The Attorney General first concluded that the Smoking Ban does not apply to marihuana. The Smoking Ban does not apply because the Smoking Ban applies only to tobacco products and marihuana is not a tobacco product. After dismissing the notion that the Smoking Ban applies to marihuana, the Attorney General concluded that the MMMA does ban the smoking of marihuana in the public areas of food service establishments, hotels, and apartments. Next, the Attorney General concluded that the MMMA does not prevent an owner of a food service establishment, hotel, or apartment complex from prohibiting either the smoking of or growing of marihuana within on the property.

Although the Attorney General has released this opinion, it is important to note that his opinions are neither legally binding nor are they precedent. As a result, the Michigan courts may come to other conclusions. That said, the Attorney General’s position is well stated and supported by the case law and statutes.

As a business owner, depending on your goals and concerns, it is important to realize that prohibiting just the smoking and growing of marihuana does not guarantee that marihuana will not be consumed on your property. It is important to understand that marihuana may be consumed in other manners. For example, marihuana may be consumed in food and through beverages as well as ingested via vaporizer. Thus, it is important to develop policies that regulate marihuana used via these other methods.

In order for an oral complaint to be effective under the FLSA, the complaint must be “sufficiently clear and detailed for a reasonable employer to understand it, in light of both content and context, as an assertion of rights protected by the statute and a call for protection.” While the Court declined to elaborate on the standard further, the impact on employers is that they need to be mindful and responsive to their employee’s complaints. Careful consideration of these complaints is essential.

This decision may also affect the interpretation of other statutes such as the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, and the Clean Air Act, which all include similar language in their anti-retaliation provisions.

For more on this decision please check out this article by the New York Times.

This article was written by Mark S. Demorest, President & Managing Member of Demorest Law Firm.

They rarely mix and are frequently toxic to the environment.

Although it should be noted that there are of course occasions of success, the most likely outcome is entrenched employees that are nearly impossible to remove, strained relations and uncomfortable holiday dinners. In fact, you could probably make an argument that it is easier to remove a unionized government employee than a family member who is your employee.

I recently read an interesting article that deals with this topic in the New York Times on February 11, 2010, entitled “Fire Your Relatives. Scare Your Employees. And Stop Whining” by Kermit Pattison. (Click here to read).

While some of his suggestions may be too aggressive for your average small business owner, they get right down to my point.

As a business owner you are either in it to win it or you are not.

Which are you?

This article was written by Jay Kossen, CPA at Numerico, PC. Click here to view Numerico’s website.

What I like about Donna’s writing style in this article is that it focuses on practical “Tune-up” tools as she calls them rather than get lost in the esoteric.

Click here to download a PDF of Donna’s Article

To get more info on Donna’s Company Click here

This article was written by Gary Field, CPA at Numerico, PC. Click here to view Numerico’s website.