to position eliminations or layoffs. Similarly, employers should create standards to select employees for a RIF when multiple employees hold the same or similar jobs. These standards commonly include considering employees’ education, skills, unique knowledge, previous job performance and seniority. Most importantly, an employer should make actual layoff decisions that are consistent with its articulated RIF plans; under both state and federal law, a termination decision that is inconsistent with or contradictory to the articulated reasons for a layoff decision may provide an employee with considerable evidence that that his or her termination was at least partly motivated by their protected characteristics.

Even when making and implementing a reduction in force plan based solely on legitimate business reasons, employers must be aware of the adverse impact those decisions have on certain groups of employees. It is illegal for an employer to implement policies and practices that are facially neutral but have an unintentional discriminatory effect on protected groups of employees if those policies and practices are not job related or required by business necessity. Before implementing an RIF, employers are strongly encouraged to perform a statistical analysis of the protected characteristics of individuals selected for layoffs to determine whether they are being selected for layoffs at a significantly higher rate than other employees. If an employer does discover that certain groups are being selected for layoffs at a disproportionate rate, an employer should review its layoff decisions to confirm that these decisions are in fact required by business necessity.

Finally, employers will commonly provide severance packages to laid off employees to assist in their transition to other employment. A key factor in these packages is an employee providing an employer with a full release of potential legal claims in exchange for a severance payment. Employers are strongly encouraged to ensure that they obtain full and complete legal releases in any severance agreements they provide. For example, under California law, an employee can only provide a full and complete release of legal claims when a separation agreement specifically cites and waives a specific provision of California’s civil code. Additionally, an employer cannot obtain a legal release of federal age discrimination claims when it offers a separation package to multiple employees over 40 during an RIF program unless it provides specific information regarding the job positions and ages of employees who were and were not selected for layoffs.

While a reduction in force layoff program may help ensure a business’ survival, employers are strongly encouraged to consult with legal counsel before implementing an RIF to detect and avoid potential future legal claims.