Pubdate: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 Source: Daily News, The (CN NS) Copyright: 2002 The Daily News Contact: http://www.canada.com/halifax/dailynews/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/179 Author: David Swick Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing) WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE Testing Truck Drivers for Drugs Makes Sense, But Cashiers? Should long-distance truck drivers undergo drug testing? Should store clerks? How do you keep workplaces safe while preserving as much personal privacy as possible? Balancing security concerns with respect for the individual is a serious issue. And it's an issue in which Canada and the U.S. are heading in starkly different directions. Here at home, the Toronto-Dominion Bank used to test all employees, but no longer tests any. Imperial Oil (Esso) used to test all, but now only tests a small percentage. Long-distance trucking companies continue to test, because truckers are not allowed to cross into the U.S. without this verification. Operators of heavy machinery are also often tested. Outside of those occupations, however, drug testing is not common. The main reason is the national Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. It already applies to federally regulated businesses such as airlines, and on April 1, 2004, it will be extended to all organizations. It places the onus on employers to only drug-test when "reasonable." In the Land of the Free, meanwhile, every U.S. federal employee and all members of the U.S. military have for years undergone pre-employment drug testing. So have all employees of Wal-Mart and hundreds of other firms. And at least a half-dozen U.S. companies have recently sent large numbers of employees for DNA testing. In the Maritimes, only one major employer subjects all employees to a pre-employment urine test: the J.D. Irving Co. Their urine is sent to Toronto, where it is tested for marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, opiates and PCP. This is true for employees of all Irving businesses, including Kent Building Supplies, and for all workers, whether truck drivers or store clerks. "Drug testing is preventive medicine," says Irving spokeswoman Mary Keith. "It's proactive to ensure wellness, the same as smoking cessation and other wellness programs." What it is, is a too simple solution to a complex problem. Testing truck drivers who work long hours at 100 kilometres per hour is reasonable, but testing secretaries and cashiers makes no sense. It's an assault on privacy. Like most simple solutions, Irving's drug policy creates problems of its own. Chris MacDonald, who teaches business ethics at Dalhousie University, is concerned about the effect testing has on employer-employee relations. "Pre-employment testing indicates a presumption of mistrust. You walk in and they say, 'I want to see what you're doing in your off-hours.' "The key question is, why are you testing?" MacDonald says. "Is this family values Puritanism ... or are you testing for something that actually affects performance? Why perform invasive tests on an occasional marijuana user if one's job couldn't plausibly be affected by that?" George Radwanski, the federal privacy commissioner, agrees. In a speech last year, Radwanski said: "Needlessly invading the privacy of employees isn't even good business, in my opinion ... When I see employers so ready to chuck employees' privacy rights out the window, I want to ask them, have you lost confidence in your judgment? ... Do you really need to treat all your employees as suspect, just to catch some and dissuade the rest?" The same argument is made is by the man who runs the lab where Irving employees' urine is tested. Dr. John Wells of Maxxam Laboratories, says: "Usually, it's truck drivers, workers in oil refineries, and people around heavy machinery. For me that would be the concern. If it's somebody working a till or cleaning a toilet, who cares?" - --- MAP posted-by: Alex