When the line between two opposing rights is so thin it’s almost transparent, you know there’s gonna be a war waged. It’s inevitable.
Back in 2012, energy giant Suncor adopted a policy for safety at their sites that included random drug screens. These were over and above the now very routine drug screens used by most as a pre-screen for employment. Up until their policy change, really all one needed to do was successfully pass a pre-screen test and they were golden.
That all changed with the inclusion of their new policy. It afforded Suncor the right to randomly test their employee pool at any time and the union immediately rejected that proposal based on a flimsy “right to privacy”. The argument being that a random testing is akin to violating their rights.
Until that time, as near as we can recall, the only other time that a drug screen would be involved was when there was a notable safety incident on site. The test was used to determine if the employee was or wasn’t under the influence at the time. We could be wrong, and if so, we’ll gladly include the correct information.
That said, according to Suncor, between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2012, there were 115 positive tests during operations as well as investigations into workplace fatalities going back as far as 2000 where 3 of the workers were determined to have been under the influence at the time (lending credence to the tests after an accident or incident we mentioned earlier).
Still, the union wasn’t having it.
They applied for, and received an injunction stalling the new policy until it passed through arbitration. Which it didn’t. Hardly a surprise to anyone, really, seeing as how the province is so union-friendly and union catering. All they need do is cry a little and everyone bends over backwards.
Well, no surprise to anyone except maybe us.
We were appalled that the brakes were applied to such a move. The oilpatch is so rife with substance use/abuse it’s not even funny. All sadly anecdotal at best via informal studies and polls, because hey, who wants to admit they have a substance problem, right? One such informal screen suggested that:
“...40 to 50 per cent of workers engage in illicit drug use — either to enhance work performance or to cope with stress.”
We’re not so sure about any of you, but that stat, anecdotal or not is very troubling indeed. That would mean there’s almost a 50/50 chance that the person working right next to you is under the influence or has been recently. Depending on the area you are working in, especially in production areas of the site/plant, that is highly concerning and something none of us should have to even consider or think about.
Suncor’s biggest directive, not unlike any other major oil company, is that they believe you arrived in one piece and you should be leaving in one piece. They all have their in-house policy (Suncor’s is “Journey To Zero”), and they all do what they can to enforce it. No one wants to see a coworker get hurt or killed.
But everyone wants their “rights”.
And that is always where the war will begin.
That moment when you see two sets of rights clash head on into each other. It then becomes a question of which set of rights will be declared more intrinsic and prevailing?
A brief timeline of the case thus far was of course, the planned implementation of the random testing which led to the arbitration ruling that no, it can’t proceed because “privacy rights”. Where did it go from there? Well, it then went on to the Court of Queen’s Bench and was overturned, allowing them to perform the screens.
That in turn led to an immediate appeal by the union folk, which was also laid waste by the Alberta Court of Appeal in a unanimous decision. Their ruling suggested that an entirely new arbitration panel be set up to hear the case and merits once again. Well, they agreed with the previous ruling rather that suggested the same.
So now we’re at cross purposes. Safety rights or privacy rights, and which one will come out on top.
We imagine that the union camp right now is shitting themselves repeatedly with the prospect of another arbitration hearing, and one in which (given their recent track record of repeated failure to impress the courts) they stand a very realistic possibility of losing this time. The possibility that they may be able to claim only the initial stoppage and nothing more. They have had little luck since that first ruling.
This had us in a bit of a quandary ourselves because we are staunch supporters of privacy rights and would go to the carpet for them at a moment’s notice. However, when this case appeared, and it became a matter of safety versus privacy (though thinly veiled at best), we knew that safety had to prevail. Safety had to be the more important “right” for one and all.
We’ve had the misfortune of working side by side with those that imbibe the substances. Not once did we ever feel an overwhelming calm in doing so. Quite the opposite. We feared for our personal safety each and every moment we had to spend with these people. That is not an exaggeration or hyperbole. We truly feared for our well being. So much so that when we were no longer employed by them, we felt a sense of relief. So we can say that we’ve been there, and it wasn’t pretty.
Just spitballing here for a minute...we think this all comes down to a matter of “I do what I want and that shouldn’t have a consequence.” That’s how we see it. One of the biggest arguments against random testing, and in support of the paper thin “privacy rights” platform is what these people do on their downtime. We have heard it all too, in some form or another. Yet it all seems to come down to that one thing. What they do on their downtime is their own business and they shouldn’t be held to account for it.
And they are so wrong.
Sure, what you do on your downtime is YOUR business and no one else’s, but there’s always a chance at a consequence. They say that if they are on their downtime and they imbibe, the effects of their use could remain in their system for weeks in some cases (depending on their substance of choice), and so that would mean that if they imbibed but haven’t since they arrived at the site, they shouldn’t be punished for what happened days or weeks ago.
They also clearly don’t think of their own words. If the substance can still be detected clean weeks after the fact...that means your body is STILL impaired to a degree. No trace means no impairment. If they can still detect it weeks later, then your body is still feeling it too whether you want to admit that or not. Some have even implied that they do not imbibe at all, they were merely bystanders exposed to these things (a la second hand smoke kinda deal) and a failed test would be inconclusive because they didn’t actually partake themselves.
Were you there? Yeah? Then you were exposed to it and it affected you whether you want to admit that or not. You made a choice and now that choice has a consequence. You chose to be there in a cloud of weed (or whatever else). You really think you’re gonna be unaffected sitting there with it hanging in the air? HAHAHAHAHA! Yeah, okay. Read a book and start with Basic Biology 101, or just this article. You'll get stung even just being there...at least for up to 24 hours. Though if it's still detected after that time, then you may as well just admit you fucking toked up you goddamn liar.
It hasn’t escaped us when we wanna champion safety versus privacy wither, in the sense that this is also the same flimsy excuse that the US government used to strip rights away from the American populace in the guise of “safety”. This ain’t that, though. We moved past that.
This really is about the right to a safe work environment for one and all. Now, just because you don’t partake of the substances doesn’t mean you’ll never fuck up and ruin your shit or someone else’s...but you have a far less chance. We’ve seen just as many non-imbibers fuck shit up due to their own careless or reckless stupidity, but if you’re under the influence, this gets exponentially worse. Your stupid is magnified and intensified.
Still spitballing...it’s a safe bet to opine that the real reason that the union is so against such things is because they know only too well that a good lot of their workforce assignment would fail a random test, and those are some bad optics that could end up hurting your own credibility and standing. Think about it – if you knew, or even reasonably suspected that half or more of your members would fail a random screen...wouldn’t you be worried too? Of course you would.
A random test allowance would now put your union members in the line of fire where they would now see consequences for their behavior off site, and during their downtime. The choices they make while off the clock will now bear consequence. That ultimately forces those members to make a choice – continue to imbibe and risk the fallout if you get nailed in a random test, or stop your substance us even on your downtime and not even take the chance you might fail.
To make them understand that their lives have now come down to a simple choice – do what you wanna do and to Hell with everyone else, or keep a steady, well paid position and continue earning?
Make no mistake about it – a failed test in the oil patch will follow you around. You become far less employable with each one, and sometimes, one is enough to keep you out for good.
We probably shouldn’t know this, but Big Oil communicates with each other all the time. Especially with regards to personnel. They do. The “majors” as they’re referred to, all keep in touch with each other and that has been ongoing since the big booms of decades gone by. It was in an effort to curtail bridge hopping that would see one employee leave Company XYZ to go across the bridge (so to speak) to work for Company ABC.
It evolved to include seeing John Doe applying for this or that position, and they get on the blower with one another to see if John Doe left another major voluntarily or if they were bounced for an infraction. John Doe may not be getting another position up there as a result, and he’d have only himself to blame at that point. Think of it as an informal and not talked about “Black List” of sorts. If you make it to that list, good luck getting back to the oil patch again. No one wants to hire a misfit or fuckup. The liability is far too great.
So imagine John Doe being part of a big ass union with thousands of members who has been paid obscenely for years, and he fails a random testing. Now John is all but unemployable and he pissed away his job future (quite literally, and yes, pun intended) in the oil patch. The unions have every reason to fear the random tests. So do the members. That, to us, is the biggest reason they are fighting this measure so feverishly.
Like any other freedom, freedom to choose doesn’t mean freedom from consequence. Not ever. The choices you make can and often will affect you after-the-fact. Sure you’re free to keep pursuing substance use in your off hours, but that can come with a cost, and rightfully so. You have earned no special privilege or consideration simply because you were partaking in your downtime. That matters not one bit.
Just take a look at the multitude of examples of people doing their own shit on their own time and it bit them in the ass. They too were merely exercising their rights, but those rights came with a cost. Namely, their jobs and their reputations. Think of all those people who took part in rallies and protests and were outed and then subsequently fired from their positions. Think of those that made a Tweet that cost them their jobs and their reputation, with each one saying that their 1st Amendment rights were being violated.
No, they weren’t. You had every right to say it. Your employer had every right to fire your ass and distance themselves from you like you were covered in Ebola. You are bad optics for them now, and they’re not gonna risk boycotts or anything else to keep you on their payroll.
Think of those people that were drunk off their balls and causing all kinds of insanity in cabs or busses and all caught on camera who were then promptly shamed and then fired.
All of these things were done on their off time. Their downtime. Their personal time.
Did it matter at all?
Nope.
For the moment, with still no concrete decision made with regards to the saga, the union still has their protection from bearing consequence for their choices made on their downtime. Considering their recent track record though, we’ll apt to believe that their time will come sooner than later where that protection and buffer will no longer be available to them, and would effectively expose all the union members at Suncor and everywhere else to the same treatment and conditions.
It’s reasonable to suggest that the Suncor decision, if it goes the way we think it will (with them prevailing...safety over privacy), will be the precedent setting decision that will see every other major following suit in short order, now that they’ll legally be able to do so without any fuss. Indeed, random screens will soon become a staple at sites like that.
Much to the union’s dismay.
Moreso to their members who will soon have hard choices to make.
It’s gonna happen. You watch. We don’t expect the union’s momentum to change for the better any time soon. Their chances at success are slim to none now.
We do expect to see and read a lot from disgruntled ex-employees in the oil patch though...
Free your 8 SCAs always, if you have any questions, concerns, comments or suggestions, feel free to leave them below or contact us.
