Drug testing in the work place

[Zip]

Originally Posted by Team Anzac

There's a reason why it's called Post incident

I'm sorry but with only 8 words in this sentence you have managed to make me wonder what that has to do with my post, it's been a long day, maybe I'm not thinking clear...but please explain for me
Zip

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by 79ford

So drugs didnt cause a good proportion of the incidents and the ones that were a result of drugs they only found out after the incident happened is what you are saying?

Post incident testing does not prevent incidents that have already occurred, but it can prevent future incidents. In that respect, it isn't any different than the police testing drivers for impairment after a accident. And just like suspected drunk drivers can be tested, we have also had employees that were suspected of being under the influence at work, sent to the med center to be evaluated and tested. Of course just like with impaired drivers, we can't know whether they would have caused an incident or not, had they been allowed to continue working while impaired.
And just like in industry, many vehicle accidents occur that are not a result of the drivers being impaired, yet most people are in favor of impaired driving being illegal.

[Zip]

Originally Posted by 79ford

So drugs didnt cause a good proportion of the incidents and the ones that were a result of drugs they only found out after the incident happened is what you are saying?

Hard to find out the problem of an incident that has not happened yet, an incident happens, then it is investigated by the safety team, can't really investigate something that is not there..right? Or are you meaning something else but still writing just to post random thoughts on the subject, you seem like you are just poking a bear for fun..but I could be wrong once again.
Zip

[79ford]

Originally Posted by Zip

Hard to find out the problem of an incident that has not happened yet, an incident happens, then it is investigated by the safety team, can't really investigate something that is not there..right? Or are you meaning something else but still writing just to post random thoughts on the subject, you seem like you are just poking a bear for fun..but I could be wrong once again.
Zip

Usually easier to argue when you can get some one else to state your side

From what elk hunter11 states alot of incidents aren't drug related and the ones that are they only found out after the incident.

Soooo, to dig into it, the zero tolerance policy during hiring didn't stop people getting high at work and wrecking stuff after passing an initial test.

They have sent people to the med center to get tested/sent home while suspected of being impaired but no actual incidents happened.

Lots of incidents just happen anyways.

And there is no real way to tabulate whether or not sending a guy home or not giving him a job because he couldnt pee in a cup is actually effective if nothing actually happened... you just sent a guy home and had to spend money to hire and train some one else.



What do these programs accomplish? Lots of incidents arent drug related and the ones that are they dont find out until after some one wrecks something,hurts themselves or some one else. The company just runs up a bill drug testing, runs up a bill traini g, runs up a bill in lost productivity.

The only argument is it may prevent incidents that havent happened because in theory some one who flunked a hiring pee test for a legal drug may do drugs in the future and may do them at work then may cause an accident?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by 79ford

Usually easier to argue when you can get some one else to state your side

From what elk hunter11 states alot of incidents aren't drug related and the ones that are they only found out after the incident.

Soooo, to dig into it, the zero tolerance policy during hiring didn't stop people getting high at work and wrecking stuff after passing an initial test.

They have sent people to the med center to get tested/sent home while suspected of being impaired but no actual incidents happened.

Lots of incidents just happen anyways.

And there is no real way to tabulate whether or not sending a guy home or not giving him a job because he couldnt pee in a cup is actually effective if nothing actually happened... you just sent a guy home and had to spend money to hire and train some one else.



What do these programs accomplish? Lots of incidents arent drug related and the ones that are they dont find out until after some one wrecks something,hurts themselves or some one else. The company just runs up a bill drug testing, runs up a bill traini g, runs up a bill in lost productivity.

The only argument is it may prevent incidents that havent happened because in theory some one who flunked a hiring pee test for a legal drug may do drugs in the future and may do them at work then may cause an accident?

So how do you feel about impaired driving? Either a person is tested post incident and the incident has already occurred, or you charge a person, when you don't know for sure if that person will because an accident because he is driving while impaired? So should we just do away with testing people for impaired driving as well?

[Chive]

At your time off in camp!Who can able to tell me why would I got disciplined on my Time off?—Well,it’s in their property,someone argued with me!But their property is on Canada’s land! Am I right?

[79ford]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

So how do you feel about impaired driving? Either a person is tested post incident and the incident has already occurred, or you charge a person, when you don't know for sure if that person will because an accident because he is driving while impaired? So should we just do away with testing people for impaired driving as well?

Well you arent allowed to drive while impaired and they pull you over if they think you are impaired, they breathalyze you, then nail you if you are over the 0.05 limit that was set so the responsible drinker can have a beer and drive home after a dinner out.

Why should it be different for anything else?

There was quite the uproar about alcohol going from .08 to .05 yet we all know what liquor and motor vehicles can do. People got mad when the gubbermi t said we could drin k less before driving.


What i am kinda getting at is most laws are already there, why go overboard? Its already illegal to be in toxicated in public never mind at work, and for pot etc some companies are already swabbing. No need to create any new laws or slap certain groups hard just to say you did something.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by 79ford

Well you arent allowed to drive while impaired and they pull you over if they think you are impaired, they breathalyze you, then nail you if you are over the 0.05 limit that was set so the responsible drinker can have a beer and drive home after a dinner out.

Why should it be different for anything else?

There was quite the uproar about alcohol going from .08 to .05 yet we all know what liquor and motor vehicles can do. People got mad when the gubbermi t said we could drin k less before driving.


What i am kinda getting at is most laws are already there, why go overboard? Its already illegal to be in toxicated in public never mind at work, and for pot etc some companies are already swabbing. No need to create any new laws or slap certain groups hard just to say you did something.

The point is that people are tested after an incident ,or if suspected of being impaired, even though they haven't had an incident. The incident has already occurred, and for the person that hasn't had an incident, there is no way of knowing if they would have had an incident, so you can't prove that this approach is preventing incidents. That is what you were complaining about when companies use that approach on site, so why is it okay for driving?
As to the no need to make new laws or make changes, the companies already have a system, why should they have to change their systems, just to say that they did something?

[coastalhunter]

One company I worked for I did a pre-hire d&a testing. Passed. Couple years later, rolled work truck when I hit black ice. D&A testing. Passed. They paid for all physio, paid time off, and still had my job. Sure, me not being a user didn't prevent the accident, but it sure as **** helped post incident.

[Zip]

Originally Posted by coastalhunter

One company I worked for I did a pre-hire d&a testing. Passed. Couple years later, rolled work truck when I hit black ice. D&A testing. Passed. They paid for all physio, paid time off, and still had my job. Sure, me not being a user didn't prevent the accident, but it sure as **** helped post incident.

This is why most companies even have an A&D policy...glad it worked for you, sorry about the truck roll, and the injurys to yourself...but happy that the systems in place protected you and your job...The same circumstances a person who was even a weekend puffer or a person who liked a few beers at night, well things might have got ugly for them...good job coastal, and a good post
Zip

[^v^Tinda wolf^v^]

I was just doing a search on Alberta’s new marijuana legislation and found my thread in the process😁 some good news for human rights about Suncore and random drug testing I just read about. The courts refused Suncor from doing random testing.

https://www.thestar.com/business/201...employees.html

I think it’s a step closer in the right direction. I’m not against to D&A for actual impairment at the time of accident or injury but I am against the way drug testing is done in general. Human rights being the main issue. A quote from me Trudeau after paying a terrorist a cool 10 large. "The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects all Canadians, every one of us, even when it is uncomfortable," I think this is a hipicritical statement becuase apparently it only means something under certain conditions according to the Liberals.

It makes me shake my head that a guy that smoked a joint two weeks ago then rolled a company truck yesterday could loose his job for this reason alone. Our whole system is screwed up in my opinion.

[elk396]

Originally Posted by ^v^Tinda wolf^v^

I was just doing a search on Alberta’s new marijuana legislation and found my thread in the process😁 some good news for human rights about Suncore and random drug testing I just read about. The courts refused Suncor from doing random testing.

https://www.thestar.com/business/201...employees.html

I think it’s a step closer in the right direction. I’m not against to D&A for actual impairment at the time of accident or injury but I am against the way drug testing is done in general. Human rights being the main issue. A quote from me Trudeau after paying a terrorist a cool 10 large. "The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects all Canadians, every one of us, even when it is uncomfortable," I think this is a hipicritical statement becuase apparently it only means something under certain conditions according to the Liberals.

It makes me shake my head that a guy that smoked a joint two weeks ago then rolled a company truck yesterday could loose his job for this reason alone. Our whole system is screwed up in my opinion.

Kind of had a good chuckle at your 'good news for human rights' comment regarding courts blocking Suncor on random testing. I'm not sure why you would see that as a good thing? Just lets drugs and alcohol abusers in the work place to dodge a bullet. I want my workplace safe and want to make it home to my family . Not sure why anyone would want to protect people who can jeopardize safety in the workplace? I don'y buy the argument that people work safer after smoking a doobey. Please feel free to elaborate

[catnthehat]

To be precise, there was an appeal by UNIFOR that was heard by the court that sided with Suncor .
However not all the facts were weighed in that case so another appeal was approved to be heard .
There was an injunction in place at that time of the original appeal blocking the testing until the appeal was heard .

When UNIFOR asked Suncor to recognize the original injunction until the latest appeal is heard they were told Suncor would not .
Another injunction was filed to delay the testing and was granted around the same date that Suncor was slated to start their testing .

So, it is not over yet, but the random testing is on hold until the court hears the latest appeal and hands down a decision that either allies the random testing or denies Suncor to randomly test workers on their sites .
Cat

[Unregistered user]

Testing drugs at work? I'm in. How much does it pay? Hey, who cares?

[wildbill]

With legalization fast approaching they will have to change how they test for weed, the whole “ you failed cause you smoked a doob a month ago” ain’t gonna fly if it’s legal, I know for a fact you don’t stay high for a month after you crank a Marley, (if that had been the case I’d be very rich today) seen lots of guys fail for puffin outside of work, once it’s legal, what they do in their own spare time is their own business.

[elkhunter11]

So how is random drug testing any different than a checkstop looking for impaired drivers? In both cases , they want to check people that have not demonstrated any reason to be checked.

[^v^Tinda wolf^v^]

Everything I read everywhere is all about concerns of people being impaired on the job. I'm sure it does happen in a very small percentage and those people are idiots and the reason why testing is such a big deal to begin with. The majority of the work force or at least from my experiences are not nore will they ever be impaired on the job. What a person does in their private lives and away from work is none of their employers business so long as the job they do is not seriously effected or they are not impaired on the job.
Yes I am aware of the long term effects after a person uses a substance but this is just one of many people deal with in their everyday lives. It's the same thing for everything else, for example people who engage in sports after work, will they feel it the next day? Possibly but it's still excepted and not singled out as any kind of deterrent. Same goes for people with very physically demanding positions where they get worn down from constant physical activity on the job. It's all the same depending on how a person perceives it.

The way things are now is just stupid and why should this be any different than a police officer doing a subriety test on someone ? They don't test to see what you did last Friday night, they test for impairment at the time it is being questioned. I'm sure most people including myself would have no issues providing a six hour impairment test everyday before they start work so long as they didn't have to do personal and evasive testing. Right now scientists are busy creating a THC breathalyzer and I'm sure soon it will be available to the public for purchase as well. In which case the individual would be able to refine their consumption and the time it takes to wear off before they are not impaired.

This is a topic that is going to be forced on everyone come next summer when it's legal and if your one of the people that figure nothing will change in everyday society your kidding your self. This is not alcohol, in Alberta you will be able to smoke anywhere cigarettes are allowed.

[Don_Parsons]

Us humans have options.

A option to have D&A at some point in our lives, or live life with out it.

Being sober of sound thoughts and mind has its challanges,,, yes,,, but its up to the person (s) to decide what works.

At times I enjoyed life on the wild and fun side, I truely enjoy it more now that my funds go towards things I want.

Gas, travelling, out-door trinkets, and most of all,,, living life full bore.

"""We will know when we get there as the sun shines its brightest and that cold dark rainy days don't faze our abilities to slug forward on the worst of days when life pulls us down."""

Retired U.S. Navy Admiral William H. McRaven's

Darn lucky to have this part in life sorted once and for-all

Don

[^v^Tinda wolf^v^]

I too am enjoying my memory of the past five years. Very vivid and clear. It's also a good reminder to my self that I did have a problem with smoking to much pot. Now when people ask me " Hey, do you remember that time " my answer is yes, yes I do😀 I'm going to do things in moderation come next summer and going forward from there. A good life lesson though, moderation.

[parfleche]

Life is too short to spend your time impaired by any substance, Amazing how many feel they need to drink or smoke to have enjoyment! I personally do not want to work or play beside anyone impaired in any manner , period!
It appears we live in a society that believes either alcohol or drugs are necessary to enjoy ones self , The weekend comes around and we hit the bar or the liquor store , How bored must some people be?
Do whatever you need to blow your hair back BUT don,t pollute my air with foul smelling odors and act ridiculous because your tipsy and BELIEVE you are having a good time.I would refuse to work along side anyone who is impaired either by alcohol or drugs . when the time comes and it becomes legal , AND you have to get on a plane , ask yourself , Was the pilot smoking up before his shift? As it was his RIGHT to do whatever he wanted to have a good time at home? What about police? or doctors , Its going to be their right also to do as they please at home!
Its difficult enough to be in control of ourselves , without using mind altering substances! But like I said you are free to drink and free to stink , just don,t cry about the costs down the road!

[^v^Tinda wolf^v^]

Originally Posted by parfleche

Life is too short to spend your time impaired by any substance, Amazing how many feel they need to drink or smoke to have enjoyment! I personally do not want to work or play beside anyone impaired in any manner , period!
It appears we live in a society that believes either alcohol or drugs are necessary to enjoy ones self , The weekend comes around and we hit the bar or the liquor store , How bored must some people be?
Do whatever you need to blow your hair back BUT don,t pollute my air with foul smelling odors and act ridiculous because your tipsy and BELIEVE you are having a good time.I would refuse to work along side anyone who is impaired either by alcohol or drugs . when the time comes and it becomes legal , AND you have to get on a plane , ask yourself , Was the pilot smoking up before his shift? As it was his RIGHT to do whatever he wanted to have a good time at home? What about police? or doctors , Its going to be their right also to do as they please at home!
Its difficult enough to be in control of ourselves , without using mind altering substances! But like I said you are free to drink and free to stink , just don,t cry about the costs down the road!

I agree with you, I don’t want to work with someone that is impaired either.😁

[catnthehat]

Alcohol has far less restrictions than Marijuana does ,but you still cannot be on an industrial site if you are using it or in possession of it and a dry camp means exactly that, whether that camp is owned by the client or the client is renting the rooms from an independent camp.

OH&S has already stated the acceptable levels for A&D testing will not change even if Marijuana is completly legal .
At this time it is very easy to get from a doctor a Marijuana certificate to buy and use it , but you still cannot be under the influence of that, alcohol, perkicets, Tylinal 3's or any other number of drugs besides alcohol while on an industrial work site.

Also, random testing does not mean a foreman or supervisor deciding if a worker will be tested, it is a computer generated list that is used.

A foreman or supervisor cannot simply decide that they are going to test a person " for just cause" , there are parameters involved there as well.

Cat

[SlightlyDistracting]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

It's illegal now and they do it. Quite often smell skunk anus rolling out of windows of vehicles driving by.

Legalizing it sure is not going to make that go away, and honestly the only thing that is going to annoy me is the fact that I will have to smell it out in public. I would far prefer to see beer cans rolling out of car doors than that toxic smell.

Lmao. Youd rather see someone drink and drive than smoke a joint and drive?

[SlightlyDistracting]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

I had to read this a half dozen times, think I understand what you are saying.
The simple answer through your strange reply is I won't. When it offends me I will leave. I get it that I maybe won't be going to the theatre or some public places as much, and that is fine with me. I would bet that many in this forum have not gone to the theatre in decades. I also don't go to bars, pool halls, pot shops or cigar stores. Could not care less. As for the 'currie eaters' (LOL WOW) there aren't a lot of them here lol.
There never has and will never be 'pot' or any other drugs on my property.
'except the divercity of human nature'? haha lol too funny.

You really are hollier than thou.

[SlightlyDistracting]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

If it is out of your system upon testing you would be fine. You have any on you, in your truck, in your room on site and you would and should be fired. Dry camps are dry for a reason. On your own time...knock your socks off.

Usually the weed is dried before you smoke it. You should be good to go

[Bigdad013]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The companies have no problems with a zero tolerance approach, as long as pot is illegal, but if it becomes legal, things will get more complicated.

Alcohol is legal, are you allowed to be impaired or drunk at work? I think not

[^v^Tinda wolf^v^]

From what I gather the union reps for Suncore employees are not against testing for active impairment. It is the way in which testing is done that infringes on people’s privacy rights becuase they don’t test for active impairment alone.

I’ve beat this old horse enough lol! time will tell how things evolve, after all a group finally came forward with the realization the current drug policy doesn’t work and are changing it for a better cause. They just have to deal with the rest of the extra issues it creates in the process. Now seems like a good time to refine it. Happy Sunday😬

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by ^v^Tinda wolf^v^

From what I gather the union reps for Suncore employees are not against testing for active impairment. It is the way in which testing is done that infringes on people’s privacy rights becuase they don’t test for active impairment alone.

Not exactly
UNIFOR is against the proposed random A&D testing, not the way testing is being done at this time for just cause, post incident or pre-access.
Cat

[Y2K]

A guy I know lives next to a technition who does the drug testing /lab work. I guess for $400 you get clear or negative report. The guy also sells dope. And no I'm not kidding.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by Y2K

A guy I know lives next to a technition who does the drug testing /lab work. I guess for $400 you get clear or negative report. The guy also sells dope. And no I'm not kidding.

Not even worth talking about , I'm done here
Cat