Majority of the Reader Panel respondents (79 per cent) attest to having worked with or know someone who has worked with an impaired employee. In our 2004 Reader Panel survey on employee drug testing, between 28 to 57 per cent of respondents say they have had to deal with the effects – directly and indirectly – of substance abuse in the workplace.

Many organizations apply zero tolerance when it comes to employees working under the influence of drug or alcohol.

“We had to let the employee go because he would not go to rehab,” one respondent recalls.

“We used to have one employee that would drink on the job. This was discovered and they were released from the company.”

One responded relates how the concept of impairment has evolved in the workplace: “Years ago, I was working in the field and we had a few people who would routinely come to work under the influence. Instead of taking them home, they were ‘hidden’ for the shift and everyone else had to work harder to cover for them. We tried to keep them in places where they would not be a safety hazard to others - sometimes it worked. Recently, we had an inebriated fellow come to work. Our procedures were followed and, as he refused help, his employment was terminated and he was taken home. We also found a few individuals smoking weed on site. They refused testing, employment was terminated and they were taken home.

“Some of the other workers were a little upset because he was a good friend to them. However, once I had a discussion with them explaining the safety hazards of working in a live plant with someone whose thinking processes and reflexes were slowed by the drugs, and the safety hazards that posed to the other workers, they understood and accepted it. In the end, they all want to go home – maybe a little more tired but in the same shape they came to work. No friendship is worth any part of their body or their life.”

Legal implications and getting employee buy-in were the top two concerns for Canadian organizations when it comes to workplace drug and alcohol testing. About 65 per cent say the risk of lawsuits and human rights complaints are a big hurdle to developing a testing policy in their organization. Getting employees/unions onboard with the program comes in second, cited by 60 per cent of our respondents. 


Patchwork of legislation
The fact that Canada lacks legislation on workplace drug and alcohol testing also poses challenges for companies, leaving them to rely on a patchwork of legislation to justify lawful implementation. This challenge was cited by 54 per cent of respondents.

One response says the challenge is in “getting people to understand the key concepts of the A&D (alcohol and drug) issue, i.e. impairment vs. detection, addiction as a medical condition, consistent application, importance of EAP and SAE in regards to human rights, etc.”

“It has been a challenge to get understanding from employees who feel we are invading their home life (what we do on our personal time is not a company concern).”

One respondent cites this concern: “There is fear that such a program and its discipline measures could result in many unexpected employees being suspended or released, and this could be your best labourer and/or top executives. I personally believe that drug and alcoholism affects many more people than we want to believe.”