RANDOM DRUG TESTS DEMAND CAUTION

Alberta's oil companies know that working in the oilpatch has its share of
workplace dangers. That's why they're eager to get on with random drug
tests of workers as a way to make their worksites safer.

But their questionable demand -- that the province move quickly to change
human rights laws to allow blanket random testing -- needs a full public
discussion.

Workplace drug testing is a clash of two important principles -- the
responsibility of the employer to provide a safe workplace, and the right
of employees to privacy. Before we shift that line, a lot of questions need
answering.

Human Resources Minister Mike Cardinal should start by releasing a report
done in July 2003 for the government by energy companies, the construction
industry and the Alberta Building Trades Council.

Perhaps that report can shed light on two crucial questions: How big is the
problem of drug abuse among workers? And, is random testing truly effective
in making the work site safer? The evidence appears mixed at best.

Drug testing for those in safety-sensitive positions is already common and
that makes some sense. Mostly, employers have a right to test in
circumstances in which a drug test relates to a bona-fide job requirement.
So, random tests have been upheld for bus drivers, for instance, but not
bank employees.

But should testing be extended to everyone on site or every worker who
applies for a job?

At the massive oilsands projects, for example, all new employees, even
secretaries, go through a drug test, regardless of whether they work in
safety sensitive areas. The aim is to eliminate those with alcohol and drug
problems.

Even more invasive, some employers like Imperial Oil at their Edmonton
refinery already do random tests on workers. Imperial takes random mouth
swabs among employees in safety sensitive positions. Other companies, like
Weyerhaeuser, routinely test employees involved in an accident or "near
miss" at a plant.

The value of such testing is questionable. The drug test can't determine if
a worker is impaired at the time of an accident or at what level. A test
only tells whether some took drugs or alcohol sometime in the previous few
days.

Trace elements of the substance can stay in the system long after a person
imbibed. So someone who had a wild Friday night but is perfectly sober by
Monday might test positive. The test would then prove nothing but
embarrassment to the individual.

When police stop drunk drivers at a checkstop, they have to have a reason
for suspecting a driver has been drinking before requiring a breathalyser
test. In other words, fishing expeditions aren't legally acceptable by the
state's agents on the public roads. Should they be allowed in the workplace?

The Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission also has reservations about
pre-employment tests and random drug tests on workers for practical reasons.

"To date there is limited research to determine whether alcohol and drug
testing deters substance abuse or whether supervisory skills and
observation may be just as effective in detecting impairment," says an
AADAC paper.

A single test doesn't tell an employer if the person occasionally drinks or
has a chronic problem. But even one positive test is potentially
devastating for an employee.

Also, AADAC notes, human rights codes require an employer to treat drug
addiction as a disability and expect employers to provide assistance.

It's not surprising, however, that industries want some guidance from
government. Human rights tribunals and courts have at times provided mixed
signals and some current testing programs are clearly open to challenge
under current law.

Industry's desire to expand testing to those with no suspicious behaviour
and to workers outside those in traditional categories of safety sensitive
jobs comes from good intentions to create safer workplaces.

But the means should make us uneasy. The state should tread very carefully
when it compromises an individual's privacy. We should look for the most
effective and least intrusive way to handle these difficult issues.