Drugs and the workplace, is it a concern?

[keith1612]

as i told smurf there is no evidence of a marijuana workplace abuse problem and i have in all my working life never see a real issue.
sure the odd person comes to work stoned same as drinking but i believe its far from the norm.

cut and paste:

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.

so we take the opinion of some quack doctor who admits himself he has zero Canadian statistics and then we are supposed to take his estimate?
before people try and make a mountain out of a mole hill why dont they get real facts.
its not hard to get if its true, every single canadian killed on a jobsite is tested for drugs and alcohol.
should be easy to verify if there was a problem wouldnt it?
every driver killed in canadian roads is also tested.
lets see the big bad marijuana evidence.
a over paid psychiatrist sitting in his office making guesses is far from proof, but nice try smurf.

[hobbyguy]

My experience in running shops (both union and non-union) was that education, policy, and good management and supervisory practices are all that is required. FYI the RCMP offer training in the recognition of substance abuse problems, which is very useful for supevisors.

The number one substance abuse issue was alchohol - some employees thought it was ok to go to the pub before their shift, and then show up to operate heavy equipment.

The number two issue was meth. Had an instance where a good employee got hooked and threw his job and life away, despite the company paying for two rounds of rehab. Sad, and unfortunately not a singular incident.

MJ was an issue, but was easy to deal with through adminstrative procedures and supervisor awareness. In practice it usually showed as a productivity issue that was easy to spot, and easy to correct.

No rose colored glasses though, the odd employee may have had a hip flask or a few tokes out back that we never caught on to.

Workplace drug testing doesn't deal with the alchohol abuse - which outnumbered the other issues about 5 to 1. I think it's a cop out for inadequate numbers and training of supervisors, or a calculation that it's cheaper than having proper numbers of supervisors and training them. It's an mba-ism.

[SurplusElect]

FYI the RCMP offer training in the recognition of substance abuse problems.

Addiction is a health issue, that's a big disconnect.

Is the RCMP also giving CRA accounting advice?

[I Think]

Once was hired to carvel plank a yacht, and was given a helper. Carvel planking requires being organized and planning a series of planks that are the full length of the yacht and are curved to allow for the thin parts at the ends and the fat part where the crew lives.
My helper, a quite good carpenter, would smoke a doobie at lunch and was useless in the afternoon, lost all ability to think through the planning part, and could only do what he was told - had a pretty complete memory loss. - guess he had some good stuff.
Having said that it is a travesty to jail people for pot.
And I agree with Hobby that meth is a very dangerous drug. After 24 hrs with no sleep, your brain cannot function properly, and if you combine it with alcohol you can very easily get into agitated and violent situations.

[zzontar]

And I agree with Hobby that meth is a very dangerous drug. After 24 hrs with no sleep, your brain cannot function properly, and if you combine it with alcohol you can very easily get into agitated and violent situations.

But you could still pass the pee test, along with those who get drunk after work, or take other hard drugs, or those mixing their hard meds, or even the person trying to quit smoking, but drug testing would declare all these people as being safer workers than the guy who has a few puffs of pot in the evening. There are so many ways to be impaired at work from drugs to lack of sleep, a test involving reflexes, vision, comprehension, etc. would separate those who would be a danger on the job from those who are not. Unfortunately, as with checkstops, the test is not for actual impairment, which should be the concern with both.

[Poindexter]

I may be wrong but from the people I know who've worked in Alberta, the real problem is Amphetamines. You can almost always tell if a person is drunk or high on pot. Meth on the other hand has no smell and other than the person being agressive and chatty there is little to give them away. Sleep deprevation caused by amphetamines are a huge risk in operation of heavy equipment or even driving on those long straight roads.

[theyeti]

love how the thread is dope at work and it gets turned into well in alberta i heard the boys like there dope lol

[Poindexter]

love how the thread is dope at work and it gets turned into well in alberta i heard the boys like there dope lol

??

Should I make my opinions based on things that I don't hear. Genius.... Never thought of that.

[WhatThe]

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.

What a joke, a bottle opener on your key chain is drug paraphanalia.

[Smurf]

Thanks for the participation. Sounds like there is a problem as I felt there was. The biggest problem being some method of testing that shows actual impairement. As I said earlier in another thread I ran into the same problem as Nibs more than once. I refused to work with the person(s) because they were unsafe around high voltage electricity and dangerous equipment. I believe the comment last time I brought it up was "bet you were popular". Yes I was because no one else wanted to work with them either. Management would have given anything to have had a reliable test for impairement. They could only send them home for the day due to what was visual.

Employers need the right to do random tests but they have to be reliable tests. We probably as some say have had (I know we did) some hard users that were difficult if not impossible to detect. I would say we also need tests that cover prescription and over the counter drugs, impairement tests. If you test impaired for any substance you should be sent home. I do not know what would be done with someone who takes regular prescribed medicine. I suppose they would have to be limited to jobs that have zero danger.

In my mind it becomes a real problem when employers can't check an employee to see if he is safe to be at work. As some have said maybe it is time for pot users to take a serious look at what they are doing, at least until there is a better method of testing.
That is also a problem that will not go away if pot is legalized. Just like alcohol which is legal, if you were caught with it in your system at work you would still be penalized. Whoever comes up with a reliable method of testing impairement that can easily be used at a workplace will definately be a millionaire.

[Smurf]

I don't know if you see it today, probably not, but years ago I remember guys coming in in the morening and going to the welding shop to get a few shots of oxygen to clear their heads after a night of drinking. Pretty scary on huge, dangerous construction sites. Thank God things have progressed past that stage.

[keith1612]

Thanks for the participation. Sounds like there is a problem as I felt there was. The biggest problem being some method of testing that shows actual impairement. As I said earlier in another thread I ran into the same problem as Nibs more than once. I refused to work with the person(s) because they were unsafe around high voltage electricity and dangerous equipment. I believe the comment last time I brought it up was "bet you were popular". Yes I was because no one else wanted to work with them either. Management would have given anything to have had a reliable test for impairement. They could only send them home for the day due to what was visual.

Employers need the right to do random tests but they have to be reliable tests. We probably as some say have had (I know we did) some hard users that were difficult if not impossible to detect. I would say we also need tests that cover prescription and over the counter drugs, impairement tests. If you test impaired for any substance you should be sent home. I do not know what would be done with someone who takes regular prescribed medicine. I suppose they would have to be limited to jobs that have zero danger.

In my mind it becomes a real problem when employers can't check an employee to see if he is safe to be at work. As some have said maybe it is time for pot users to take a serious look at what they are doing, at least until there is a better method of testing.
That is also a problem that will not go away if pot is legalized. Just like alcohol which is legal, if you were caught with it in your system at work you would still be penalized. Whoever comes up with a reliable method of testing impairement that can easily be used at a workplace will definately be a millionaire.

you twisted that around nicely.
i dont think i saw any posts saying there was a marijuana workplace issue.
most are saying the opposite, pot smokers get punished at work for failing drug tests when the smoked 20 days prior.
thats not a drug problem thats a drug test problem.
i still see zero factual evidence of daily marijuana abuse on jobsites.
nobody should be penalized at work under todays standards for failing a marijuana test, there is 100% no way to prove when or how its in your system.
thats like charging a guy for impaired driving today for having 6 beer at home 2 weeks ago.
the laws are allowing it solely on its a criminal act regardless of why ,when or how.
time to change the laws.
if they legalize marijuana as they should that would force drug testing methods to be throw out or corrected.
having false tests is not a good system.

[keith1612]

I don't know if you see it today, probably not, but years ago I remember guys coming in in the morening and going to the welding shop to get a few shots of oxygen to clear their heads after a night of drinking. Pretty scary on huge, dangerous construction sites. Thank God things have progressed past that stage.

that was just a bunch of hype, believe me i tried it working in the hospital, i went in hungover my share.
having a hangover is no different than working with a cold.
no its not really scarey, just to those who sit and complain and worry.
look at construction site accident ratio's and the amount of drinkers and you quickly learn there is no problem.
more guys are probably injured on jobsites watching other workers to be nosey and not what they are doing themselves.

[hobbyguy]

The RCMP training was not in how to deal with substance abuse issues, but how to recognize them, and differentiate the general type of problem (booze/MJ/Meth/Cocaine).

If the supervisor is properly trained to recognize the symptoms of impairment (by a recognized organization like the RCMP, then, even in a unionized situation, their judgement carries weight. Then the supervisor has the back up to say, hang on, in my judgement you appear to be impaired, so you can't work today. If disputed, get a shop steward, and another member of management (who has the training) to confirm. Stands up to arbitration no problem if done fairly/documented etc.

Testing is a human rights issue, and I was advised that either you test everyone, or no-one, and changing to a testing policy could be construed as a substantive change to the terms of employment. Plus it really, really annoys a lot of good employees - and so is a labor relations problem - you kind of come off like the Gestapo. Messy.

I just don't think it's necessary, as a rough outline, what I said above worked a treat. Mind you, I made it a point to get to know every employee and give them a chance to express their opinions on things, so it was fairly easy to spot when someone "wasn't right" - although that wasn't why I tried to at least say "Hi" to every employee every day.

[keith1612]

The RCMP training was not in how to deal with substance abuse issues, but how to recognize them, and differentiate the general type of problem (booze/MJ/Meth/Cocaine).

If the supervisor is properly trained to recognize the symptoms of impairment (by a recognized organization like the RCMP, then, even in a unionized situation, their judgement carries weight. Then the supervisor has the back up to say, hang on, in my judgement you appear to be impaired, so you can't work today. If disputed, get a shop steward, and another member of management (who has the training) to confirm. Stands up to arbitration no problem if done fairly/documented etc.

Testing is a human rights issue, and I was advised that either you test everyone, or no-one, and changing to a testing policy could be construed as a substantive change to the terms of employment. Plus it really, really annoys a lot of good employees - and so is a labor relations problem - you kind of come off like the Gestapo. Messy.

I just don't think it's necessary, as a rough outline, what I said above worked a treat. Mind you, I made it a point to get to know every employee and give them a chance to express their opinions on things, so it was fairly easy to spot when someone "wasn't right" - although that wasn't why I tried to at least say "Hi" to every employee every day.

most places (the oil field, CN. etc) give a test upon hiring and thats it.
then if there is any kind of incident big or small its a automatic retest to verify.
thats a fair and good system but i do believe they should have to prove impairment on the job.
to use what you did days before is false and should be illigal.