Jason Melien is mortified by the drug testing procedure that is mandatory for a job he applied for recently.
Melien came to Labrador West a couple of months ago from Kamloops, BC bringing with him 15 years experience working in the oil patches out West.
"For years I had to have urine tests done and I totally agree with companies doing that," said Melien. "It's in the best interest of safety. I accepted random urine tests would be required wherever I worked. It was not a concern of mine."
When a job came up with a local contractor here in Labrador West and Melien was told he would have to go through drug screening before he could go to work, he wasn't alarmed or surprised. The contractor that was hiring him will require him to do work on the IOC mine site and test was on hair follicles. There were a number of candidates who dropped out when they were told of the drug testing, according to Melien.
Not worried about results
"I wasn't worried about having a drug test and I know my test will come back okay," said Melien. "But I wasn't prepared for the method or how I would feel. The more I thought about it, the more I felt this was an invasion."
Melien did some research on testing for drugs in hair samples and he expected from what he read, approximately 60 to 70 strands of hair would be taken from his head when he went for the procedure in Wabush (Feb. 19).
But what he quickly learned was the lady taking the samples was taking large chunks and people were having to leave with very noticeable bald patches.
"There were some girls in tears because she cut patches of hair as big as my fist from their head," he explained. "I don't think that was necessary for 60 or 70 strands that was required, I mean, what were they going at with all that hair."
A tangle
When Melien's turn came for the hair sample, there was a snag, and he was told his hair was likely too short to get a sample of the required length.
"She said maybe, it might be long enough on the top," he said pointing to the crown of his head. "And, I told her okay, I will just shave my head afterwards and it won't look so bad."
Melien was quickly told he couldn't shave his head and would have to wait a required amount of time in case the sample wasn't long enough. What he was told next, though, caught him way off guard.
"She said it's too bad they didn't a male there to get him to cut it off my groin," Melien recounted. "I couldn't believe that, I mean like I was going to let someone go down my pants like that and cut hair from my privates. I felt I was being totally violated. That's ridiculous to put someone through that just to qualify to work in a job that I didn't even have yet."
The legs have it
Melien ended up getting hair cut from both of his legs to provide the sample required; he was delighted to get out of the room that was set up in the Wabush Hotel and he left filled with a rage that hasn't left him since the experience.
"I think this shouldn't even be legal," he said for of the hair follicle testing. "I have so many issues with this. This is very different than going into a room and peeing in a cup to provide a urine sample. Taking your hair like that, it's taking a part of your body, your DNA, there is something invasive about it and I am considering getting up a petition to speak out again this practice. I mean to see those ladies walking around with big chunks out of their hair, and everyone can see it...so if they failed the test or failed to get the job, in a small town like this everyone will be pointing the finger at them and just assuming they are using drugs."
Test them all
Melien says the process is also very discriminating and probably did come from reports of drug use in the workplace and people working under the influence, but questions why it's only the minority of new hires that are subjected to this test.
"This is a small town, everyone knows everyone pretty much and I have only been here a couple months and knows there are lots of people who work in the mine that uses cocaine; I have seen staff people use it. How come the mining company is not making this mandatory for everyone? Why should someone who's been there for years go unchecked? It's ridiculous and it's discriminating."
When it comes to drug testing in any workplace, he is all for it and Melien says no one should be immune from testing, but the test should be left at the less-invasive urine samples.
"This is getting out of hand," he added. "I mean the small children that are growing up now, when they finish school and graduate from college what will they have to do in order to get a job...prove a skin sample or something. This hair follicle testing is too extreme and it's not even 100 per cent conclusive. We don't know what's coming next and we should be asking when does our human right come in."
Bad hair day
Jason Melien said he felt truly violated after providing hair sample to qualify for a job. Michelle Stewart photo
-
- Published on March 1st, 2010
- Published on July 14th, 2010
-
Michelle Stewart
Potential employee angered by drug testing procedure
Jason Melien is mortified by the drug testing procedure that is mandatory for a job he applied for recently.
Melien came to Labrador West a couple of months ago from Kamloops, BC bringing with him 15 years experience working in the oil patches out West.
"For years I had to have urine tests done and I totally agree with companies doing that," said Melien. "It's in the best interest of safety. I accepted random urine tests would be required wherever I worked. It was not a concern of mine."
- Number of views : 916
- Rate
- Top of the page
Comments
-
- Steve
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:33
So what is the point of the testing then Jim? So that RioTinto can be sued by the people that fail the test? Read the article again - Jason had come to accept that random urine tests would be required . Guess that didn't happen to him either, or to me, or to anyone else in the past. You supporting document says that it is not acceptable to test for pre-employment or randomly....both are wrong.
-
- j
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:32
The employer is doing you a favour by hiring you - you are not doing them a favour by working for them so deal with their policies.
are you insinuation that RIO tinto is doing canadians a favour in hiring us to take our resources out of the ground and give a foreign company the profits, that must be the comments of a conservative. These resources belong to canadians and I have no problem with foreign companies using their capital and our labour to give each a profit but they are not doing us any favours ,so think before you speak. -
- Jim
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:31
Another thing-about random drug testing and the people who think it should be practised at IOC.Random drug testing is illegal.Thats right if they have no reason to test you they cannot unless you agree to it before accepting the position with the company but only an idiot would wave their freedom away for money.
-
- j
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:31
You need the job more than they need you as there will be a dozen people ready and willing to have that job who are as qualified and do not use drugs. RioTinto would not shut down if you didn't work for them - but if you did not have that job, good luck paying your bills and mortgage.
there are a lot of people who would work any particular job but there are a lot of companies that would offer to take that ore out of the ground. so your argument does not justify drug testing. -
- JIM
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:31
For you information random drug testing is illegal in Canada even in safety-sensitive positions, unless the employee is suspected of being an addict(smelling like booze or looking out of it). Pre-employment testing is legal but that's not what I was talking about.Courts see it as a violation of a persons rights. Are the courts wrong?And have you ever worked for an oil company? I have for many years so I think I know more about it than you.And yes legal drugs can be addictive and can ruin lives just like the illegal ones you cannot argue that. i know people hooked on painkillers and tranquillizers that they get prescribed yes it's legal but I would not feel very safe working with such a person. And no I dont huff gas I'm just saying that someone could be huffing gas all the time and pass the drug test even though they are wasted all the time. Test for everything or test for nothing I say because most prescription drugs create an altered mindset which can be just as dangerous as illegal drugs. It's pretty clear that I win this argument as you have not said anything significant to prove your point at all you just keep trying to discredit my arguments which I keep proving are valid.So come up with a counter argument that has some substance and prove me wrong.I've yet to see it.
-
- Jim
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:30
Are you implying that if a drug is legal then it is totally safe? You my friend need to step into reality. Would you feel comfortable entering a confined space after your manwatch just down some oxycontin or atasol 30 legally? I hope not. How about all the ritalin the kids are all on these days?more potent than cocaine it is. What about huffing gas that's legal is that ok? The line is way too thin here and I'm pretty sure I have provided a valid arguement.I fail to see how pointing out how legal drugs are just as dangerous as illegal drugs is ridiculous.It's completely true.Open your eyes buddy all I've heard from you is deal with it or flip burgers .You seem to be completely oblivious to why these companies even have drug policies. To keep insurance rates from soaring and to save money. There you go. Safety is really just a ploy for the bottom line-money.The horrendous safety records of the Alberta oil companies, all of whom do drug testing, is a testament to the fact. Open your eyes buddy enter the real world and do some research on the subject before boasting your biased opinion.Your argument makes no sense.
-
- JASON
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:29
HEY GUYS!! Thank - you for all the support!the story really hit home for alot of people here in town!.. I did PASS my test,and wasnt afraid of taking it STEVE FROM ST JOHNS!! if i was scared i wouldnt have taken it !! and I am workimg for the company..And if what your absolutly right about the employers , but have you put into perspective that 60 % or more workers at the sites that are doing testing are cocaine addicts , but they dont get tested!! so another words now that i got the job i want , i have to do it with crackers!!! Im 100% with testing , but there are other ways,and methods for testing for drugs Read my colum again !! i dont think it registered !!
-
- Steve
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:29
@ Jim: Only an idiot would wave their freedom away for money . Are you kidding me? What freedoms are you talking about? The freedom to do cocaine while being employed by someone else?? Only an idiot would risk losing their job and livelihood by doing the drugs that could get them fired. That is a choice they have to make and if you prefer the joint or the line of coke, then be prepared to flip burgers or sweep floors until you're 80.
@ j: Where did your rant about our resources come from? God, I think all the people commenting on here are the ones that would not pass the drug test. You made this about mutli national business and our domestic resources when all I said is that the company is doing you a favour by hiring you. Smoke another one. What I meant, and read carefully, is that it is a privelege to work for certain companies. You need the job more than they need you as there will be a dozen people ready and willing to have that job who are as qualified and do not use drugs. RioTinto would not shut down if you didn't work for them - but if you did not have that job, good luck paying your bills and mortgage. It is a SCREENING process - to screen out the employees that will make the company more profitable and safer from the ones that won't. Get over it. -
- D
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:29
I agree 100%. It should be mandatory for all employees, whether you are a contractor, or fulltime at the mines, new or working there for years.
I am sure there are 100s of employees working there for years, if they had to take the same test now, that they would fail.
So, if you want the best work force, without any drug use what so ever, make it mandatory for all too do. -
- Mak
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:28
I think each and every one of the employees at IOC should go out over the weekend and smoke a few doobies , then insist that ALL EMPLOYEES BE GIVEN THE TEST. Once the results are back the affected employees should then go and Insist that they be given time off to go to rehab ( hockey school) before they can return to work. That should put a damper on this highly unusual tactic of RIOS
-
- Phil
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:28
My god that is insane. Almost every job here requires testing but I never once heard of people cutting your hair. A Urine test can tell all.
One thing I have to also comment on is the Aurora's lack of real journalism. As anewspaper they have every right to name the contractor involved but refused to do so.
Just like their police reports never mention any names. This is a newspaper people you do not need to be so polically correct that you have to protect every subject of every story.
Whats the point of putting out a story if you can't even mention who the story is about ? -
- Darryl
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:28
Geez, Phil, now you're defending the editorial prowess of The Aurora?
Which is it, boy? -
- JIM
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:28
And as far as everybody saying I need the job more than they need me, no, I don't need the job, Rio Tinto is not the only company in the world there are lots off good jobs out there where we don't have to give up our lives and souls to abide by their misguided policies.When I see a company that adheres to these ridiculous policies I say bye and move on to a better more acceptable employer.And what's this about a dozen people waiting to fill the job? As I recall IOC has had postings for power engineers second and third class for over a year now.Where's all the people lining up to fill the positions There are none.Value your experienced employees and do what you can to keep them with you, you wll have much better productivity and happy employees.
-
- Steve
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:27
Jim, did you read line 11 of that document? Yes, the article states that random drug testing is not acceptable (which I assume you were trying to prove) but does it not also state that pre-employment drug testing is also not accetable. After reading the above article on hair testing for pre-employement - your articles are about as accurate as your comments - or did the employer in the article above (from the Auroro, not the link) break the law by testing Jason's hair? Or urine?
If you are going to post things that try to prove your point, make sure they are acurate.
I would welcome other people's comments on here as to what side of the fence they are on - and also so I can have an intelligent discussion and not what I have been having. -
- Steve
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:25
This is not an invasion of privacy - employers need to protect themselves and ensure that they are hiring the best and most capable employees. If you don't want to have your hair tested, simply refuse and you will no longer be considered for the job. I guarantee there are plenty of people who are not afraid of the results (or the methods) who would take your place.
-
- Jim
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:25
Well obviously Rio Tinto would not shut down if I did not work for them.I do not work for them and never will and I have no problems paying my bills.I'm just saying I have worked in a drug-free environment for years and I know the problems that come with the drug testing outweighs the positives.It isn't worth it things were fine before these tests and all they will do is cause headaches and controversy. Believe me I have experienced it first hand.I'm simply telling it as it is this is not an opinion but a fact.The oil companies of Fort Mac are just good examples of how this thing causes companies to suffer as well as employees.And what of people who need to take perscription drugs to live and function?They are not entitled to work?They are you say?but why?drugs are drugs and many perscription drugs alter the mind and mood just like cocaine or heroin.If one drug is banned all drugs must be banned or it don't make sense.Just another issue that these tests raise.Lets just lose the tests.If someone looks high or drunk at work sure get rid of them but what someone does in their free time is for nobody to judge.If you get drunk Friday night you can still drive your car on Wednesday.
-
- Jim
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:24
Straight from The Canadian Human Rights Act.
Using Positive results from drug tests is considered a discriminatory practice
on the ground of disability -
- Jim
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:23
http://www.heretohelp.bc.ca/publications/workplaces/alt/3
-
- Steve
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:22
Jim: I'm sure your buddy the refinery operator did a great job and the fact that he was replaced by an 18 year pold who knew nothing has nothing to do with the argument - that is the choice of the employer. My point has to do with the decisions that this guy made. How important is pot to this guy that he would risk losing his job just to get high on the weekends. Obviously fairly important and that is the choice he made so he'll be feeding my kids burgers at the drive thru for the next 40 years. He had a blatant disregard for the policies of the employer and should have been fired. It's unfortunate that he was replaced with a bad worker but are you honestly telling me that there are no good employees that don't need the drugs on their time off?? Even you can't be that ridiculous (although I'm starting to wonder). And you're agrument about alcohol is rididulous. Yes, it is a drug - so is nicotine, but they are not ILLEGAL!! It is a drug test to screen for illegal drugs, not alcohol, nicotine or prescription drugs (give your head a shake on that one too!!). They are legal drugs and yes if someone was drunk on the job they would be fired, as they should be. You make it sound like people have a right to abuse their employers drug policy when they are away from work - that is NOT the case and people need to make the choice of having their drugs or keeping a job...it's that simple.
-
- Jim
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:21
Drug testing means high turnover rates for employees, less skilled workers, people turning to alcoholics because they cant have a puff anymore, accidents injuries and deaths. Testing sounds good in the big picture but in reality it fails to improve on safety.This is a fact.
-
- JIM
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:21
Well Mr. Harrison you are entitled to your opinion just as I am mine but the fact of the matter is the Canadian Human Rights Act is set in place for a reason, to protect the rights of the citizens of this country and if you don't like it maybe you should move to communist China.
-
- Jim
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:20
If these tests are for safety purposes than safety should be the top priority, not whether one kind of drug is legal or not it is irrelevant. Any drug which impairs judgement jeoprodizes safety illegal or not it don't matter.The point is to keep a workplace safe not single out the illegal drug users from the ones using legal drugs.A drug is a drug if it impairs your judgement its unsafe period I dont care if its cocaine alcohol or xanax it all has the same consequence. If you cant realise that legal drugs are just as dangerous as illegal drugs than you are a bloody fool. These are employers not the police legal or illegal does not matter when talking about safety.Do you get it now?
-
- F.
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:20
The fine line between dumb and dumbier.
Sniff, snort, smoke or inject, your an idiot/addict without a reality check making a big cheque...
I have lived in Fort Mac and other places where the dope head 'tards/phuctards of the world justify their ilk by indicating they are the MAJORITY.
As a worker and investor, when I discover incompetence and dope use, I move my money. If it is my job, I move my ar$e and retirement as well. -
- JIM
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:19
well Steve thank you for proving my point.Nobody available for work because they are ALL on drugs, prescription or illegal whatever, you said it yourself.Everybody takes drugs for some reason therefore any given person may be high at any time at work and really whats the difference between being high on pot or alcohol and being high on painkillers or tranquillizers?high is high is it not?i have checked all my facts and they are all solid, how exactly did I prove myself wrong? I guess you left that part out.I mean you said it-prescription meds make you drowsy and puts yourself and others in danger. If so TEST FOR THEM TOO, I know if Im drowsy from meds I would stay home but the same cant be said for everyone now can it.So prescription meds are ok you just have to judge whether or not you are fit to work before you go in?What about your teammates you can't make decisions for them.Whos to say whos high on what?The policy don't work way too many variables and loopholes anybody can see that.
-
- Steve
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:19
@Jim: You are truly ridiculous. What about huffing gas ? Are you serious? Guess we all know how you spend your weekends and most of your comments now make a lot more sense. YOU are the delusional one that said all drugs have the same consequence - I would surely love to see another post by someone supporting that argument (not holding my breath). I did not say that all drugs had the same effect or consequence ...I think that was you my friend. I also love how you come up with your facts and how the Alberta oil companies have such a bad safety record due to their drug testing policy. First of all, did you not say that drug testing was illegal earlier - says a lot for your credibility and knowledge - and secondly, it has nothing to do with their drug testing policies but more to do with the nature of the job. I think you truly believe that employers would be better off with a bunch of burnt out meth addicts. Let me guess - you don't run your own business or have people working for you?
-
- JIM
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:18
How is this not accurate? This is a document from the Canadian Commission of Human Rights and it pretty much validates my point of view.I have the federal government on my side.No Rio Tinto did not violate Jason's human rights by testing him BUT if he was refused the position because of the test results then yes that is a violation of his rights and he would certainly win a court battle with the company.It's all there did you even read the document?read it all you will see you are wrong.The argument is over, I win. I agree you are entitled to your point of view but realise that that's all it is-a point of view federal law does not support.And all those random drug tests you were getting were a violation of your rights.I can't be any clearer read the document.I'm right accept it and move on.
-
- Steve
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:18
Jim - do all drugs make you high?? GUess I better lay off the Tylenol then. If you have EVER been prescribed medication before you know that the doctor will ask you what line of work you are in, in relation to what the prescription drug is. You are putting ALL drugs in the same category and it's ridiculous. I just took an Advil because your uninformed comments are giving me a headache - does that mean I am a danger to myself and others I work with?? Of course not but if I just went to the bathroom and smoked a joint I would be. Not all the same buddy - ask your doctor. Let me ask you this and see if you can make a reference. Do you agree with drinking and driving? I would guess no. So in that case I assume you also agree with the fact that cops routinely pull drivers over who they suspect are impaired. Agreed? That is the policy they have in place to take the drunk drivers off the road. Would you feel better if the cops stopped every single vehicle on every single road in order to get the drunks off the road (aka - TEST THEM ALL!). It won't happen. The cops get rid of the ones they suspect are guilty (aka UNSAFE). Just as with employers, they do the drug testing to ensure their employees are following their policies, just as the cops so the check stops to ensure citizens so the same. If you are drinking and driving, you lose your license....if you are doing drugs that the company has forbidden (LEGAL or ILLEGAL), than you are out of a job. Understand now?
-
- Jim
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:18
Steve my friend you are missing the point here. I have lived this scenario and it just don't work.For example, A fellow team member whom I worked with in Fort Mac was tested and failed for marijuana.This guy was one of the best refinery operators on the team over 10 years experience and knew everything about how to run that place.Well he was fired because he liked to smoke a bit of pot on his days off.They replaced him with an 18 year old frenchman who could not speak english because SKILLED EMPLOYEES ARE HARD TO COME BY and thats all they could get. This made it a lot harder to function as a team and productivity suffered as well as safety records. I'm just saying that if someone is a good employee with an outstanding safety record who cares if they smoke a bit of pot on they're days off they're skills and record should are what employers should look at not what someone does in the privacy of their own home.And alcohol should also be banned if drugs are because ALCOHOLIS A POWERFUL DRUG. So Steve Johnson if you can't understand this you are truly a useless idiot.
-
- JIM
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:18
Don't like your boss? slip something in his coffee when he is not looking and then report that you seen him doing drugs in the bathroom.He will be gone soon enough. I've never done this but I have heard of people who have and yes its wrong but it happens. If you're in a positoin of authority watch out you could be next even if you have never done drugs in your life.Just another flaw in the policy you are all so fond of.
-
- j
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:17
our society is based a very important rule -innocent until proven guilty. asking for a drug test basically says you are guilty of a crime now prove you are innocent. that could be the beginning of a bad precedent.
-
- F.
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:17
Jason, good luck.
As for testing, not a poke at you. But the loudest critics are usually the guiltiest proponents.
Hair samples, agree, go for the whole work force. As for everyone smoking a doobie, 'Giv'er Son'. There are lots of qualified workers unemployed who would truly give a hair sample to work in Lab West.
Jason, just for sh'ts and giggles, I would have gone for the pube screen, then again, you could have been hired as a result of being a pregnant female, but I digress...?
Gents, investors want their investment protected. What you call a job is someone else's money at work. The Proletariat died when the great Soviet experiment collapsed.
Get a life to go with the big buck job, or learn how to Get a Life while you are sitting at home in your parents basement at 45 wondering why the world has passed you by.
Just one man and his opinion who left Lab West in '85 and has rapidly pee'd his way to the top.
PS; Is Reach for the Top still on CBC?
F. Harrison, formerly of Wabush, still a Labradorian. -
- terry
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:16
regardless of whether or not this testing was right or wrong it is full of horrible puns. not only is it cheesey and lazy writing but it makes light of this man's situation. the aurora should really be more careful in its editing.
-
- Steve
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:15
About time that was picked up.
-
- Steve
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:12
Jason - I don't need to re-read the article as it registered the first time I read it. Your issues dealt with the methods of the drug testing and did not mention that your potential co-workers were all addicted to drugs. You are complaining that you will be working with a bunch of crackers but you obviously knew about it before you applied for the job and still went through the process so how much does it really bother you? I agree 100% that all new employees should be tested (urine, hair, etc - whatever the company feels is required to do an analysis) but also agree that existing employees should be tested. In fact, I would be very surprised if there are no random drug screening procedures in place with this employer - they have ever legal right to do so and are only protecting themselves and the other employees. The bottom line is that if you want the job then deal with the procedures involved in order to secure that job (and hopefully keep it!). The employer is doing you a favour by hiring you - you are not doing them a favour by working for them so deal with their policies.
-
- Jim
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:11
Rio Tinto needs to stop drug testing completely I'll tell you why. Drug testing does not make a workplace any safer and in my opinion makes it much more unsafe.After years in Fort McMurray I've seen this countless times. What happens is new hires will quit drugs for a while until they pass the initial urine test and get hired.Then they start using again thinking they are in the clear. Some time down the road say a couple months later the person will have an incident and be retested and fail.This means they will be fired and will have to be replaced by a new hire.Whatever training the company has given the person is completely gone to waste.This ensures nothing but a steady flow of green employees in charge of running multi billion dollar refineries with no experience.When the plant is in an upset nobody knows what to do because everybody is green and still in training.This is very unsafe like a ticking time bomb.The fact of the matter is these companies cannot hold on to any long term employees, nobody knows what they are doing its a gong show, a clusterf*** of young inexperienced people trying to do a job that requires years of experience and training.Not to mention the alcohol abuse.Can't smoke pot?drink a bottle of lambs a night you'll never get fired for that.Ridiculous.Rio Tinto listen up do not turn this into another Syncrude or Suncor you will Highly regret it when your plant falls to pieces.
-
- Steve
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:11
@Jim: All has the same consequence?? Can you honestly sit there and tell me that doing cocaine and smoking a cigaratte has the same consequence? Or taking an Aspirin vs crystal meth? You are insane my friend! Nicotine, aspirin and prescription drugs are allowed as part of the workplace because they are LEGAL and because they do not impede safety. I can't believe that you think an employee taking an aspirin for a headache (or prescription drug for a nasal infection, etc) would work the same as someone who took cocaine or alcohol. Alcohol is a drug, yes, but it is not permitted on the jobsite. It is not included in the screening test because it is legal to consume while not at work. Unlike cocaine, pot, etc - I really don't see how this is an issue and the fact that you group the legal drugs in with the illegal drugs is ridiculous - THEY DON't TEST YOU FOR THE LEGAL DRUGS!! Bottom line is, lay off the crackpipe and the rolling papers and you'll keep your job. If not, someone who prefers a livelihood who doesn't use ILLEGAL drugs will take your place. Has nothing to do with freedoms on your time off - you think employers should allow their employees to use cocaine when their away from work when even society would have you arrested for it. Can't belive you don't understand this and still feel that employees should be able to do whatever they want away from work. Let's just say I'm glad you don't work for me.
-
- D
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:11
Wow, didnt know saying a few words would spark such a conversation.
But, I still believe that if new hires, and contractors have to do testing, then all employees at the mine should as well.
One has to do it, all should. -
- Steve
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:11
FINALLY - someone with a brain. Thank you Ken.
-
- Jim
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:11
Is there something wrong with your brain? you are now arguing against documents released by the federal government.I don't care how many people get drug tested randomly it is illegal and companies are obviuosly abusing their authority to create fear in their workforce. The purpose of the document is to make legal guidelines for companies to follow and if they don't well let them get sued.Why are you sticking up for companies that violate human rights?It's all there in black and white you are saying you know better than the Canadian Commission for Human Rights?You must think highly of yourself or you're just plain stupid.Deal with it.
-
- Steve
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:11
A counter argument to what?? The fact that you think all employers should test for ALL drugs or NO drugs at all? Yeah, great point for sure - test for caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, all prescription drugs, etc - you can't be serious. Nobody would be available to work because they have taken LEGAL drugs or because they are on prescription medication. Your argument is ridiculous in that you say some prescription meds can affect your mindset and you are right - and these are not tested for. Employers need to be smart and if they feel that are not 100%, don't go into work!! If you are drowsy from your meds don't go to work and put yourself and othersin danger. This is a fact of life and every company in th world deals with it, whether you're RioTinto or SubWay. People who are not fit for work should not be there. What companies do with drug screening is not about prescription drugs - it's about the illegal drugs that they don't want their employees using and they have every right to test for this. Funny enough, I have worked for several oil companies in Alberta and also here in St. John's - and I have been involve din random drug testing at every company. No need to prove you wrong - you have continusously done that yourself - Check your facts Jim!!! The bottom line is that if you don't agree with their drug testing policies, don't bother going through the interview process because there will be other candidates for the job that have no issues with the policies. Employers want good employees, not only from a procductivity standpoint but also from an ethics and LEGAL standpoint.
-
- Steve
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:10
Nice link as well - a few posts ago you were saying that random drug testing was illegal and now you post a link saying how 10% of Canadian worksites employ it.
Way to back up your arguments! -
- JIM
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:09
http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/pdf/poldrgalceng.pdf
There it is all in black and white. -
- Here
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:09
Refuse on religious grounds. Give them your pee or nothing. I would give them blood before hair. And what is done with the collected sample afterwards? Will it be returned and the data destroyed? This testing is pushing the limits. People should just not work for those that perform such bias testing.
Better still shave your body before you go in. Then what are they going to say? You do not get the job since you have no body hair. Discrimination is just the start of that one. -
- Ken
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:08
Not to take sides here but I have been subjected to pre-employment drug testing and random drug testing in previous jobs. Sorry.
-
- Editor
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:08
Please note, Ken from Wabush and Steve Johnson from St. John's share the same email address! Strange coincidence.
-
- Resident
- - July 14th, 2010 at 11:48:06
I'm having a bad hair day today too! LOL
.jpg)
.jpg)
