(British Columbia, Canada) -- So called "legal experts" and "civil liberties" bureaucrates don't seem to understand the importants of workplace drug testing, including random…. on the other hand, construction unions and workers fully "get it" and support drug testing.
1. Safety comes first in any workplace or school environment.
2. Drug testing doesn't violate civil liberties if done within the confines of a well documented and well communicated drug-free workplace policy.
3. Blood and oral fluid drug testing are avialable to determine recent drug use.
A new drug-and-alcohol policy that requires unionized construction workers in B.C. to be tested before being hired and after they've been involved in an accident likely won't withstand a legal or human-rights challenge, legal experts said yesterday.
Workers must agree to be tested for alcohol and nine drugs, including marijuana, when they're hired by a company and periodically afterward, according to an agreement between employers and unions.
"We have tried to provide as safe a workplace as we can," said industry spokesman Clyde Scollan. "We have both a moral and legal obligation to do so."
Concrete worker Wyatt Guignard says he's happy to pee in a cup if it improves worksite safety
Concrete finisher Wyatt Guignard, 23, said he welcomes the new testing rules because it provides for a safer workplace on construction sites where he or a co-worker would be responsible for operating heavy, dangerous equipment.
"As a non-drug-and-alcohol user, I think it's good," he said. "There are no negatives."
Mandatory employee drug testing is illegal in Canada because it discriminates against drug-dependent candidates under human-rights laws because addiction is defined as a disability.
Scollan said the policy was agreed to by unions, unlike a similar one in Alberta.
He also said the testing isn't mandatory because "some people will choose not to work there [at the unionized shops subject to testing]."
But Kelowna labour lawyer Robert Smithson said those arguments wouldn't hold up at a human-rights tribunal.
"The golden rule of negotiated labour agreements is that you cannot contract out of human rights laws," he said.
"There would be a lot of lawyers willing to take the case. And I expect it to be tested."
Micheal Vonn of the B.C. Civil Liberties agreed: "You can't contract out your constitutional rights or your human rights. Random drug testing of workers is never justified."
Last year, however, an Alberta court upheld a labour arbitrator's ruling that Petro Canada was justified in testing its employees for drugs with two months' notice at an oilsands construction site in 2004.
Scollan also noted B.C.'s policy makes a point in post-accident testing of gauging only "current impairment" of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana that can show up in urine tests for weeks.
Workers then must submit to a blood or saliva test, which Scollan said can pinpoint consumption to within hours.
"The objective is to ensure sobriety on the job without prying into the private after-hours activities of workers," said a joint press release signed by Scollan and Mark Olsen for the labourers union.
"We opted for a non-invasive testing policy, which is designed to measure possible current impairment on the job, not what you did last week," Olsen said in the release.
But Smithson and Vonn said they are unaware of technology that could determine when drugs were consumed.
"This is precisely the stumbling block for allowing drug testing in the workplace," said Smithson.
Vonn also said such tests "are predicated on the fact that what's causing safety concerns is employees' impairment. We would like to see some evidence of that."
Scollan said he didn't have any concrete numbers because privacy laws prevented the collection of such data, but said anecdotal evidence indicated that workplace drug-related accidents in Alberta dropped after testing was allowed there.
A WorkSafe BC spokesman said it doesn't have the authority to order such tests.
Under the new policy, a worker who tested positive would be immediately taken off the job and won't be able to return until he or she gets the all-clear from an addictions doctor and agrees to any required treatment or counselling. And the worker would be subject to follow-up testing for two years.
1. Safety comes first in any workplace or school environment.
2. Drug testing doesn't violate civil liberties if done within the confines of a well documented and well communicated drug-free workplace policy.
3. Blood and oral fluid drug testing are avialable to determine recent drug use.
A new drug-and-alcohol policy that requires unionized construction workers in B.C. to be tested before being hired and after they've been involved in an accident likely won't withstand a legal or human-rights challenge, legal experts said yesterday.
Workers must agree to be tested for alcohol and nine drugs, including marijuana, when they're hired by a company and periodically afterward, according to an agreement between employers and unions.
"We have tried to provide as safe a workplace as we can," said industry spokesman Clyde Scollan. "We have both a moral and legal obligation to do so."
Concrete worker Wyatt Guignard says he's happy to pee in a cup if it improves worksite safety
Concrete finisher Wyatt Guignard, 23, said he welcomes the new testing rules because it provides for a safer workplace on construction sites where he or a co-worker would be responsible for operating heavy, dangerous equipment.
"As a non-drug-and-alcohol user, I think it's good," he said. "There are no negatives."
Mandatory employee drug testing is illegal in Canada because it discriminates against drug-dependent candidates under human-rights laws because addiction is defined as a disability.
Scollan said the policy was agreed to by unions, unlike a similar one in Alberta.
He also said the testing isn't mandatory because "some people will choose not to work there [at the unionized shops subject to testing]."
But Kelowna labour lawyer Robert Smithson said those arguments wouldn't hold up at a human-rights tribunal.
"The golden rule of negotiated labour agreements is that you cannot contract out of human rights laws," he said.
"There would be a lot of lawyers willing to take the case. And I expect it to be tested."
Micheal Vonn of the B.C. Civil Liberties agreed: "You can't contract out your constitutional rights or your human rights. Random drug testing of workers is never justified."
Last year, however, an Alberta court upheld a labour arbitrator's ruling that Petro Canada was justified in testing its employees for drugs with two months' notice at an oilsands construction site in 2004.
Scollan also noted B.C.'s policy makes a point in post-accident testing of gauging only "current impairment" of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana that can show up in urine tests for weeks.
Workers then must submit to a blood or saliva test, which Scollan said can pinpoint consumption to within hours.
"The objective is to ensure sobriety on the job without prying into the private after-hours activities of workers," said a joint press release signed by Scollan and Mark Olsen for the labourers union.
"We opted for a non-invasive testing policy, which is designed to measure possible current impairment on the job, not what you did last week," Olsen said in the release.
But Smithson and Vonn said they are unaware of technology that could determine when drugs were consumed.
"This is precisely the stumbling block for allowing drug testing in the workplace," said Smithson.
Vonn also said such tests "are predicated on the fact that what's causing safety concerns is employees' impairment. We would like to see some evidence of that."
Scollan said he didn't have any concrete numbers because privacy laws prevented the collection of such data, but said anecdotal evidence indicated that workplace drug-related accidents in Alberta dropped after testing was allowed there.
A WorkSafe BC spokesman said it doesn't have the authority to order such tests.
Under the new policy, a worker who tested positive would be immediately taken off the job and won't be able to return until he or she gets the all-clear from an addictions doctor and agrees to any required treatment or counselling. And the worker would be subject to follow-up testing for two years.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário