Drugs and the workplace, is it a concern?

Social, economic and environmental issues in our ever-changing world.
Post Reply
User avatar
Smurf
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 10410
Joined: Aug 12th, 2006, 8:55 am

Drugs and the workplace, is it a concern?

Post by Smurf »

A few days ago Keith1612 suggested on the “pot possession charges 88% increase in BC” thread that if I had any proof and wanted to discuss it I should start a thread instead of going off topic. I thought about it long and hard and although it is against my better judgement to start another drug thread this article convinced me. I have provided both a link to the article in the Vancouver Sun and a copy of it in case the link goes bad.

http://www.vancouversun.com/jobs/Drug+t ... story.html


Drug tests under microscope
Two Canadian cases try to balance job safety and individual rights
BY AMANDA STEPHENSON, POSTMEDIA NEWS NOVEMBER 24,2012

Next Friday, a three-judge panel from the Alberta Court of Appeal Will hear from Suncor Energy Inc. as the oilsands giant argues against an injunction blocking its proposed random employee drug testing program.
And in December, the Supreme Court of Canada will hear the case of Irving Pulp and Paper, a New Brunswick company whose plan to have its employees take mandatory breathalyser tests has been fought tooth and nail by the same union that represents the Suncor workers.
Both of these cases will be watched closely by employers, safety companies, and privacy experts, as the courts try to find a balance between safety on the job and an individual's right to privacy. Unlike the United States, where workplace drug tests are relatively common, Canada has had little experience with randomly administered on-the-job tests. But that could be about to change.
"Employers have to take action. They're responsible for maintaining a safe work environment," says Pat Atkins, administrator of Alberta's Drug and Alcohol Risk Reduction Pilot Project (DARRPP). "There are problems in the oilsands related to alcohol and drugs ... and we think It would be irresponsible for organizations not to take action, given the concerns they're seeing.
Those concerns range from drug paraphernalia being found on work sites to workplace accidents caused by drunk or stoned employees. Suncor has stated three of the seven deaths that have occurred at its Fort McMurray oilsands operation since 2000 involved workers under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
Most oilsands companies already have some form of drug testing policy in place - in most cases, testing occurs after an accident takes place, or if an employee exhibits behaviour that provides"Just cause." In some cases, employees must pass a drug test before being hired for a certain position or before being contracted to work on a certain job site.
DARRPP is different. The two-year pilot project, led by a working group of oilsands industry employers and labour providers, aims to introduce completely random drug testing in "safety sensitive" positions at participating workplaces. Organizers of the project point to U.S. data that indicates random testing is more likely to catch workplace drug and alcohol problems than incident-driven testing.
One of the first companies to get on board with DARRPP was Suncor, which announced its plans in June to implement a mandatory random drug testing for safety sensitive employees at its oilsands facilities. However, before Suncor could implement its proposal, a grievance was filed by the Communications, Energy, and Paper-workers Union. The union, which represents 3,400 workers at the Suncor Site, argued random drug testing violates its members' right to privacy. In October, a Court of Queen's Bench Judge issued an injunction, ruling that Suncor cannot move ahead with its program until the union's grievance can be reviewed by a labour arbitration board. Suncor appealed, and that appeal is set to be heard on November 28.
The same union is also fighting Irving Pulp and Paper, the New Brunswick company that introduced a workplace safety policy in 2006 that included random alcohol testing for employees. That case will be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in December. But while Atkins acknowledged there are many who will be watching both of these judicial rulings with interest, she said DARRPP is confident it is well within its legal rights.
"We believe we have designed the project in such a way to respect privacy and human rights," Atkins said. -
Dr. Chad Els, an addictions psychiatrist with the University of Alberta, says substance abuse in the workplace is a serious issue. Using U.S. statistics as a base - because there are no reliable Canadian statistics - he estimates that 8.3 per cent of full-time workers are users of illicit drugs.
"We likely are only seeing the tip of the Iceberg in terms of the visible cases of substance use and abuse," Els says. "It's well accepted that we underestimate the prevalence and the actual impact."
EIs also believes that the nature of the oilsands industry means workers there are more likely to use drugs.
"It's typically a young, male population, there's a lot of excess time when they don't work, there's a lot of disposable income and cash in the pocket. They're typically not with their families, they're isolated. So there's a number of factors that make people more prone to use," he says.
However, Els says random drug testing is the wrong approach. He says a typical urine test only detects the presence of a substance in a person's system - it can't detect whether the person is impaired. That means it cannot differentiate between a person who smoked a joint 20 minutes ago and is stoned on the job versus a person who smoked a joint at a weekend party three days ago.
"The vast majority of people who use cannabis instead of having a beer on Friday evening may well test positive on Monday morning, and without it remotely having any impact on workplace impairment or occupational risk," Els says.
"What they will detect is a whole lot of normal, recreational users with no risk to the workplace.



According to this article there is lots of proof that drugs are a serious problem at the oilsands projects. I believe this is only coming to light as there are more records of problems. As I have said elsewhere I was aware of problems in the 80's but there were really no records being kept. Now that we have started and even more so in the US the truth is coming out. I have not found records differentiating between drugs but I am sure they are all involved to some extent. I know they were in my experience. If the medical information presented in the “pot possession charges 88% increase in BC” is true there are definitely people at work, driving, whatever, to some extent impaired by even simple pot use.

I am in favour of drug testing of some sort. To me even 3 deaths in 12 years at one location is too many.
To me that indicates there are probably a large number of accidents actually caused by drug use. It also indicates that the same thing is happening in the forest industry, truck driving, manufacturing and everywhere. I am absolutely positive the problems are not limited to the oilsands although they are possibly worse there due to high incomes and remote locations. However I do believe Dr. Els brings up a very good point that it is difficult to do proper tests to get the desired results. This is another reason I have been against legalization, the difficulty of easily accessable, easy to use, reliable tests.

This is a huge growing problem with the increase in drug use that we are seeing. I believe even the the pro drug side on the thread “pot possession charges 88% increase in BC” have eluded to drug use increasing if they are legalized. I have always felt this way and it is definitely one of the reasons I question legalization.
Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you'll understand what little chance you have of changing others.

The happiest of people don't necessarily have the best of everything, they just make the most of everything that comes their way.
keith1612
Generalissimo Postalot
Posts: 748
Joined: Sep 1st, 2012, 5:51 pm

Re: DRUGS AND THE WORKPLACE, ARE THEY A CONCERN

Post by keith1612 »

i dont feel its a big issue after being in the trades for 30 years.
i also have to take a drug test next week and have no problems.
i think drug and alcohol testing should start at the top though.
all government, then police,judges etc then keep working down.
teachers,doctors, test everyone.
im fine with that i dont do drugs.
but the laws should be modified to force testing to prove you were drunk or high at work.
who cares if you smoked pot 3 weeks ago on a camping trip.
i think any govt employee or MLA etc caught drinking on the job should be instantly fired with no future pay.
lets level the playing field and make laws that apply to all not just a select few.
User avatar
fluffy
Admiral HMS Castanet
Posts: 28005
Joined: Jun 1st, 2006, 5:42 pm

Re: DRUGS AND THE WORKPLACE, ARE THEY A CONCERN

Post by fluffy »

I don't have any problem with random testing to ensure a person is not under the influence of any mind-altering substance while on the job, and would have to wonder about anyone openly opposing the principle of such testing, but as mentioned in the article above there are problems with the tests themselves in that the level of impairment is not accurately indicated by the standard urine tests. The problem is mainly with marijuana use, where a urine test can yield a positive result as much as six to eight weeks after use.
“We’ll go down in history as the first society that wouldn't save itself because it wasn't cost effective.” – Kurt Vonnegut
User avatar
fluffy
Admiral HMS Castanet
Posts: 28005
Joined: Jun 1st, 2006, 5:42 pm

Re: DRUGS AND THE WORKPLACE, ARE THEY A CONCERN

Post by fluffy »

To elaborate just a bit on testing in general, there is a real conflict in using rights to privacy as a counterpoint to workplace safety. What a person does on his own time is his own business, but when his behavior affects his own safety or that of those around him then his own rights must take second place. I think current testing procedures involve urine tests at hiring, which would effectively screen out chronic users, and for anyone involved in on-the-job "incidents" which only makes sense.

But again marijuana is the sore thumb here as detectable traces of THC remain in the blood for weeks after use, long after any effect on performance has vanished. A person's rights to engage in pot use on his own time is a whole different ball of wax that has already been beaten to death in a dozen other threads, the issue here is job site safety and therefore focuses on a person's obligation to be at the top of his game while on the job. That would include substance use and abuse on the job or close enough to working hours so as to result in diminished capacity while on the job.

Personally I see the concept of random testing as a good thing, given the problem with marijuana testing in particular can be addressed. The thought that one could lose a job worth what they're paying in the oil-patch these days should be a significant deterrent to the sort of use that puts people at risk. For the most part it's a small percentage of workers who actually do present a risk to others, to offer these people protection under privacy legislation takes liberalism too far in my opinion.
“We’ll go down in history as the first society that wouldn't save itself because it wasn't cost effective.” – Kurt Vonnegut
User avatar
Fixer 166
Guru
Posts: 5075
Joined: Jan 4th, 2008, 11:11 am

Re: DRUGS AND THE WORKPLACE, ARE THEY A CONCERN

Post by Fixer 166 »

Bingo Fluffy.
Being somewhat close to this issue here's what I see. The drug testing process is flawed. What it's doing is pushing people away from "softer" drugs and into the hard stuff. We get 7 days off here so it's not a problem for someone to go smash rails for a few days, get right wacked and then come back to work and pee clean. If you've ever seen one of these guys they aren't right, but they can pass a test. On the other hand, mellow Joe burns one out camping after the kids are in bed and three weeks later he fails and gets fired. Understanding that drugs are not going away, who do you want working for you? Skitzy Cokey or Mellow Joe.
Every Relationship Is Give & Give
theyeti
Übergod
Posts: 1360
Joined: May 10th, 2009, 9:01 am

Re: DRUGS AND THE WORKPLACE, ARE THEY A CONCERN

Post by theyeti »

thats how it was when i was in the patch .
id have to move on now and again because i smoked weed . guys who smoked crack rocks at night they all got to stay
User avatar
Bsuds
The Wagon Master
Posts: 54926
Joined: Apr 21st, 2005, 10:46 am

Re: DRUGS AND THE WORKPLACE, ARE THEY A CONCERN

Post by Bsuds »

I know one person who got kicked off a job site because he had a pair of nail scissors in his belongings. They consider that drug paraphernalia.
So I saw a bumper sticker today that said, I'm a Veterinarian so I drive like an animal.
I suddenly realised how many Proctologists are on the road!
User avatar
steven lloyd
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 20912
Joined: Dec 1st, 2004, 7:38 pm

Re: DRUGS AND THE WORKPLACE, ARE THEY A CONCERN

Post by steven lloyd »

Fixer 166 wrote: Understanding that drugs are not going away, who do you want working for you? Skitzy Cokey or Mellow Joe.

The system is far from perfect and I am a non-user who speaks out against our archaic drug laws simply for the fact they accomplish nothing positive, waste billions in tax dollars every year (that could be used in health, education and criminal justice) and create more harm than drug use itself (drug gangs, gang violence, etc.). However, knowing marijuana stays in the system for as long as it does and knowing there will be random drug testing it seems Mellow Joe has a choice to make.
theyeti
Übergod
Posts: 1360
Joined: May 10th, 2009, 9:01 am

Re: Drugs and the workplace, is it a concern?

Post by theyeti »

ya choose to do something better than work in the damn patch! was not that much fun anyhow ! and ya u make a bit of money but hotels and eating 3 meals a day on the road and paying for gas to drive 2 hrs each way to work it all adds up . plus the 10 or more hrs to get to wherever a person might be working out of .
User avatar
fluffy
Admiral HMS Castanet
Posts: 28005
Joined: Jun 1st, 2006, 5:42 pm

Re: DRUGS AND THE WORKPLACE, ARE THEY A CONCERN

Post by fluffy »

steven lloyd wrote:...it seems Mellow Joe has a choice to make.


Is it a hard one? If it's habitual then perhaps the decision to quit has been lurking in the wings for too long, if it's just a recreational thing then how much is it worth to you to keep toking? From what I'm hearing the bottom of the pecking order in camps in the Ft. McMurray area is $100K/yr., while someone with a welding or pipe-fitting ticket can make at least twice that. Is it too high a price to tuck your baggie away for a while?

Until some progress is made on the legalization/decriminalization front there's not much of a civil rights argument in favour of making an exception for pot users. The obvious route would be to find a manner of testing that more accurately indicates level of impairment rather than residual traces.
“We’ll go down in history as the first society that wouldn't save itself because it wasn't cost effective.” – Kurt Vonnegut
SurplusElect
Übergod
Posts: 1618
Joined: May 29th, 2012, 1:45 pm

Re: Drugs and the workplace, is it a concern?

Post by SurplusElect »

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/ ... ction.html

Suncor Energy has lost an appeal of a temporary injunction that prohibits the start of random drug and alcohol testing on its employees. The ruling means that no testing can take place before the matter is considered by a labour arbitration board. The hearing is scheduled to start on Dec. 10.


My cousin developed quite the cocaine problem up north. Used to smoke the occasional joint, poor guy. What has been said already about the push to hard drugs is true. The same has been found in high schools in the US that have random drug testing. Hard drugs don't last in the system, marijuana does.

Of course, the ruling blows drugs testing out of the water. The double standards are ridiculous in the oil patch as there are no "tests" for lack of sleep, massive hangovers or if your co-worker has been on a 3 day coke-binge.

...but that joint you smoked on Saturday night...

My cousin says its not like everyone up there (including the bosses) isn't aware that many people do coke and harder stuff and beat drug tests - the big wigs have a unsaid policy that they don't want "free thinkers" up there having introspective moments so they keep the "marijuana" drug testing in place. Keeps whistle blowing down. You are being paid to ignore the destruction and to be isolated.

If you think its a crazy suggestion - look at why Richard Nixon started the war on drugs (to counter that pesky "counter culture" movement) and the US studies in Vietnam about soldiers questioning motives and marijuana.
keith1612
Generalissimo Postalot
Posts: 748
Joined: Sep 1st, 2012, 5:51 pm

Re: Drugs and the workplace, is it a concern?

Post by keith1612 »

the stupid part is doctors prescribe oxy's and percocete like its candy and the people popping those are immune from firing.
so you have a guy getting fired for smoking a joint on his off time and stoned pill poppers legally running heavy equipment.
seems like we are building a system that is fine with stoners as long as doctors/pharmacies/and government are making a profit.
theyeti
Übergod
Posts: 1360
Joined: May 10th, 2009, 9:01 am

Re: Drugs and the workplace, is it a concern?

Post by theyeti »

just realizing this now ??
keith1612
Generalissimo Postalot
Posts: 748
Joined: Sep 1st, 2012, 5:51 pm

Re: Drugs and the workplace, is it a concern?

Post by keith1612 »

theyeti wrote:just realizing this now ??


not really, its amazing how many people i know personally who are ruining their lives on pills while the pot smokers are bopping around happily and heathy and eating and sleeping well.
pretty easy to see whats the danger in Canada.
theyeti
Übergod
Posts: 1360
Joined: May 10th, 2009, 9:01 am

Re: Drugs and the workplace, is it a concern?

Post by theyeti »

we gotta pay for the war somehow
Post Reply

Return to “Social Concerns”