Substance Abuse In The Workplace Essay, Research Paper
As widespread drug usage is on the rise, many employers have begun to worry about the public presentation of their employees. Absenteeism, hurts, loss of productiveness, employee morale, larceny and human deaths are merely some of the causes of drug usage in the workplace. The thought of drug proving among workers has developed from society & # 8217 ; s concern over a sensed addition in the usage of drugs and the relation between drug usage and damage, with attendant hazards to the worker, fellow workers and the populace. Equally early as 1987, 21 % of employers had instituted drug-testing plans. Employers have begun to believe that aggregate drug trials are the reply to their jobs. What many of these employers don & # 8217 ; T know is that there are many jobs that surround drug proving at work. One of the biggest of these jobs is whether or non it is constitutional to carry on drug trials on the employees. Employers fail to educate themselves with established or recent Torahs about drug testing in the workplace and about human rights. Besides, mass, low-priced showing trials may non be dependable or valid. Alcohol proving does non distinguish insouciant imbibing from intoxicant dependance or alcohol addiction. Drug trials can make an untrusty environment for the employees. There are better ways to turn to substance maltreatment. Drug proving in the workplace is an of import issue for all of Canada & # 8217 ; s labour force, irrespective if it & # 8217 ; s you & # 8217 ; re first occupation or if you & # 8217 ; ve had a steady occupation for 30 old ages.
Many employees, who have had to repress themselves to degrading and humbling drug trials, feel that these trials violate their constitutional rights. It is an violation on their privateness. In order for the trials to do certain there is no specimen fiddling there must be an decision maker nowadays to supervise every action the employee makes during their drug trial. For trials such as hair and breath proving this does show a major job, but for urine trials work forces and adult females likewise are disturbed by the direct observation of their urine aggregation. Unfortunately, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies merely to the Torahs and actions of the federal and provincial authoritiess and their bureaus. It does non use to the policies and actions of private employers. The Charter therefore does non protect private sector employees from unreasonable drug proving. It is necessary to province that presently an employer can end an employee & # 8217 ; s occupation if the employee has been utilizing illegal drugs and intoxicant, but merely if such usage is non considered a disablement. Alcohol or drug dependence can be viewed as a physical and/or mental disablement. In Ontario, the Ontario Human Rights, Citizenship, and Multiculturalism Act prohibit employment favoritism based on disablement. Employers have a duty to suit employees who are disabled. Drug proving has non been proven to be against the Canadian Human Rights Commission. & # 8220 ; In order to establish a drug testing policy into a company which complies with human rights statute law, an employer must be able to show that the testing is related to occupation public presentation, and non merely substance abuse. & # 8221 ; Many employees feel that drug testing is a manner of know aparting against people who might hold a drug and/or intoxicant disablement. An illustration of such favoritism is found in Entrop v. Imperial Oil Ltd. The Ontario Board of Inquiry found that Imperial Oil Limited discriminated against Martin Entrop, a senior operator at the Sarnia Refinery, because of a disablement. The Board of Inquiry found that & # 8220 ; under a new Alcohol and Drug Policy introduce in 1992, Imperial Oil employees in & # 8220 ; safety-sensitive & # 8221 ; places were required to advise direction if they presently had or had antecedently had a substance maltreatment problem. & # 8221 ; After Mr.Entrop heard that this policy was coming into consequence he informed his employer that he had had an intoxicant job about ten old ages before, that he had attended Alcoholics Anonymous, and that he had abstained degree Fahrenheits
read-only memory utilizing intoxicant since 1984. Mr. Entrop had been an employee for 17 old ages and he had had no jobs at work that were related to substance maltreatment, but Imperial Oil’s policy required that Mr.Entrop be instantly removed organize his current place. This illustration clearly shows that it is prejudiced to end a person’s occupation because of a past or present disablement and that there are constitutional affairs involved with drug proving in the workplace. The lab process is a 2nd invasion of privateness. Urinalysis reveals non merely the presence of illegal drugs, but besides the being of many other physical and medical conditions including gestation. Drug testing is an invasion of privateness that is to be abhorred and it is clearly against our constitutional rights. Drug testing is designed to observe and penalize behavior that is normally engaged in off-duty and off employer’s premises, in other words, in private.
There is much confusion about the truth of drug trials. In fact claims of one million millions of dollars lost in employee productiveness are based on guessing, non existent grounds. Urine trials can non prove for drugs straight. They test for hints of substances taken before the trial which are no longer active in your system but can still be detected. The most accurate methods of urine analysis are time-consuming and expensive, and even so can be incorrect at least 10 % of the clip. Even though these drug trials are the most accurate, more frequently so non employers opt for a less accurate drug trial because the more accurate 1s are excessively much of an disbursal for the company. These cheaper drug trials frequently have an mistake rate of 30 % , which means that 30 % of all people that take these drugs trials are falsely accused and may be fired from their occupations. Besides, hints of legal medical specialties, such as cough sirup, rhinal sprays and pendant earrings can be confused with those of illegal drugs. Even the poppy seeds found in adust goods can bring forth a positive consequence for diacetylmorphine. Furthermore, drug trials are non work-related because they do non mensurate damage that occurs during work hours. A positive drug trial merely shows that a drug was taken at some clip in the yesteryear. Besides, the drug trial does non separate between occasional and accustomed usage, the same is besides true with intoxicant proving. Another ground that drug proving International Relations and Security Network & # 8217 ; t really dependable is the fact that drug testing does non even observe all drug users. This is true because most stronger drugs such as cocaine do non last in the user & # 8217 ; s blood watercourse every bit long as person who has used marihuanas for illustration. This means that the weekend user of cocaine is much more likely than the weekend user of marihuana to go through a weekday drug trial. Besides drug trials may non uncover really recent drug usage. For illustration, a worker who does non smoke marihuanas on a regular basis decides to smoke marihuana in the center of the work twenty-four hours, a drug trial may come back negative because mot adequate clip has passed for drug metabolites to look in the piss. With all these factors working against the truth of drug trials, non to advert the occasional mistake of the people who process the specimens at the lab and the false-negatives that occur when an employee intentionally decides to undermine a drug trial, it is barely deserving it for an employer to travel through with the problem of a drug trials when the true drug users, the 1s that are harmful to the company, are non pointed out anyways.
There are better ways to turn to substance maltreatment in the workplace so to trust on the really undependable method of drug and intoxicant testing. These ways are more cost-efficient, time-effective and hold a much better impact in the workplace ; besides they do non raise the same privateness issues that drug trials do. An effectual option to drug testing is to develop supervisors to face, and mention impaired employees to Employee Assistance Programs or other intercession plans. This scheme leads to increased employee credence of intervention and a subsequent betterment in overall occupation public presentation.