|
Author
|
Topic: Urine sales soar as workers dodge drug tests
|
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795
|
posted 09 June 2005 08:33 AM
Oil field workers say, "Piss on these tests!" quote:
Oil-patch employees and other Albertans are increasingly buying real and synthetic urine to pass workplace drug tests, sellers say.The oil-and-gas industry uses drug testing to ensure workers are fit to perform in potentially dangerous environments. One oilfield worker, who runs a machine that lifts thousands of tonnes of machinery, said he smokes marijuana after hours and has purchased the substitute urine to pass the tests. "At work, I don't smoke marijuana," the man told CBC News on condition of anonymity. "Actually, I'm missing my two front teeth because of another fellow who was smoking weed on the job." He said the urine, which can be purchased at retail and online stores and costs less than $50, is the only way to get around increasingly sophisticated drug tests.
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341
|
posted 09 June 2005 10:05 AM
Urine testing in anything except safety sensitive jobs, such as refinery workers, pilots, etc. is illegal in Ontario and most, if not all provinces.Drug testing of employees ruled illegal
Ontario court of appeal
quote:
Canadian employers are free to impose random alcohol tests on their workers, but drug testing contravenes the law, according to a landmark ruling on employee privacy rights released yesterday by the Ontario Court of Appeal. The province's highest court says companies that wish to ensure safety in their workplaces can carry out Breathalyzer tests on employees and job applicants. But demanding urine samples for drug tests is a violation of human-rights law and scientifically ineffective. The decision stems from an appeal by Imperial Oil Ltd. of a 1996 ruling by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which said the company's drug and alcohol testing policy was illegal. Yesterday's decision comes from the most senior provincial court to examine the issue. Its findings are expected to guide workplace practices across the country. "This is a clear and huge victory for the Ontario Human Rights Commission," said Marvin Huberman, the agency's lawyer. "There are a great number of companies that were very cautious in how to proceed. This now clarifies the law."
- snip-
From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202
|
posted 10 June 2005 10:18 AM
The economics of the oil industry (in a 'free market') make it really hard to regulate safety in a meaningful way on this front, I think. Urine tests don't really work, but the alternative, firing someone after they've messed up, isn't always easy either. When the price of oil is high there's a huge scramble to get it out of the ground and sold at the high price. They are really willing to take almost anyone who's minimally qualified (and I do mean very minimally competent, if my dad's assessment of most the younger hires is accurate) because they have to work as fast as possible. So they are really reluctant to fire anyone without a ready replacement. When the price goes down, everything contracts and everyone's out of work, then they can be really picky. There's no security really at all. So I think the urine tests, which I already said were ineffective (they're already happening and there's still issues with people showing up drunk/stoned at work and putting others in danger) are more of a symptom than a cause of messed up labour relations.As for the people who want to sell their urine, would it matter that much for hormones, etc? I don't imagine the following has much basis in reality, but I remember some sitcom or movie or something where one of the characters had to take urine tests as a condition of his probation and bought some urine from another (female) character because he knew he would fail. Then when he gets the results back he's told that he's pregnant. *ba-dum-Pish!*
From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836
|
posted 10 June 2005 01:49 PM
quote:
In 1992 Imperial Oil imposed alcohol and drug testing on employees at two Ontario refineries. Its policy required Martin Entrop, a control board operator in Sarnia, Ont., to reveal that he suffered from alcohol abuse in the early 1980s. Mr. Entrop had not had a drink for seven years, but because he worked in a "safety-sensitive" area -- where impaired performance could lead to catastrophe -- he was removed from his job and given another position at the refinery. Although Mr. Entrop was eventually reinstated, he complained to the Human Rights Commission. Alcohol or drug addiction is considered a "handicap" in human rights law, and Mr. Entrop said Imperial Oil discriminated against him because of his handicap. The Commission upheld Mr. Entrop's complaint and decided that Imperial Oil's policy breached the Ontario Human Rights Code. The agency also awarded Mr. Entrop more than $21,000 in damages, partly for the "mental anguish" the agency said Mr. Entrop had suffered through the affair.
How's that for fair? Force someone to reveal previous problems with substances and then take him from his job. This was Exxon and Imperial's way to respond to the Exxon Valdez disaster -- the super tanker with a drunk captain in his quarters and an unqualified pilot at the helm. Fortunately saner heads prevailed.
From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
