SAFETY TRUMPS PRIVACY

There's nothing black and white about whether mandatory drug testing
should or should not be practiced in any workplace.

When any drug significantly alters a person's physical and/or mental
state, many would argue a user poses safety risks in many work
environments. Every employer has a strict responsibility to eliminate
any and all risks to safety.

Not many would be shocked to learn a manager sent home an employee who
showed up for work reeking of alcohol-whether it's stale or fresh.
It's pretty well an acceptable assumption the individual is under the
influence of the drug (alcohol) and poses a risk to him/herself and to
coworkers as well.

Something as simple as a manager's sense of smell was test enough to
detect alcohol in the workplace.

But the evolution into the modern industry has brought with a wider
assortment of stimulants and illegal drugs with less obvious
indicators, and therefore it's no great surprise that more and more
employers are adopting policies such as drug screening
initiatives.

Some people say it's a good thing and would view it as a safety net
while others will argue it's an unwarranted invasion of privacy with a
not-even-guaranteed-accurate result.

If we look back a few decades, privacy was, indeed, practically
non-existent in the workplace. Who can remember hearing stories of
teachers losing their jobs because they dared to get a divorce? The
reality was, at one time, workers were hired/fired on anything from
their political choices, their circle of friends to their personal
relationships.

Thankfully industry has progressed enough to allow people to depart an
unhappy marriage or support a political candidate of his/her own
choice without fearing a pink slip in the workplace because of factors
in people's private lives.

Privacy invasion, in that context, is a little different than the
breech of privacy being argued in urine, blood or hair follicle
testing in the name of drug detection.

A person's choice to divorce a spouse, or support a political party
for example have far less safety risks in the workplace than someone
who shows up inebriated by a drug.

Take for example the mining industry in Labrador West; few would argue
there isn't a need to be always ascetic and safety conscience because
of the very nature of the work.

No one, in a sane existence, would choose to be on a 40-foot scaffold
with a co-worker bombed on marijuana, booze or cocaine. Neither would
any sane person feel comfortable hauling ore on the same mine road as
someone wasted on one of these drugs behind the wheel of a massive
haulage truck.

It's true that if an individual decides to smoke happy grass on
his/her own private time (let's say on a Saturday night), that drug
will likely show in urine test a week later. What a person does on
his/her own time is his/her own business (within legal limits) and
suddenly that becomes imposed upon with drug testing in the workplace.

But, it's awkward to argue anything when it comes to using an illegal
substance. Sure marijuana is not even in the ballpark with crack
cocaine, but it does fall under the illegal category making it
difficult to justify its use.

When you get down to the bare bones of why any company or any boss
would seek a drug testing policy, it's as simple as knowing why any
employer would go through the trouble of doing it. Complaints were
almost surely made, concerns from working peers were likely expressed;
no one likes to work with a drunk or a pothead or someone pumped on
cocaine.

These policies were not put in place because the head of a company
doesn't want employees smoking some pot socially on their own time
away from the workplace. It's more logical that employers want drug
testing because too many instances of drug-related issues are popping
up on job sites. It's to address the inconsiderates who put drugs
ahead of their work priority and, worse again, ahead of the safety of
those who have the misfortune to work next to them.

When it comes to weighing privacy and safety, the latter is
trumps.

And to those who like to occasionally indulge in what is probably
harmless use of pot on their own free time, don't blame the employer
for implementing the rule, blame the ones who insist on coming to work
with their brain half fried with no regard for your safety.