|
|
|
Reader panel - Employee drug testing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Written by COS Editorial Team
|
|
Wednesday, 14 July 2004 |
Current provincial rules prohibit refusing a promotion to an employee that exhibits "severe substance abuse, addiction or dependency, e.g. maladaptive patterns of substance use leading to significant impairment or distress." In addition, the prohibition extends to employees that exhibit the "perception" they may either currently have, or have had in the past, such a condition.
COS decided to ask readers about substance abuse in the workplace, how concerned they are about substance abuse, what government's role is in preparing a safe workplace and how often safety professionals have to deal with substance abuse issues.
Companies are coming under increasing pressure to make sure employees are clean and sober. This is particularly concern in industries where employees work heavy and dangerous machinery, or transport goods over long distances. In the United States, it is now common for truck drivers to be randomly tested to ensure they are not under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Canadian truck drivers going into the United States are also subject to the same checks. (See Employer responsibilities and options on page 22.)
Reader panel survey results as of July 01, 2004.
What are your thoughts on employment drug testing?
Total Responses: 83
1. Do you believe that Canada's approach to substance abuse in the workplace is consistent with workplace safety requirements?
Yes: .....24%
No: ......76%
Although not a scientific survey, among COS readers that responded, Canada's approach to substance abuse in the workplace leaves much to be desired. Many said there was an uneasy balance between protecting the public and workers from someone who may have a substance abuse problem and could cause physical harm as a result, and protecting that worker's right to privacy. The tension between the two competing priorities seemed to some reader to produce inconsistent substance abuse policies amongst employers
"Concerns over an individual's right seem to take precedence over collective rights for safety," said one reader. "In Canada, there continues to be little desire for mandatory drug/intoxicant testing even in safety critical areas."
Other readers suggested employers needed to be given more flexibility in dealing with employees who are found to have substance abuse problems, from getting them proper medial and psychological help to terminating the employee if the problem is sever and potentially dangerous to others. Others suggested human resources be given better training in recognizing substance abuse problems and in developing and enforcing substance abuse policies in the workplace.
Some readers worried that the notion of abuse itself was often vague and inconsistent. Is a person who smokes heavily or needs large amounts of coffee to get through the day suffering from a substance abuse problem, similar to an employee who suffers from another drug addiction? And should policies be applied to what employees do when they are not working, for instance, demanding that employees not drink or take recreational drugs when they are at home or on vacation?
2. How big a restriction is this rule (requiring non-discrimination for substance abusers) on the workplace in maintaining safety requirements?
1: little or no effect.....15%
2: ..................................6%
3: ..................................12%
4: ..................................4%
5: ..................................11%
6: ..................................10%
7: ..................................15%
8: ..................................12%
9: ..................................2%
10: very high effect:.....13%
Many readers did not have too many complaints about substance abuse policies used in the workplace. While a few worried about tests bringing up false positives (where a drug or alcohol-free employee is mistakenly tested as positive), most believed that regular drug and alcohol testing made workplaces safer. Many said management had a low-tolerance for any kind of substance abuse on the job and did not hesitate to send a worker home, often without pay, if that person showed up impaired or is suspected of having abused drugs or alcohol.
"We have a young workforce, [sometimes] they party late and come in hung-over," wrote one reader. "The smell is enough to send them home."
Depending on the industry, many employers will tell employees that there is a zero tolerance policy, both on the job and off. Employees in jobs requiring them to be on-call 24/7, or to work with highly dangerous substances, will be told that there is a one strike policy. If the employee is found to be intoxicated or to be abusing drugs, then that employee loses his or her job.
Other readers said employers are now taking a more proactive role in tackling substance abuse problems. Instead of waiting for someone's substance abuse to get out-of-hand, an employer will take the lead in trying to get the employee help and treatment, from counseling to medial intervention.
3. Would you say that you are very well informed on the effects of substance abuse in the workplace?
Yes: .....66%
No: ......34%
4. In your job, how often would you say you have dealt with the direct or indirect effects of substance abuse and/or intoxication in the workplace? (Please check all that apply):
Hourly: ........0%
Daily: .........6%
Weekly: ........8%
Monthly: .......28%
Annually: ......57%
Many readers wrote that substance abuse issues are a growing concern among employers, and more are having to deal with the effects of drug or alcohol abuse by employees.
According to the numbers in the survey, nearly 60 per cent of the respondents said they had to deal with the effects of substance abuse in the work workplace annually, and nearly 30 per cent on a monthly basis.
Employers are most concerned about drug or alcohol impairing workers who must use heavy and dangerous equipment or have contact with the public. This was particularly so in the area of transport safety. Companies employing people to drive trucks and other vehicles are anxious to ensure that those driving the trucks are not going to endanger themselves or others.
"We now have a drug and alcohol testing program in place for our bus drivers," one reader wrote. "It is voluntary at this time, [but] most of our crew want to be part of this."
Because of safety issues, some employers have a zero-tolerance policy to drug and alcohol use on the job. Others even make testing part of the hiring process. If a potential employee is found to have a substance abuse problem, that person will not be hired; and in some places, periodic drug and alcohol testing is mandatory in order to ensure the safety or workers and the public.
Comments:
• "Substance use and abuse in the workplace is an ever rising problem that needs to be addressed before it becomes unmanageable and starts to get people killed. It's that simple."
• "One maintenance employee is known to have substance abuse issues. There is usually one incident a month where the employee is involved. So far they have been minor, but I'm concerned that we are going to have one that may be major."
• "Not enough companies look at substance abuse as an illness and offer employees assistance as a first step."
• "In regards to pot, we need some kind of impairment test as it can linger in the body for prolonged periods of time. Also, do we discipline for an act that may have taken place a month ago?"
• "We arrange for outside assistance for employees with abuses of all types. Even though we are a union shop, we send employees home if we suspect substance or intoxication abuse."
• "One maintenance employee is known to have substance abuse issues. There is usually one incident a month where the employee is involved. So far they have been minor, but I'm concerned that we are going to have one that may be major.
Related Items
|
[Top]
|
|
Choose Product Category
