Shows & Blogs
Insiders
Featured Pages
Related Links


Safety vs. Privacy
Posted 10/25/2012 1:47:00 AM

It sure rang a bell when I saw the issue of Suncor’s employee drug testing was going to arbitration.  I have for a couple of years, been getting complaints from workers who come back to the jobsite after a week-end and find a sample cup waiting for them.  Others tell me there are sniffer dogs on site.  Others tell me it’s standard procedure to be tested to get access to a jobsite when you first get hired.  The companies say it’s all about safety and liability.  The unions say it’s about personal privacy.  They say worker education is better than testing.  Various websites tell me the test can detect marijuana use up to 20 hours before.  I understand the bother of being asked for a urine sample, but don’t workers want to know that the person who built that scaffolding was thinking clearly.  How about the driver of that huge piece of heavy machinery heading your way?  A similar jobsite drug-testing case in New Brunswick is heading for Supreme Court.  As they sort out the issues of safety versus privacy, I have Tweets and emails from workers saying bring the test on, we want to be safe and we have nothing to hide.  So, how did this get into court?  Let me know what you think.

Note: If you wish to leave a comment, please keep it no longer than my editorial, unless you wish us to edit it. Your comment will not appear on the blog until it has been cleared by Bob.

 You have until 1 o’clock tomorrow morning to collect 630 CHED Insider Trading points by following the URL below & entering the code word: 067

 Click here to enter the code!
Posted By: Bob Layton  

Leave a comment:

showing all comments · Subscribe to comments
Comment Like
  • 19
  1. Glen S.R. Woytuck posted on 10/25/2012 04:21 AM
    I don't really have a problem with drug testing that shows if you are currently under the influence of drugs or alcohol at work, that just makes sense. Random testing is a little flaky,however. I would suggest testing if someone is exhibiting suspicious behaviour that may suggest influence.
    What I do have a problem with, is testing that shows you used something a week ago, and you lose your job for it. The only way drug testing can be relevant, is if there a test (like there is for alcohol) with scientifically obtained levels that could cause impairment. Traces of THC from a joint you had Friday night, should not result in being fired Monday morning.
    For clarification purposes, I have done drugs in the past, but not for many years. I still believe in legalization and control vs. flat out prohibition and ZERO control. The way alcohol is currently dealt with is a VAST improvement over prohibition, and should be used as a model for dealing with other substances.
  2. Lynn posted on 10/25/2012 06:30 AM
    Drugs and alcohol impair judgement, including the ability to judge one's own impairment. How many thousands of people drive impaired because, from their viewpoint, "they are fine, they only had a few and they are not drunk"
    Drug and alcohol testing is essential for the safety of all.
  3. Barry posted on 10/25/2012 07:13 AM
    Hope that the worker education program works more efficiently than the speeding program that is in the province.
  4. Robert posted on 10/25/2012 07:50 AM
    That's the funny thing. Workers know full damn well that there would be drug testing when going in, they accepted it, now they complain about it.

    Also testing is like a cop pulling you over because you are weaving. If you stagger onto the job site, that's an indication you are impaired thereby giving the company just cause to test you.

    And when it comes to drug sniffing dogs on the site, remember drugs and people who use drugs give off a certain smell. Once the molecules leave your body, they are no longer your personal property and they always waver the right to be silent, and they can never bear false witness.

    If you search a car without a warrant because you only have a gut feeling one employee is drinking heavily, then yeah the company is in trouble for invading personal space. But if a tonne of beer cans fall out when he gets out and the company sees it, hey those beer cans are no longer protected in that worker's personal space.
  5. Tony Meeres posted on 10/25/2012 07:52 AM
    As they say, If you have nothing to hide, what's the problem.
  6. TracyO posted on 10/25/2012 08:09 AM
    I love how the unions pretend they are the Ghost of Christmas Present sheltering their drug-using workers in their robes like Ignorance and Want from the Scrooge-like evil corporations asking for a urine test. Having seen the lengths these poor working waifs go to "beat" the test so they can continue to use right up until they walk on site, my sympathy is in as short supply as their professionalism.
  7. Rick posted on 10/25/2012 09:44 AM
    Hi Bob
    Since when does privacy override someones safety. Does a fireman knock at the door before entering a burning building to save someone? Does a doctor ask a victims permission to perform life saving surgery . We all know that Ft. Mc.Murray has a large drug trade. The only people against actions such as drug testing are the ones who use drugs! The same as a drunk driver wont blow into a breathalizer. Its pretty obvious that the union is tryingto protect the consequences of a drug test. Believe me you would be surprized at who would fail that test!
  8. Terri posted on 10/25/2012 11:00 AM
    My husband is a worker up in Ft. Mac who also be the father of 2 children. He is grateful for the testing and sniffer dogs. He doesn't want to be working next to a high crane operator or welder! I'd be interested to know what Union this is that is taking this to court. I am currently working on obtaining my BA in Labour Relations and this news is horrific! There is no way that the Union my husband is with would be doing something this ridiculous. I'd like to know what job is accepting of having am employee present under the influence! How ridiculous of a case! Grow up!
    1. Shawn t posted on 10/26/2012 01:18 AM
      @Terri I had a faults positive on a piss test once. The people at the testing company told me they only garanty 97 percent accuracy with there results. The company i took the piss test for was fully aware of these numbers but had a company policy that all tesr results were concidered corect. 97,that means out of every 33 people tested no more than one test goes wrong. So a maximum of 10 people out of 330 tested may have done nothing wrong but still go on there computer as being a drug addict and not to be hired.. How many other companies are aloud to see these files now how safe do you feel?
  9. Lorne Corbett posted on 10/25/2012 11:06 AM
    Hi Bob...drug testing employees for safety concerns is a good idea. If all employees were required to provide a sample I don't think we would have much of a workforce left. For those who slam the union, how about we also test the management personnel. Methinks the urine cup would runnuth over.
  10. David W. Lincoln posted on 10/25/2012 12:05 PM
    "how did this get into court?" - short answer, because there is more than one person who concludes they can do the job regardless of what shape they are in.
  11. John In Edmonton posted on 10/25/2012 05:19 PM
    Bob,
    Can you imagine the uproar if something terrible happens, with death or very serious injury occurs. AND it's discovered that random drug testing could have prevented the event? Companies can't win for losing.
  12. Jason posted on 10/25/2012 05:38 PM
    I was drug tested to work at certain jobs and the only thing that upset me was that it was only contractors that got tested, not the clients staff.
    If you are going to Drug Test then it should be everyone, not just the help and that is what gets so many mad.
  13. Steve posted on 10/25/2012 06:57 PM
    This matter is before the courts and much more than a safety vs privacy issue. These companies tell the workers that they make the rules on their site because it's "their sandbox". They do not, however, believe that they have to obey our national and provincial laws. They believe they are above that. This country is "our sandbox". There is no reason that the Canadian Constitution which protects us from unreasonable search and seizure by police should not be applied to these companies and their "loss prevention" personnel. They pre access drug test you. They often search you on the way onto site. They often have drug sniffing dogs that sniff you before you go on site. They search you before you can access camps (which aren't exactly hotels, btw). Now, after all this, they want random urine tests while you are on site. Not only has this been shown to be ineffective, but after going through the criminal treatment on the way in, you're already putting yourself and others at risk due to the agitation caused "in the name of safety". All this for a paycheck that doesn't exactly put us in the 1% club.
    1. S. Tocher posted on 10/25/2012 10:08 PM
      @Steve Anyone who spent an hour researching this drug testing would be dicusted. Lets start here: you dont want bob running the crane because he didn't pass the drug test. Did you know bob didn't pass because he has a shy bladder and was not able to pee in the cup in the 45 min time limit he was given. No drugs NO JOB. Companies love drug testing. Bill did have 1 year of work to go before colecting his company pention but has now lost his pention and job because he failed his drug test. The testing company told him they guaranty 97 percent accuracy , but like a lot of companies bills company has a policy that the drug test is to be considered accurate. His company is all about "safety" and there "zero tolerance policy " with drugs has saved them a fortune in pention money. The list of non drug substances that can give a false positive in one of these tests is gigantic But your considered guilty till proven inocent. A construction worker could piss. More than 100 times in his /her life time. It took a false positive to open my eyes. Zero respect for fairness or for anyones reputation. Its a scam, safety is the spin.
  14. DaveN-1490 posted on 10/25/2012 07:07 PM
    Hi Bob....I have been in the Automotive/Autobody industry for the past 30 years.....I have no problem with testing for drugs or alcohol....After all, we all need to be safe, and feel we can trust our co-workers with our lives....As this is our life....Have seen stupid mistakes because of someone being impaired, in one way or another, but it is just pure luck that no one was hurt seriously....So far...Unfortunatly, it is just a matter of time before luck runs out....I can not understand how these people take it so lightly.....
  15. Ben posted on 10/25/2012 07:58 PM
    I've been working in the oil patch since I was 18 years old and I am now 31. I would rather work beside a guy who smoked a joint the night before rather than somebody that was up all night doing blow. Weed takes 28 days to get out of your system and cocaine takes 72 hours. That's what makes it the drug of choice in the oilpatch. Now if these oil companies insist on doing random drug testing, I feel they should go to hair follicle testing as this can detect traces of narcotics in your system from 6 months prior.
  16. Al McRae posted on 10/26/2012 12:02 PM
    I work in the construction industry. The "fail" level for Marijuana is set at 50 nanograms per 100ml of blood throughout the entire oil and gas construction industry. This was adopted from the US D.O.T. standard for testing truck drivers. When you smoke marijuana, some of the THC is stored in the fat cells in your body and metabolized over time. Our drug testing agency says that an occasional user will fail the test up to 1 week after smoking a joint. Chronic MJ smokers have more THC built up in their systems and may fail several weeks after smoking their last joint. Like Glen says in his e-mail below, there is no relationship to impairment. Decision makers who set the pass/fail criteria know this and don't care ... they don't want to employ people who take illegal drugs ... period. I agree with Glen, it would be nice if they could set a THC pass/fail criteria that relates to impairment. Don't hold your breath ...
  17. Peter posted on 10/26/2012 06:41 PM
    It has been my experience that the people that so strongly object work place drug testing are the ones that have something to hide, they are the users. I think there should be more testing, and not only at the field level also in the corperate Offices,
showing all comments

Recent Blog Entries

BLOG ARCHIVE
<<May 2013>>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
2829301234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930311
2345678