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?"