Random Drug Testing

[ScreaminBanshee]

I hesitate to write this, as I do not want it to turn into in argument between people regarding their personal opinions about their stance on the information below. If you want to get into that sort of argument I would ask you comment on this thread:

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... 54&t=84225

First of all I would like to say that I would never condone operating anything, especially an aircraft, under the influence of anything! However, since there are things that can be tested for weeks after it entered your system that do not impair you down the road, I thought I would pass on some information.

I was talking to a buddy of mine in Calgary and he mentioned to me that his company is introducing random drug testing for employees. Since I work in a separate industry that has lots of pre-access/post incident testing (Oil and Gas) I thought I would chime in.

Your company can drug test you for pre-access, post incident, and reasonable cause (a coworker smelt alcohol on your breathe or you ate 6 dry bagels at lunch, etc). In 2009, the Canadian Human Rights Commission created a document (Which you can find here http://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/eng/content/ ... ug-testing ) that says:

“Since a positive drug test cannot measure present impairment and can only confirm that a person has been exposed to drugs at some point in the past (sometimes as much as several weeks in the past), a positive test cannot determine whether a person was impaired on the job. Therefore, random drug tests cannot be shown to be reasonably necessary to accomplish the goal of ensuring that workers are not impaired by drugs while on the job.
As long as employees are notified that alcohol testing is a condition of employment, random alcohol testing of employees in safety-sensitive positions may be permissible, but only if the employer accommodates the needs of those who test positive and are determined to be dependent on alcohol. “

As you can see above, it only really states that you can do random alcohol testing on the job, which seems reasonable as this is an actual intoxication test.

Further more, on June 4, 2013 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that random testing is not justified in the workplace, even in inherently dangerous work environments. ( http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/246488/e ... +Workplace ) The Court decided that random drug and alcohol testing of employees would not be permitted even in a dangerous work environment, unless an employer could prove that there was a general problem with alcohol or drug abuse in its workplace. Based on this decision, the vast majority of Canadian employers will not be permitted to maintain policies for random drug and alcohol testing.

In 2014, Suncor Energy’s plan to implement Random Drug and Alcohol testing at their Oil Sand site was stopped by the Alberta Arbitration Board. The majority of the board held that Suncor’s plan to introduce random testing at its Wood Buffalo operations was unreasonable because the company misapplied the Supreme Court’s rule, as there was no evidence of a “general problem in the workplace”. ( http://business.financialpost.com/legal ... g-policies )

Suncor Energy is appealing this decision and the outcome of that decision will ultimately decide the future of random drug tests in Canada.

So in a nutshell, if your company is getting you to sign up for random drug testing, it is not legal. And just because you never do anything wrong doesn’t mean you should give up any of your rights.

Also, this was taken from the Privacy Commissioner of Canada’s drug testing guide.

"•Drug testing may be the "solution" to a problem that has been exaggerated. This argument has two dimensions. First, is there a problem that needs a solution? Second, if there is, will drug testing help to solve it?
Alcohol abuse is implicated in thousands of traffic deaths yearly. Is there evidence that other drugs are causing significant problems relating to job performance, on-the-job safety or public safety? In the absence of such evidence, are there other problems caused by drug use? If the answer is no, why test?
Even if the answer is yes—that there are problems caused by drug use—will testing contribute to solving them?
•The impact on personal autonomy. Drug testing coerces conformity—abstention from consuming psychoactive substances, both legal and illegal, for example. It restricts autonomy. To what extent should governments or employers be permitted to use the coercive power of drug tests to restrict the consumption of substances? Is it sometimes right to coerce (to prevent impaired driving, for example), and sometimes wrong (to regulate the simple consumption of substances away from the workplace in situations that create no danger for others)?
•The substitution effect. Persons likely to be tested for the use of one substance (for example, marijuana) may simply switch to an equally harmful drug that is not being tested for. Testing for illicit but not licit drugs encourages this type of behaviour. Users of illicit drugs may simply switch to alcohol. If the object of the testing program is to reduce the use of illicit drugs, this result is appropriate. If, however, the object is to reduce impairment by any drug or to reduce safety or health risks, the substitution effect may create a more serious problem than existed before testing began “

To touch on the above point, cocaine is very rampant among workers my industry because of how quickly it leaves your system. When guys get called for a preaccess test, they know it will be out in 24/48 hours and schedule their test accordingly.

Also, I am kind of familiar with the industry and how small it is so you don’t want to be the guy that rocks the boat. I get it but once you loose this stuff it is hard to get back.

Also, I strongly encourage every body to read the Privacy Commissioner’s Act on drug testing to find out what information your company can gather and share. Basically, they can share nothing about your test results so it should never stop you from getting another job. You can find that here : https://www.priv.gc.ca/information/rese ... 5_12_e.pdf

I hope this helps clear some things up.

[Mach1]

And just because you never do anything wrong doesn’t mean you should give up any of your rights.

Amen brother. (About all rights and freedoms... especially the amount of domestic spying done by governments these days).

[dirtdr]

I work in the oilfield industry and this is a subject I watch closely.

I am in management of a oilfield services contract, and as such, am required to follow the policies of the various clients that we work for.

Most of these clients require pre-access testing, as well as testing for just cause and post-incident. pre-access and just cause are reasonable and straight forward. The one I have issue with is post-incident. Many are pushing this one too far, I believe. I have seen people required to get tested after incidents as minor as getting a sliver (not joking). To me this is random testing that just happens to be after a (minor) incident.

This is leading, imo, to a culture contradictory to what they are striving for. People are neglecting to report minor injuries and incidents - not because they are afraid of the pee test, but because they dont want to impact other workers and the work going on (sometimes a minor incident requires testing of a whole crew).

[182-SS]

Very well presented. You have presented Facts, no mater your opinion, the facts are the Facts.

You're right regarding the giving up of our rights and freedoms, look how it screwed us with the whole gender equality...... lol (not enough responses on this post, this line should do it lol)

[Mr. North]

I appreciate what has been said here but at the end of the day if you bend some iron and have "stuff" in your system, you're royally fucked.

With that in mind it will be interesting to see what happens if/when the libs take power and legalize marijuana.

[single_swine_herder]

I'm particularly sensitive to this topic because the husband of one of my cousins was killed in a C208 by an Air Tindi pilot that had toxicology results showing very recent use of weed before slamming into the ground in a CFIT event.

Further and even harder to understand is that in my personal after the event conversations with other pilots at the company, I learned it was one of those "little secrets" that weed smoking was well known and not uncommon, but nobody would speak up .......

In the opinion of the Supreme Court, it may be the "right" of somebody to smoke weed, crack, or whatever turns your crank, without being subjected to the personal violation of your rights through drug testing, but the rights of the unknowing travelling public that place blind trust in the pilot also need to be considered.

My opinion .... affected by my family experience has me coming down on the side of the public that climb into that large cigar tube that flies.

From a legal perspective, my cousin is absolutely no further along in the process than was the case within a few weeks of the "accident" that killed her husband and left the children without their dad. That's almost 5 years now of living one segment of life in a form of suspended animation.

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 1w0151.asp

[ScreaminBanshee]

Once agian your opinions on this matter can go here http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... 54&t=84225 not on this thread please and thank you

I'm just trying to give information. If you had a false positive test you would rather know this than lose your job. Also, intoxication is an entirely different story and I highly advocate for intoxication tests for this sort of thing.

[Jungle Jim]

I don't know much about this but our company was talking about doing this a while back. I asked them which drugs I get to test?

Jim

[newbiewings]

Upfront, I will say that I do not agree with anyone being drunk, stoned, whatever at work. You're dangerous, and you're an idiot. No sympathy from me it you're caught, even less if you're responsible for someone else being injured, or worse.

I agree with what dirtdr has to say.

I work in the oil & gas industry. I understand the need for a pre-employment test, not going to argue that one.

I do have an issue with post incident testing if they haven't done the proper post incident investigation. More often than not, they take the shortest route and send the person(s) involved for a test before they've even determined if anyone is at fault.

Since the current testing methods are more of a positive/negative result, it's possible for someone to be unnecessarily caught up in something. i.e. - You're part of a five person crew, and someone other than you suffers a minor injury and you're all tested. You smoked a joint three weeks ago and are the only one that tests positive. Guess who is going home?

The arbitration board ruling against random testing was, in my opinion, the correct one. It will solve nothing, and create more problems.