HRD Canada forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Notify me of new replies via email
HRM CA | 17 Jun 2013, 12:03 AM Agree 0
Supreme Court of Canada confirms illegality of random alcohol testing, even in the name of safety.
  • An Expat | 14 Jun 2013, 11:20 AM Agree 0
    Another disgusting erosion of employer rights.

    Don't be surprised if in the near future, there will be no employee hiring.

    Companies will go to term limited contract workers with no benefits, or move the work offshore. Employees, see how you enjoy your privacy then!
  • Michael de la Place | 14 Jun 2013, 01:09 PM Agree 0
    Did the board not consider that Irving does not have a serious problem BECAUSE they were doing the testing????
  • B. P. | 14 Jun 2013, 01:17 PM Agree 0
    To listen to 'Ex-Pats' comment on this issue seems to be reactionary instead of well thought and reflective....the issue of employees' rights must be balanced with those concerns of the employer--should they come into conflict, then the tie must go the employee, as giving 'carte-blanche' to employers to conduct such testing randomly infringes unnecessarily into the personal lives of the individual. Throughout the years, employers have had to watch for this kind of conduct and the vast majority of workers are responsible sorts and fear the penalties that irresponsible conduct will light on their shoulders. The workplace will correct itself on this issue and a blanket series of testing is uncalled for.
  • An Expat | 14 Jun 2013, 02:20 PM Agree 0
    I'd bet that B.P. above would be the first one to sue under the guise of workplace safety when drunken or stoned George drives his fork truck into the fuel storage tank killing several of his fellow workers in the ensuing inferno.

    On an issue of safety, there should be no margin of error, no intrusion into the workers conduct, too intrusive.

    As for employee rights - they have the ultimate right - to quit - if they don't like the work conditions.

    Not too long ago, a company was censured for acquiring photographic evidence of one of their workers having a dope break before returning to the assembly line. He had been a long term problem, so they took a picture of him smoking up. The same sad court ruled the company did not have the right to take said picture of him because, while he was still on company property (the parking lot) stoner Joe had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his pickup truck. To be clear, it was not medical maryjane.
Post a reply