Pubdate: Sat, 05 May 2012 Source: Sault Star, The (CN ON) Copyright: 2012 The Sault Star Contact: http://www.saultstar.com/feedback1/LetterToEditor.aspx Website: http://www.saultstar.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1071 Author: Doug Millro DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING IN WORKPLACE SHOULD BE SELECTIVE, NOT BLANKET When it comes to testing for drugs and alcohol in the workplace, as is being implemented at Essar Steel Algoma, I have been all over the map with my thoughts on it. At times I have seen the need for it to ensure the safety of the workers; at others, I have seen it as just as another intrusion into an employee's privacy. But since it looks like it is here to stay, as it is slowly being inserted into more and more workplaces, I believe it should be selective rather than blanket, that it should be applied only in areas of a company where safety has been a problem or has the potential to be one. Of course, this excluding of employees in some areas may be seen as discriminatory, but I can't see any need to randomly apply a drug or alcohol test to people operating computers, whereas I can see it randomly applied to people operating cranes or other dangerous equipment. When it comes to the computer types or others in jobs where safety is never going to be a concern, I believe any testing done should be suspicion-based and handled through the company's own human resources department, rather than being outsourced, as is usually the case with random testing. This would seem to be borne out by the Ontario Human Rights Commission policy on alcohol and drug testing, which proclaims: "Drug and alcohol testing that has no demonstrable relationship to job safety and performance has been found to be a violation of employee rights. "A relationship or rational connection between drug or alcohol testing and job performance is an important component of any lawful drug or alcohol testing policy. "In this regard, the policy must not be arbitrary in terms of which groups of employees are subject to testing ... "At the same time, testing employees in safety-sensitive positions only may be justifiable." The Canadian Human Rights Commission says, "Drug and alcohol testing is prima facie discriminatory under Canadian human rights law. Nevertheless, employers can justify discriminatory practices and rules if they are a bona fide occupational requirement." However, it also 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 ... 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." But it makes an exception in the case of bus and truck operators whose jobs take them into the United States, where the regulations are different. Last fall, the Toronto Transit Commission approved a staff recommendation calling for random alcohol and drug testing for operators, some maintenance staff and some managers. Previously, employees could be tested when they were hired, if they switched jobs within the TTC, if an incident took place, or with cause. In the United States, random alcohol and drug testing in the transportation sector is the law, and TTC staff told commissioners, in a report in which they recommended the testing, that in industries in the U.S. in which alcohol and drug testing is mandatory, "data showed that random testing acts as a deterrent to alcohol and drug use in the workplace." But that is not to say everything is going smoothly in the U.S. in regard to the implementation of testing. Last year, Florida lawmakers approved a plan to allow random drug tests for state employees while, hypocritically some say, rejecting an amendment that would require similar tests for themselves and the governor. But Miami U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro recently ruled that random, suspicion-less testing of some 85,000 workers violates the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures and therefore raises doubts about the new state law, which allows agency heads to require urine tests of new and existing workers. "To be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, a search ordinarily must be based on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing," Ungaro wrote in her order, citing previous U.S. Supreme Court orders which decided that urine tests are considered government searches. Gov. Rick Scott is appealing Ungaro's ruling. "As I have repeatedly explained, I believe that drug-testing state employees is a common sense means of ensuring a safe, efficient and productive workforce. That is why so many private employers drug test, and why the public and Florida's taxpayers overwhelmingly support this policy," Scott said in a statement announcing the appeal. Ungaro's ruling came as a result of a challenge to the law by labour unions and the American Civil Liberties Union. Mike Daprat, president of United Steelworkers Local 2251, and Ian Kersley, president of Local 2724, have expressed concern about the new Essar policy, which was just recently dropped in their laps, and how it will affect their members. Daprat told Bob Mihel, of Sault This Week, that his local would take whatever steps are necessary to protect its members, and Kersley indicated that his union would be opposing the policy. In response to questions posed by Mihel, Brenda Stenta, manager of corporate communications at Essar, said: "As an employer, we have a responsibility to provide a safe workplace for all employees. We recognize that the use or misuse of alcohol or drugs can limit an employee's ability to do their job and can pose a significant safety risk to themselves, others and potentially the general public." She did not answer Mihel's questions as to why the company felt the need to implement the policy, what type of testing would be done, and by whom. I think the company owes it to its employees to provide some chapter and verse on this. Is the policy being driven by problems that have surfaced, or is Essar just taking preventive steps in an attempt to head off a problem it believes could surface somewhere down the road? If it is being driven by problems that have surfaced, how often has this occurred, in what areas and how severe have they been? What steps, if any, have the company taken before this to correct the problems? Why were the two locals not approached? If the policy is being driven by concerns the company has that there could be problems, rather than that there have been problems, again I ask, why didn't it approach the two union locals instead of just arbitrarily imposing the policy? If indeed we are going to continue down this road of testing for drugs and alcohol, how far do we go? Do we start testing doctors, nurses, pharmacists, judges, police, pilots, taxi drivers, anyone who can have an effect on our safety? What does this say about us as a society? Sad, that's what. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom