UNION SHOULD BE IN FAVOUR OF DRUG TESTING

It would really be refreshing to hear something other than a knee-jerk
objection from a labour union to any workplace proposal brought
forward by anyone representing employers.

The latest example is Alberta Union of Provincial Employee's president
Dan MacLennan's instant rejection of a call by Labour Minister Clint
Dunford for legislation authorizing random drug testing by employers.

Many companies, especially in the oilfield industry, have instituted
drug testing as a prerequisite to hiring and some have gone the
further step of including random testing as a condition of employment.

However, as the minister noted, companies doing testing "don't have a
really solid legislative background for doing what they're doing.

"I know it's going to be hugely controversial, but at some point we've
got to deal with impairment in the workplace," he said, speaking to
reporters after a safety forum in Edmonton last week.

This is not a new issue. It's a problem that has been around for
years, but it gets much worse when the economy is strong and workers
are in short supply.

Two factors combine to increase the drug and alcohol abuse among
workers.

First, wages are good and overtime is fattening pay packets so workers
have plenty of cash.

Second, because of the severe shortage of experienced workers a guy
who gets fired one day can probably land another job the next, or
whenever he sobers up and needs more cash.

Over the past decade both the government and employers have launched
intensive safety programs. These programs have been given strong
support by the unions. In fact they were demanded by the unions.

However, right from the beginning, many employees reported that the
greatest safety hazard on their job sites was impaired workers.

As a result a large number of companies began instituting drug and
alcohol screening programs, with extremely positive results,
especially when random testing was included.

I've been told by numerous employers that nothing they have done in
the past has brought such strongly favourable response from the employees.

Most workers are clean and they are greatly relieved not to be
worrying about working with others who are impaired or hung over.

Not only is it a relief from concern about the safety of everyone on
the job, it's also great to be relieved of the responsibility of
reporting a co-worker who is showing signs of impairment. The random
testing takes care of that.

Various employers have told me that they've received numerous calls,
comments and even letters of gratitude from spouses and families, and
from employees themselves, recognizing that the screening and testing
straightened out their lives.

The union objection that random tests can be used as a punitive
measure is utterly bogus. If the employee is doing the job the company
is much more likely to offer an opportunity for counselling and
rehabilitation.

They do not want to lose good people and they're much more interested
in seeing them back on the job than in punishing them.

As for MacLennan's assertion that, "we don't want someone being
suspended because of a joint they smoked a month earlier," I'm sure
the employers would echo that sentiment.

The sophisticated testing programs and policies available now are
quite capable of identifying the difference between a joint smoked
last night and one smoked a month ago.

And that's the real reason for the union objection; because, of
course, everyone who gets caught tries the Olympic snowboarder excuse
that they just inhaled someone else's smoke.

It's important here that we don't let the union smoke obscure the real
truth. Substance abuse is the greatest hazard existing in the
workplace and it's past time for something to be done.