Random drug testing could become the standard on some Alberta work sites

[blackpheasant]

Originally Posted by Arn?Narn.

sounds like you're high,,,

I don't know is it just me or am I detecting a little bias here??

[IR_mike]

Originally Posted by blackpheasant

I don't know is it just me or am I detecting a little bias here??

No costructive answer to a clearly posed question.



Over and out.

[Arn?Narn.]

Originally Posted by blackpheasant

I don't know is it just me or am I detecting a little bias here??

quite possibly. Everyone has biases, being aware of them is key. Reflective processes allow us to be aware of them and ensure they do not enter into the decision making process.

[Arn?Narn.]

Originally Posted by IR_mike

No costructive answer to a clearly posed question.



Over and out.

The answer is, none...or I guess the better answer would be, only in the extreme exception would any urine drug screen detect the consumption of illicit drugs, 30 days prior.

[blackpheasant]

Originally Posted by Arn?Narn.

quite possibly. Everyone has biases, being aware of them is key. Reflective processes allow us to be aware of them and ensure they do not enter into the decision making process.

thanks for that, I feel so enlightened now!!!

[Arn?Narn.]

Originally Posted by blackpheasant

thanks for that, I feel so enlightened now!!!

Glad to have helped. If you actively practice reflective processes you can really help ensure that your biases do not affect decisions that must be based on evidence. It is a key component of evidence based practice.

[Killerb]

what happens to the guy who loves poppyseed loafs and bagels and tests positive for heroin? Now it does show up on urine test but not on hair tests. That's much scarier than testing positive for thc. At least you actually have to smoke up to test positive. You could lose your job for eating a sandwich.

[blackpheasant]

Originally Posted by Arn?Narn.

Glad to have helped. If you actively practice reflective processes you can really help ensure that your biases do not affect decisions that must be based on evidence. It is a key component of evidence based practice.

ok but I thought this was about drug testing....you been having a few nips??

[Arn?Narn.]

Originally Posted by Killerb

what happens to the guy who loves poppyseed loafs and bagels and tests positive for heroin? Now it does show up on urine test but not on hair tests. That's much scarier than testing positive for thc. At least you actually have to smoke up to test positive. You could lose your job for eating a sandwich.

Most screen sensitivities are set high enough not to detect moderate ingestion of poppyseeds. If it did happen that you ae poppyseeds and got a positive, simply explain so that further testing can be done.

[Arn?Narn.]

Originally Posted by blackpheasant

ok but I thought this was about drug testing....you been having a few nips??

It is directly related.

[New Hunter Okotoks]

I don't really like the idea that Companies are automatically checking for booze or drugs in a workers' urine AFTER an incident has happened. Seems to be rather pointless at that point in time. I would rather that Company's subject every single person who draws a paycheque to be randomly checked. This would include all staff from the Receptionist all the way up to the CEO.

I think we also need to remember the rights of all the Employees to work in a safe and productive Environment. Employees are expected to wear PPE to keep them safe. I sure don't mind giving a little PP if it makes me safer.

Nobody wants to be the worker who files a formal complaint and gets a bad employee fired. (I believe that drunk or high people are bad employees) Random testing takes away the "Bad Guy" denominator because it is just somebody doing their job.

BTW I believe it is now Law that an Employee who notices an unsafe Condition is Mandated to Report it. Knowing that somebody is under the influence of drugs or alcohol and not reporting is considered a crime. If Employee "A" knows for a fact that Employee "B" is drinking Vodka from a Thermos and doesn't tell the Supervisor; Employee "A" might be in some trouble if an incident occurs because "B" is impaired.

[600twin]

I just worked on a couple of rigs in Australia and you have to blow into a breathalyser before each shift and record the amount.
I see it as if they suspect you are under the influence of either drugs or alcohol they can then do a random test. I have worked with drunks and crackheads and i am all for a safe work site. The problem some companies have is they can't run off a guy any more they have to but them into an addictions program of some sort.

[silver]

Originally Posted by pesky672

To be honest..companies don't have rights.

Rights are for people.

People surrender their rights when they choose to work for companies that impose the companies will upon them.


And it is pretty hard to argue against testing rig workers....it's a dangerous job...so it just seems to make sense.

The problem is that next year it will be someone else..then another and another and so on.
It never stops.

It started with pilots...and pretty much everyone agreed that it was agood idea.
Then it was cops and the military...followed by heavy equipment operators...long haul truckers, aviation mechanics and a whole host of other people that either worked in a high risk industry or that are generally held to a higher standard.

Now...it's city workers...delivery guys...and just about anyone else that works for someone who thinks they can get away with it.

Thats how it goes..a bit at time.

But...you know who NEVER gets tested?

The BOSS.
The politician.
The doctor.
The lawyer.
The banker.
The insurance guy
The guy that is abusing legal drugs because he has a prescription.
(Which by the way...is the fastest growing addictions category...)

Hmmm....seems like anyone with access to drugs and that may be involved in life and death decissions like a doctor ought to be tested.
Seems like the guy that decides whether or not to invest in safety or keep paying the fines...the guy that wants everyone else tested like your boss should also have to fill a bottle.
Lawyers are officers of the courts and the same group of people that find ways to force testing...they should pony up to.
Bankers control capital and Insurance guys advocate testing then investigate claims...they should be clean as well...if they are out there making so many important decissions....they should submit for a random sample to.
Politicians act like they are on drugs.
And since (for instance) most heroin addicts are actually past victims of trauma that were treated medically...then left with an addiction and no funding for rehabilitaion due to heath care cuts... AND since politicians are so quick to jump on any initiative that infringes on their electorates rights...they should be tested to.

You know what?
Lets just test everyone.

That would be the most fair.

If we tested everyone regardless of age or profession...then nobody could complain that they were being picked on.

Since we can't reliably contact everyone through conventional means...to make sure they get tested......we'll just hire some folks to grab people off of the street at random..force then into mobile labs..and make em stay there until they go pee.

Lets spend a gazzilion dollars and treat everyone like a criminal while seaching for a needle in a haystack instead of just testing for cause and then offering treatment to those identified or those that come foreward on their own...at a much reduced cost.

All for over something that isn't even against the law.

Thats right..it isn't against the law to be high.
It isn't against the law to be an addict.
ALL of our laws focus in on the possession and trafficing of drugs...not their use.

Yeah...that makes sense.

It never ceases to amaze me:
How many people are willing to throw away another persons rights...but not their own.
How many people are willing to spend till their noses bleed to see someone hammered but are unwilling to spend a dime to prevent the need to hammer the guy in the first place.
How many people call others Commies or Liberals and then themselves support policies that infringe upon freedom.

Wow....
Seig heil baby...just keep going in this social/political direction...the fences and dogs are there for your protection and once you have a nice shower...we'll get you all settled in.
People need to start questioning and CHALLENGING corporations and government more...a LOT more.
We're frittering away our democracy by allowing spin doctors, lobbiests, big money and politicians to frighten us into surrendering our freedoms like a bunch of stupid sheep.

The first time a whole industry or a large operation was shut down for just one day by workers outraged by this imposition on their freedom...would be the last time anyone thought it was worth trying to force on them.

Oh and...

PS this little rant isn't because I'm pro drugs...I'm not.
Its because so many people are actually anti-freedom... all in the name of being anti-drugs.

Lefties...brown shirt storm troopers or suckers...its all the same...take your pick.

Rather well said

[catnthehat]

Many people are talking about rights and freedoms here and how we should shut down work to protest, etc.
What about a person's right to be able to work with people knowing that they are of clear and sound mind and body as possible, and that they are not impaired to the pint that they put others in danger?

I shouldn't have ( and will not) to quit my job or asked to be transferred because the guy I work with smokes dope or drinks on the job - something that is being done all too often.

If a person wants to smoke dope on the job or drink that's fine , just don't think you will be doing it on my crew.
Cat

[Clgy_Dave2.0]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

Many people are talking about rights and freedoms here and how we should shut down work to protest, etc.
What about a person's right to be able to work with people knowing that they are of clear and sound mind and body as possible, and that they are not impaired to the pint that they put others in danger?

I shouldn't have ( and will not) to quit my job or asked to be transferred because the guy I work with smokes dope or drinks on the job - something that is being done all too often.

If a person wants to smoke dope on the job or drink that's fine , just don't think you will be doing it on my crew.
Cat

I haven't read the whole thread, so this may have been brought up. I agree with Cat. I want to work with people who are clear headed and safe. The only thing with these tests though is this:
So a person tests "positive" for THC...and gets fired. This test doesn't show WHEN the person was smoking. If he has a smoke on his day off, I have no problem with that. Just like if he had a drink on his day off. He can show up for work with no "buzz", yet still test positive.
What if the test was the same for alcohol? That it just showed that you "drink"...but doesn't determine "WHEN".

[silver]

My, what a p..ing contest. Sorry, had to say it.
Normally I try to stay away from one of these controversial issues, but this is one I do have an interest in. Pre-hire test, no problem. Post incedent, sure. With cause, you bet.
I do have a problem with random tests. If I were asked for a random sample I would probably give one under protest. When it came back clean, I would really have to think about how bad I wanted that job.
I have passed every job related D and A test taken. But I do have a problem with random tests because the presumtion of innocence is gone. When you are presented with the cup or tube, you are in effect being told " we think you might be high/drunk but you can prove yourself innocent if you take the test"
I think you can learn a bit about some of the posters on here, there are intelligent, insightful ones, there are ones that really like to argue their points, and there are some who just want to argue.
Maybe we should have breathalizers on keyboards.

[FCLightning]

Originally Posted by canadiantdi

Well drinking and driving kills tons, should we get blowers in every car? Would we be ok with random breath tests?

We have those (check stops), and yeah, I am OK with that.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by Calgary Dave

I haven't read the whole thread, so this may have been brought up. I agree with Cat. I want to work with people who are clear headed and safe. The only thing with these tests though is this:
So a person tests "positive" for THC...and gets fired. This test doesn't show WHEN the person was smoking. If he has a smoke on his day off, I have no problem with that. Just like if he had a drink on his day off. He can show up for work with no "buzz", yet still test positive.
What if the test was the same for alcohol? That it just showed that you "drink"...but doesn't determine "WHEN".

Like yourself, I'm not going to read through this whole thread. The different view I would have on this though is that testing positive in a drug test would mean that you have an illegal substance IN your body. Alcohol is not an illegal substance, nor are prescription drugs. THC is.

[FCLightning]

Originally Posted by silver

When you are presented with the cup or tube, you are in effect being told " we think you might be high/drunk but you can prove yourself innocent if you take the test"

Only if you want to imagine that to bolster your feeling of insecurity that everyone is against you, because you certainly are not being told that. You are being told that "We have a random drug testing policy to help ensure safety in the workplace and your number came up today."
I hear that doing too many drugs can make you paranoid.

[backpacker]

I am one of those that totally agrees with working in drug/alcohol free workplace. However, as stated already by others, as a long time smoker(not cigarettes,gave those up)and a minor indulgence at that, I could be fired or sent off to rehab should my employer see fit to have me tested.

I wouldn't consider indulging on the job and I feel what I do on MY time is none of my employers business!

I think there needs to be a more thorough or precise way to determine when a drug/alcohol was consumed and how long the effects of these substances can affect a persons ability to perform in a safe manner.

Just for clarity as well, I am coming up to my 53 b-day.

[Clgy_Dave2.0]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

Like yourself, I'm not going to read through this whole thread. The different view I would have on this though is that testing positive in a drug test would mean that you have an illegal substance IN your body. Alcohol is not an illegal substance, nor are prescription drugs. THC is.

Not for everyone. Many hold certification for legal marijuana use.
So your point is moot. The drug testing is not to find "illegal" substances in your body...its to determine if you're Impaired and unsafe to work with.
Just as if you came to work "drunk". It's a legal substance in your body.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by Calgary Dave

Not for everyone. Many hold certification for legal marijuana use.
So that point is moot.

Haha, nice try. I can guarantee that out of all workers in my industry that partake in drugs, it would be an awful small percentage who actually hold certifation for legal marijuana use. I would guarantee the number would be less than 99.9% of users, so the point is hardly moot

[Clgy_Dave2.0]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

Haha, nice try. I can guarantee that out of all workers in my industry that partake in drugs, it would be an awful small percentage who actually hold certifation for legal marijuana use. I would guarantee the number would be less than 99.9% of users, so the point is hardly moot

Yes I agree....but the test isn't for an "illegal" substance. By that argument then, as long as a "legal" substance was found, there's no problem?
Of course not. It's to determine who's impaired and unfit to work safe.
You show up drunk, you'll be fired. you show up stoned, you'll be fired.
You have a drink on the weekend and show up sober, you're fine. You have a "puff" on Saturday and show up sober, you'll be fired. There's the dichotomy.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by Calgary Dave

Yes I agree....but the test isn't for an "illegal" substance. By that argument then, as long as a "legal" substance was found, there's no problem?
Of course not. It's to determine who's impaired and unfit to work safe.
You show up drunk, you'll be fired. you show up stoned, you'll be fired.
You have a drink on the weekend and show up sober, you're fine. You have a "puff" on Saturday and show up sober, you'll be fired. There's the dichotomy.

Let's change it to a pre employment test then? They are not testing you to see if you are fit to work that day, they are checking to see if you if you have an illegal substance in your body, basically are you partaking in illegal activities. You're not even working that day. So you are saying there is a difference between pre-employment and random?
Down here where I am working right now they carry breathalizers and test guys that are suspicious in the morning. Is that not all right either then?

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by Calgary Dave

Yes I agree....but the test isn't for an "illegal" substance. By that argument then, as long as a "legal" substance was found, there's no problem?
Of course not. It's to determine who's impaired and unfit to work safe.
You show up drunk, you'll be fired. you show up stoned, you'll be fired.
You have a drink on the weekend and show up sober, you're fine. You have a "puff" on Saturday and show up sober, you'll be fired. There's the dichotomy.

Not with an oral swab test, you will only test positive if you had smoked dope within about 15 hours of the test.
A urine test will show positive, however.

Cat

[Clgy_Dave2.0]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

Let's change it to a pre employment test then? They are not testing you to see if you are fit to work that day, they are checking to see if you if you have an illegal substance in your body, basically are you partaking in illegal activities. You're not even working that day. So you are saying there is a difference between pre-employment and random?
Down here where I am working right now they carry breathalizers and test guys that are suspicious in the morning. Is that not all right either then?

Well, yes, then if that's what the company is looking for, then fair enough.
As for testing that morning...I have no problem with that either.
I smoke. But would never do it on the job, before work, driving, operating heavy machinery. I would also fire anyone who showed up working for me even smelling of pot. But if they came to me and said "I smoke pot, but never on the job" I would have no problem hiring them (as long as they're good workers of course).

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by Calgary Dave

Well, yes, then if that's what the company is looking for, then fair enough.
As for testing that morning...I have no problem with that either.
I smoke. But would never do it on the job, before work, driving, operating heavy machinery. I would also fire anyone who showed up working for me even smelling of pot. But if they came to me and said "I smoke pot, but never on the job" I would have no problem hiring them (as long as they're good workers of course).

And I agree with you on that, I would far rather have someone who smoked one the night before compared to someone being on the ****. I guess the difference is the ones making the rules are signing the paycheques, and if they do not want someone on their jobsite with an illegal substance in their system, then is their choice

[silver]

Originally Posted by FCLightning

Only if you want to imagine that to bolster your feeling of insecurity that everyone is against you, because you certainly are not being told that. You are being told that "We have a random drug testing policy to help ensure safety in the workplace and your number came up today."
I hear that doing too many drugs can make you paranoid.

Your reasoning is flawed and your rudeness and innuendo is lowering the intelligence level of this thread. Because you do not understand a post is no reason to be insulting.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

And I agree with you on that, I would far rather have someone who smoked one the night before compared to someone being on the ****. I guess the difference is the ones making the rules are signing the paycheques, and if they do not want someone on their jobsite with an illegal substance in their system, then is their choice

The big problem that many seem to be missing here is that doing dope and drinking on the job is happening, and has to stop.
This is the only way that the companies involved can come up with to stop that.
They don't care what you did last weekend, they care about what is happening on their sites now, and believe me , it IS happening.
Cat

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

The big problem that many seem to be missing here is that doing dope and drinking on the job is happening, and has to stop.
This is the only way that the companies involved can come up with to stop that.
They don't care what you did last weekend, they care about what is happening on their sites now, and believe me , it IS happening.Cat

. I have made a living in the oilpatch all my life, so believe me, I know