Drug testing in the work place

[HeavyD111]

I work at a potash mine and they for sure will not change their tune regarding zero tolerance. We had a big meeting a long time ago where they stated they could care less about legality or prescriptions..you get caught you are done.

With how many guys they have fired from here over the years I have no doubt their iron hand approach won't change one bit, as there is always someone else waiting in line to get in.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by EZM

I understand what you are saying, problem is if the employee tests positive, he's gone.

To test a guy that shows "low" levels of THC and maybe he's not "high" - I get it. Maybe he smoked up last night? I know what you are saying.

But "as an employer" letting him work around equipment and machinery around other people is absolutely not an option.

He has the choice to smoke pot and roll the dice.

I have no choice but to act in favour of protecting the rest of the workforce from a potentially hazardous condition.

That was my point.

I do understand yours. I do empathise but cannot bend on this one. My guys know it, they understand it.

If they do crash a door, test positive, and regardless if they have been an awesome employee for 10 years, they are gone. I will shake their hand and give them a outstanding reference for their contribution, but I have to terminate them for the benefit of others.

I personally feel that an employer should be free to enforce whatever drug/alcohol policy they choose, but I have a feeling that if pot is made legal, there will be court challenges from people that feel that they should have to be proven impaired in order to be fired. And with some of the stupid court decisions that are occurring now, I wouldn't be surprised to see the companies being forced to prove that the employees were actually impaired. And with an election coming in 2019, and legalized pot being Trudeau's most important promise to some people, I wouldn't be surprised to see the federal government bringing in legislation to "protect " pot smokers.

[58thecat]

Employers will set thier rules to thier work places regarding testing due to suspected impairment or if an incident took place. Law will set the standards to the testing etc...I think it's a good thing...the oil patch was a complete gong show as to how many people pizzed away thier very well paid jobs...of course they blamed others...a mirror tells no lie's...hammerheads!

[Zip]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

Employers will set thier rules to thier work places regarding testing due to suspected impairment or if an incident took place. Law will set the standards to the testing etc...I think it's a good thing...the oil patch was a complete gong show as to how many people pizzed away thier very well paid jobs...of course they blamed others...a mirror tells no lie's...hammerheads!

Yes it is a good thing, employers have been setting their rules in place for years now regarding who and when to test..I agree with testing on a strong suspicion of impairment either from booze or weed, or any other substance..or post incident..every incident in fact..I know some use bad judgement on what an incident actually is, depends on who cause the incident...I have seen very minor incidents that get the person tested in hopes that they fail... an excuse to get rid of a bad apple, as well as I have witnessed other incidents get swept under a dirty old rug so they can keep that person..double edged sword which doesn't really help anybody..sends out a misleading punishment...anybody in the oil patch that has not seen this exact scenario being played out, has not been in the patch long...I wish their was a foolproof method to rid the hammerheads, but that day is not here yet...
And we can thank Trudeau for making things a lot tougher in this department...things will get worse as people stretch their boundaries on the work place once the pot is legal..sucks but it's true!
Zip

[Zip]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I personally feel that an employer should be free to enforce whatever drug/alcohol policy they choose, but I have a feeling that if pot is made legal, there will be court challenges from people that feel that they should have to be proven impaired in order to be fired. And with some of the stupid court decisions that are occurring now, I wouldn't be surprised to see the companies being forced to prove that the employees were actually impaired. And with an election coming in 2019, and legalized pot being Trudeau's most important promise to some people, I wouldn't be surprised to see the federal government bringing in legislation to "protect " pot smokers.

Keep this thought... You may just be correct in your predictions, or at least not very far from being correct..good post elk
Zip

[Okotokian]

Is there a generally recognized level of THC presence that is deemed to indicate impairment? Clearly employers and police will be testing, and while it will be legal to smoke pot, and there will obviously be residual THC presence for some time afterwards, people can't be impaired at work or while driving. What is the accepted limit? If there isn't one, the government better decide on one, pronto.

[Zip]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Is there a generally recognized level of THC presence that is deemed to indicate impairment? Clearly employers and police will be testing, and while it will be legal to smoke pot, and there will obviously be residual THC presence for some time afterwards, people can't be impaired at work or while driving. What is the accepted limit? If there isn't one, the government better decide on one, pronto.

Oko, as far as I know right now, there is no cut and dried way of telling level of impairment with the thc..unless of course you are caught red handed so to speak...I know the government will issue that level, if they ever figure out how. There will be no fair way, as the time it is still in your system will vary from person to person...for extended periods, now again I am no expert but I do know that if you smoke 2 joints a night every night for say...a year and you stop on Monday the first of a month...you can bet that a test done on you 3 weeks later will show some level still in your body..depending on your body type. Now are you still impaired, can you function as normal, are you a hazard to work with, a lot of unanswered questions still, this legalization of pot will change things for a lot more people than we think..good or bad!
Look at booze for instance, for many years it was outlawed, then it became okay to have, then people driving drunk everywhere...then new rules to try and curb that...those didn't work so more rules...that didn't work so they put a level of sorts to claim impairment...that didn't work so they lowered that indicator level some...well that didn't work either...I'm guessing this pot thing will go much the same...maybe!
Zip

[Sledhead71]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I personally feel that an employer should be free to enforce whatever drug/alcohol policy they choose, but I have a feeling that if pot is made legal, there will be court challenges from people that feel that they should have to be proven impaired in order to be fired. And with some of the stupid court decisions that are occurring now, I wouldn't be surprised to see the companies being forced to prove that the employees were actually impaired. And with an election coming in 2019, and legalized pot being Trudeau's most important promise to some people, I wouldn't be surprised to see the federal government bringing in legislation to "protect " pot smokers.

I completely disagree, employees need to be treated fairly when it comes to substance abuse period. How in good faith can you support someone loosing their job for imaginary standards for impairment ?

Some people may enjoy their smoke recreationally, certainly does not make them a hazard while in the workforce.

[Zip]

Originally Posted by Sledhead71

I completely disagree, employees need to be treated fairly when it comes to substance abuse period. How in good faith can you support someone loosing their job for imaginary standards for impairment ?

Some people may enjoy their smoke recreationally, certainly does not make them a hazard while in the workforce.

Substance abuse is an entirely different thing than the person who uses recreationally...like say on Friday after working all week...versus the person who lights up at every chance...two different conversations...
Zip

[Sledhead71]

Originally Posted by Zip

Substance abuse is an entirely different thing than the person who uses recreationally...like say on Friday after working all week...versus the person who lights up at every chance...two different conversations...
Zip

Actually they are not the way the some employers are viewing this. As indicated by referencing Elk's post

I would rather my people recreationally smoke a fatty the partake in the firewater on weekends. Never had a single one call in sick from smoking.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Sledhead71

I completely disagree, employees need to be treated fairly when it comes to substance abuse period. How in good faith can you support someone loosing their job for imaginary standards for impairment ?

Some people may enjoy their smoke recreationally, certainly does not make them a hazard while in the workforce.

When you accept employment, you agree to the conditions set forth by the company. If you don't like the conditions of employment, don't accept the job. It's really that simple.

[Beached Whale]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

When you accept employment, you agree to the conditions set forth by the company. If you don't like the conditions of employment, don't accept the job. It's really that simple.

I couldn't agree more. The best boss I ever worked for had a zero tolerance for smoking cigarettes. If you smoked you couldn't work for him. It was that simple. He had noting against you personally but he hated the smell and said it made you seem less professional......and this is in the trades! Take it or leave it.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Sledhead71

Actually they are not the way the some employers are viewing this. As indicated by referencing Elk's post

I would rather my people recreationally smoke a fatty the partake in the firewater on weekends. Never had a single one call in sick from smoking.

Many employers are taking the approach that they have no problems recruiting qualified employees that are willing to accept their A&D policy, so they aren't going to spend time and money changing their policies to appease prospective employees. There are currently more skilled employees looking for jobs that pay six figures with good benefits, than there are open positions available that pay six figures with good benefits.

[Sledhead71]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

When you accept employment, you agree to the conditions set forth by the company. If you don't like the conditions of employment, don't accept the job. It's really that simple.

Once this substance becomes legal the courts will correct the current conditions placed on individuals in the workplace.

Originally Posted by Beached Whale

I couldn't agree more. The best boss I ever worked for had a zero tolerance for smoking cigarettes. If you smoked you couldn't work for him. It was that simple. He had noting against you personally but he hated the smell and said it made you seem less professional......and this is in the trades! Take it or leave it.

That is silly... Yes, no smoking in the workplace, but declining employment based on cigarettes is wrong. What's next, if you have a PAL or RPAL, no employment cause your bad weapons are a threat in the workplace....

Enjoy the decline.

[Sledhead71]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Many employers are taking the approach that they have no problems recruiting qualified employees that are willing to accept their A&D policy, so they aren't going to spend time and money changing their policies to appease prospective employees. There are currently more skilled employees looking for jobs that pay six figures with good benefits, than there are open positions available that pay six figures with good benefits.

There was a time not too long ago that these same companies were screaming for bodies.... Cycles repeat....

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Sledhead71

Once this substance becomes legal the courts will correct the current conditions placed on individuals in the workplace.



That is silly... Yes, no smoking in the workplace, but declining employment based on cigarettes is wrong. What's next, if you have a PAL or RPAL, no employment cause your bad weapons are a threat in the workplace....

Enjoy the decline.

An employer should have the freedom to maintain a zero tolerance for drugs and alcohol in the workplace. The employer should also be able to not allow smoking on site if he so chooses. As I posted previously, if you don't like the terms of employment, look elsewhere for a job. However, as I also posted previously, being that Trudeau is counting heavily on buying votes by legalizing pot, I would not be surprised to see the government getting involved.

There was a time not too long ago that these same companies were screaming for bodies.... Cycles repeat..

Try telling that to a company that you are seeking employment with, and see where that gets you.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

When you accept employment, you agree to the conditions set forth by the company. If you don't like the conditions of employment, don't accept the job. It's really that simple.

Except the courts have overturned employer rules time after time if they think they overstep the law and human rights. That's why there is no mandatory drug testing for all employees in Canada. The position has to be safety sensitive. Employers can't just make up any rules they want and say that if you work here, you accept them.

[Imagehunter]

Originally Posted by Zip

Oko, as far as I know right now, there is no cut and dried way of telling level of impairment with the thc..unless of course you are caught red handed so to speak...

There is a way, checking the blood or hair in a lab, takes a lot of time and is very expensive.
Just returned from a trip to Germany and got to talk to a cop there. All the cops do is wipe a swab across your skin and the test tells them if the person used any drugs like cocaine, marihuana or heroin etc recently. Traces of these drugs will be in the body sweat and if there is a positive sign on the test, it means a blood check and they are happy they can hand it over.

With marihuana they don't check for THC levels but what the body breaks it up to, as it stays longer in the body and they can test the last time the person consumed a drug.
Then the time is the important factor as they base fines or worse on the time between last consumption and the time of the swab being done. The shorter the time between offense and last consumption, the bigger the fine or sentence gets.
This is all based on the current zero tolerance policy in Germany and their legal system, so just an example on the technical/medical process which can take four weeks on average.

If that's how they'll do it here they'll need to set limits on what is acceptable and how long the time between check and last consumption is considered impaired.
Without that it'll be a complete nightmare considering courts are swamped already so people get off as it takes too long for trials to start.
There will be court battles about traffic violations and work place issues without a doubt. Considering the provinces just released their plans on how to work the legalization and the many question you hear not just on this board but everywhere, I think it comes to soon. Without a well worked out legal framework and the date set in eight months, it will be a rough and expensive start.

[79ford]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

An employer should have the freedom to maintain a zero tolerance for drugs and alcohol in the workplace. The employer should also be able to not allow smoking on site if he so chooses. As I posted previously, if you don't like the terms of employment, look elsewhere for a job. However, as I also posted previously, being that Trudeau is counting heavily on buying votes by legalizing pot, I would not be surprised to see the government getting involved.



Try telling that to a company that you are seeking employment with, and see where that gets you.

How is the ol pee cup plan working in ftmac syncrude seems to blow something up or burn something down on a regular basis....you can almost bake a burnout or blow up into their yearly operating calculations. The local cocaine dealers probably pay for part of the cup plan, great for business.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by 79ford

How is the ol pee cup plan working in ftmac syncrude seems to blow something up or burn something down on a regular basis....you can almost bake a burnout or blow up into their yearly operating calculations. The local cocaine dealers probably pay for part of the cup plan, great for business.

That is a pretty ignorant comment in a thread that is of a serious nature .
I would suggest you do a little more research before making any more foolish comments like that .
Cat

[neilsledder]

Originally Posted by Beached Whale

I couldn't agree more. The best boss I ever worked for had a zero tolerance for smoking cigarettes. If you smoked you couldn't work for him. It was that simple. He had noting against you personally but he hated the smell and said it made you seem less professional......and this is in the trades! Take it or leave it.

X2


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zip]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

That is a pretty ignorant comment in a thread that is of a serious nature .
I would suggest you do a little more research before making any more foolish comments like that .
Cat

Yup...Thanks, now back on track we can go
Zip

[ctd]

Originally Posted by 79ford

How is the ol pee cup plan working in ftmac syncrude seems to blow something up or burn something down on a regular basis....you can almost bake a burnout or blow up into their yearly operating calculations. The local cocaine dealers probably pay for part of the cup plan, great for business.

This comment although not of great taste is true. That's the reality of it.
Stoned, drunk, all part of the life of to many involved in the Oilfield, construction,transportation.

I use to think it was isolated. Untill I witnessed it first hand on more then am isolated incident.
Many will say why didn't you report it.
It's hard to report if the Manager, HR etc all doing the same thing.
That wasn't every where but happenend at more then a handful of companies to make one wonder just how much it was the norm.
The drug trade is not alive and thriving in Aberta because of recreational users.

[Team Anzac]

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.

So you're ok with drinking and driving?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by 79ford

How is the ol pee cup plan working in ftmac syncrude seems to blow something up or burn something down on a regular basis....you can almost bake a burnout or blow up into their yearly operating calculations. The local cocaine dealers probably pay for part of the cup plan, great for business.

So exactly how many fires or explosions do you know of at Syncrude, that were caused by people under the influence? How do you know for a fact that they were caused by someone being under the influence? I was present at Syncrude for over 35 years, and I did get to see many incident reports, and I saw no pattern of the causes of fires and explosions being people under the influence. But then I only speak of facts not baseless speculation.

[79ford]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

So exactly how many fires or explosions do you know of at Syncrude, that were caused by people under the influence? How do you know for a fact that they were caused by someone being under the influence? I was present at Syncrude for over 35 years, and I did get to see many incident reports, and I saw no pattern of the causes of fires and explosions being people under the influence. But then I only speak of facts not baseless speculation.

So you are saying drugs in the work place dont really have a bearing on incidents, fires, explosions etc? Those two are non related in other words when it comes to syncrude?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by 79ford

So you are saying drugs in the work place dont really have a bearing on incidents, fires, explosions etc? Those two are non related in other words when it comes to syncrude?

I am saying that unlike you, I prefer to deal in facts, not in speculation. After several incidents ,I personally had to walk people over to the med center for A&D testing, and in a few cases, the employees tested positive. In other cases, they tested negative. I do know that the major explosions and fires that occurred while I worked for Syncrude were not caused by employees being under the influence. That being said, employees working under the influence was determined to be a factor in some incidents, that caused damage to equipment, and in lost production.

[Team Anzac]

Originally Posted by Zip

In my reality on the work place, I used to have people come to me and tell me so and so I think is impaired with drugs or booze whatever their reason for standing in my office at the time...yes people did tell on each other, we were working in places with rotating equipment...people could get hurt real quick or worse...end up dead...my reality was it was okay to oust the bad apples, we couldn't afford to have incidents or anything worse to happen, we would stand the chance to lose a ton of money by losing a contract with too many incidents...all our safety meetings we would mention to the people in the room, that it is okay to come forward if they were feeling unsafe out in the work areas due to another worker...lots came to us and told us where to find the bad apples so to speak. But I'm guessing lots did not as well, so I get what you are saying...some people are scared of losing that job due to a small few who were the culprits, but in reality and the real world...would you rather have somebody knocking on your door to tell your significant other that you won't be coming home at all...anymore! You can only roll that big dice for so long...glad you took yourself away from the druggies/ boozers...both bad on a work site...at home in your own house...have at it.
Zip

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

[Team Anzac]

Originally Posted by Beached Whale

I couldn't agree more. The best boss I ever worked for had a zero tolerance for smoking cigarettes. If you smoked you couldn't work for him. It was that simple. He had noting against you personally but he hated the smell and said it made you seem less professional......and this is in the trades! Take it or leave it.

Sounds like a Labour Relations Nightmare

[79ford]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I am saying that unlike you, I prefer to deal in facts, not in speculation. After several incidents ,I personally had to walk people over to the med center for A&D testing, and in a few cases, the employees tested positive. In other cases, they tested negative. I do know that the major explosions and fires that occurred while I worked for Syncrude were not caused by employees being under the influence. That being said, employees working under the influence was determined to be a factor in some incidents, that caused damage to equipment, and in lost production.

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?