Suncor losses on the random testing case

[pikergolf]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/suncor-...ules-1.1058084

[jaylow?]

oh well, all the coke heads have nothing to worry about come 1st day of shift. i didnt think this would pass. what a ton of crap this has turned up on site.

[dale7637]

I wish it would have flown.

I don't care for working next to jonny meth head.

[Selkirk]

.
I bet Suncor will appeal ... it's not over until the Supreme Court sings.

TF

[catnthehat]

I got a notice ye4sterday saying a contractor was going to honour the testing Jan.1 for Suncor- looks like they jumped the gun a bit!
The Alberta building Trades already do random testig throough the Rapid Site access program, but it's a volluntary program, if a member is not enrolled in it they must do a pre-access test which many try to screw around with .
I know you can fake the urine test up , but it's not too easy to do.
A swab test however only goes back about 15 hours or so, and is a better altternative IMO.

Suncor has pre-access testing as well for their employees, but only if a person has beem involved in an incident will they be subject to random drug testing.

Personally I am in favour as long as it is dealt out fairly and with ALL employees- executive staff included- some people say it's against their human rights, but the people that they work with have rights as well.

I also know that people figure what theye do on their own time is their own business, but if it affects what they do on the job, that is everybody;s business that they are around.
Weather or not the company cares about worker safety and only wants to keep their costs down or they actually want to have workers in a sfaer inviroment is not the issue, the bottom line is that they want to try and keep drugs off the site the best way they can - be they perscription or illegal.

Of course there is always the issue of marijuana being called non addictive, mind altering, etc. and people figuring it should not be illegal.
That's another topic however......
Cat

[brownbomber]

Wouldn't have had issue with it. Don't do drugs won't be a issue. Especially the drugs like coke meth etc that leave the system quickly.

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

I got a notice ye4sterday saying a contractor was going to honour the testing Jan.1 for Suncor- looks like they jumped the gun a bit!
The Alberta building Trades already do random testig throough the Rapid Site access program, but it's a volluntary program, if a member is not enrolled in it they must do a pre-access test which many try to screw around with .
I know you can fake the urine test up , but it's not too easy to do.
A swab test however only goes back about 15 hours or so, and is a better altternative IMO.

Suncor has pre-access testing as well for their employees, but only if a person has beem involved in an incident will they be subject to random drug testing.

Personally I am in favour as long as it is dealt out fairly and with ALL employees- executive staff included- some people say it's against their human rights, but the people that they work with have rights as well.

I also know that people figure what theye do on their own time is their own business, but if it affects what they do on the job, that is everybody;s business that they are around.
Weather or not the company cares about worker safety and only wants to keep their costs down or they actually want to have workers in a sfaer inviroment is not the issue, the bottom line is that they want to try and keep drugs off the site the best way they can - be they perscription or illegal.

Of course there is always the issue of marijuana being called non addictive, mind altering, etc. and people figuring it should not be illegal.
That's another topic however......
Cat

People forget it's a high hazard workplace. My experience is people who do drugs tend to have other issues as well .

Grizz

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

only if a person has beem involved in an incident will they be subject to random drug testing.

Then it's not random testing. It's for cause testing. They can also test if they suspect someone is under the influence. There doesn't need to be an accident. This is still allowed.

Originally Posted by catnthehat

Personally I am in favour as long as it is dealt out fairly and with ALL employees- executive staff included- some people say it's against their human rights, but the people that they work with have rights as well.

But remember, testing isn't designed to be a part of the "war on drugs". The intent is not to ensure that no employees ever use drugs or alcohol. It's to ensure there is workplace safety and that no one is physically injured because of an employee under the influence. Testing of ALL employees isn't necessary to ensure that. A stoned secretary or accountant or VP in head office creates little risk (maybe to the shareholders, but not to employee's physical safety). That's why many companies designate "safety sensitive positions" and only test them.

[FishingMOM]

Originally Posted by TriggerFinger

.
I bet Suncor will appeal ... it's not over until the Supreme Court sings.

A similar case involving the same union and Irving Pulp and Paper Ltd. in New Brunswick is to go before the Supreme Court of Canada on Dec. 7.

you know the supreme court will drag out the decision, but we will get an answer sooner than later.

[Ricktye]

Not only that, but do you think any employer really wants to hire/employ someone who is a flagrant lawbreaker? If they'll break the drug law and say testing violates their rights, will they have respect for any other statutes or company rules?

R...

Originally Posted by dale7637

I wish it would have flown.

I don't care for working next to jonny meth head.

[Don Andersen]

How about the risk to the community in general when druggies install high pressure equipment everywhere?
Anyone remember the Exon Valdez? A drunk Captian!!

Don

[thunderheart]

personally if i worked like some of you guys work where you have to trust someone else with your saftey .. i would really want the drug tests ..
again it seems that the one that uses has more rights than clean guys .. I have worked alone for years so that is good. In my ignorance i had always assumed that the random tests were already in place. why would you not want the tests if you are clean .. GAWD its your own safety..personally i think that its a dangerous job you guys have .. accidents happen i know but i would sure want to be able to go home at the end of the day.

makes no sense at all to say " ole stoney george just killed kenny clean.. was kenny's fault though....he should have watched out for stoney george .. silly kenny"



just the ramblings of grateful guy that works alone......