Drug Testing for Planters

[Evergreen]

In some ways I suppose it was only a matter of time until the corporate powers that be decided that it is time for drug and alcohol testing. I hadn't seen it up to this point but perhaps it's already happening in parts of the province or for clients we don't work for. We've recently been informed by Interfor that beginning May 1st of this year, drug and alcohol testing will be mandatory for all employees. There are different levels of this testing. Initially Interfor will require any employee involved in a reportable safety incident where it resulted in at least one day off work or property damage greater than $2,500 to undergo an after the fact urine and/or mouth swab test if there are any indications that the employee may have been under the influence. Positive results will be cause for suspension and perhaps dismissal. Testing could be implemented if a supervisor or company forester/checker etc determines that someone is impaired or if for instance they smelled pot. This is the thin edge of the wedge as you can expect and interfor has stated that mandatory pre-hire testing will be next.

The policy documents are long and confusing and do not address any scientific data that measures what impairment is, particularly for marijuana, the primary drug of choice amongst planters. From what I can see there is basically zero tolerance for a positive test. Marijuana leaves testable traces in a person's body for quite a long time. Just ask Ross Rebagliati the Canadian Olympic snow boarder. I fear that if pre-hire testing becomes a reality we'll have a lot of difficulty in finding a completely "clean" crew.

Has anyone ever done a study that tells us what percentage of planters use marijuana recreationally? By that I don't mean while at work. In theory nobody does that.

[peroxide]

I'd guess that maybe 60/70% of planters smoke recreationally. This is just based on people I met in camp and travelling, so it's totally anecdotal.

I feel like alcohol has more serious long term effects than marijuana. After a night of drinking it takes me about two full days to reach my normal cognitive functioning. I can smoke a bunch of weed and feel totally fine the next day, maybe with a bit of a cloud over head in the morning.

[jdtesluk]

There was a guy presenting (or should I say selling) drug testing at the WSCA conference this week. He clearly was out of touch with our industry, but was a good presenter and took the questions and criticisms in stride. He made one point that I felt was very interesting. He indicated that the most significant change in companies were testing was introduced was a change in the culture and a decrease in incidents and injuries. He explained that the testing did not simply reduce incidence of impairment at work, but had a broader affect on the attitudes of workers, prompting them to think about themselves, their jobs, and their responsibilities differently.

Now I personally am skeptical of this until I see the data. When someone is selling a testing system, I feel they need to provide hard evidence of success for their system that is based on hard evidence. Just being fair. That said, it did make me wonder how (even a limited) testing regime would affect attitudes toward safety. I'm not advocating for it one way or another...I'm just saying it presents a point to ponder.

He also had trouble dealing with the main point I brought up at the time. I would hazard to say that my observations of silviculture cover a broader and deeper segment of the industry than any other person....not bragging, just citing experience. Several hundred audits, 2 large-scale surveys, several thousand interviews, 10 conferences and so forth. Through this time, I have seen a profound change in the industry in terms of substance abuse. I see far far less use of drugs on the worksite, and also less indulgence at the camps and hotels. Simply put, I see a harder-working, more focused and determined workforce, and a more responsible set of professional owners with a better understanding of the liabilities of letting their crew get wasted.

This change has occurred without making anyone piss in a jar.

There are all sorts of other things that have been done, and can be done to reduce the likelihood of workers being impaired on the job. Some companies excel at this, others still have some learning to do. But we are light years ahead of where we used to be, and we have done this ourselves without anyone holding a gun to our head. Companies can really benefit from sharing amongst themselves their methods for addressing this problem.

I am troubled by the idea that a specific forestry company thinks to simply parachute a drug-testing program into the industry without any real understanding of the culture and administrative reality of the industry. I am actually fairly comfortable with testing immediately post-incident where there is cause to believe impairment is an issue, and even proactive tests for people in positions of key responsibility such as supervisors or drivers...at least comfortable with discussing this and a proper way of implementing it. The reality is that operating a 4x4 on BC roads is far more demanding than piloting a commercial plane (I acknowledge that consequences are different). However, the idea of testing ALL workers just seems like a waste, and in my opinion is unlikely to produce a beneficial change for the industry.

A few other points to add
> Pre-hire testing is actually against the law. You can test after you hire, but not as pre-hire screening. That's what the lawyer explained this weekend.
> How will this change with (potential) legalization of marijuana?
> People with medical prescriptions for marijuana will have human rights complaints if they are discriminated against.
> Testing that focuses on marijuana will push some workers towards worse drugs that clear the system faster. This has happened in the oil patch. We really don't need a bunch of coke-heads out there planting. Joking but serious.

> Taking a testing regime that is used for workers in highly automated industries, and applying it to the extreme manual labour of tree planting is short-sighted.

[Scooter]

Reality is that operating a 4x4 on BC roads is far more demanding than piloting a commercial plane

I had to do four tests for my commercial aviation medical. One of them was a blood screening, and I guess they could have looked for drugs in that test, but when I asked the nurse that question she said that they were looking for health issues, not drugs. I didn't have any residual drugs in my system anyway, so I wasn't worried about it. But I'll look into that in more detail. Now that you bring it up, I'm surprised that I didn't have to do a drug test for a commercial pilot's license.

Mind you, it's possible that a drug test would happen after getting hired to fly commercially.

[Scooter]

I feel that some people will get quite worked up about the possibility of drug testing, especially about the possibility of getting caught because they had smoked a joint a week before planting started. That would possibly be enough to flag them as being a "problem," even though they probably never indulged in the workplace in their entire career.

I said "possibly" quite a few times in that paragraph.

If pot is legalized in a recreational sense within Canada, then that would certainly throw a wrench into the idea of drug testing at work.

If drug testing were to result in flagging people who had smoked recreationally, outside of the workplace, then the coastal planting industry is in a lot of trouble. That would wipe out as much as 70% of the workforce, if I had to guess. Mind you, some of those users would just shrug and decide to abstain during the season and the lead-up to the season.

In light of the fact that there's no indication that this is an imminent major change in the industry (?), I'm not going to worry about it. Of course, I'm not one of the people who would be worried about getting tested either.

[theBushman]

Swab testing and breathalyzer testing for crew bosses and staff under Domtar contracts are normal, and done before the contract starts. Both really only demonstrate that the person being tested didn't indulge the day before. Its a matter of whether a person can go to work sober.

[fluffer]

On a positive note contractors would have to price in the risk of a labour shortage on bids resulting in higher tree prices.

How many companies would risk bidding on a 5 million tree contract when their ability to complete relies on finding 50-60 'clean' planters. I would use it as leverage to get higher prices since the large majority of planters (especially the more experienced variety) would test positive.

[Pandion]

You obviously don’t want people who are impaired by drugs, alcohol or fatigue on the job, especially drivers, foremen and supervisors. We have a “reliable” test for alcohol impairment, but we don’t really have anything for fatigue or marijuana, so how can it be proven that impairment by one of these sources contributed to a safety infraction? Is there even a significant safety issue at most planting companies with impaired workers. I remember most injuries due to impairment by alcohol or drugs occurring on nights off and not at work. Fatigue is probably a bigger source of impairment on the job in our industry, particularly among foremen and supervisors. I’m certainly more concerned about my foreman driving 2 hours home after a few months of 16 hour days than the planter who shared a joint with his morning coffee.

[jdtesluk]

The question that has not been asked (or answered) is how many accidents are actually in any way a result of impairment (in our industry)?

The ultimate goal of the system should be to prevent injuries and incidents. Any testing system should be designed specifically for that purpose, and not to limit liability or to expand control over workers or affect their personal lives. The creep of control into our lives is gradual, and in some respects, insidious. Consider the amount of information that is now collected, stored, and utilized on us. Even Orwell did not see what we are now surrounded by...and that man was freaking paranoid! It certainly seems that there is tolerance for some level of testing (particularly for high-risk positions), but I think we all understand that a full-crew testing regime would be incredibly disruptive. Really, if we want to talk about impairment, we should talk about the most prevalent form of impairment, which affects drinkers, smokers, and non-users alike......impairment by fatigue.

I've seen some good steps taken in relation to fatigue impairment, although much much more is needed there. Quite honestly, I find it a insulting that forestry companies should focus on drug testing for impairment before considering their own direct role in grinding workers and forcing them to work to the brink of physical collapse in order to maintain their earnings, and thus directly fueling impairment by fatigue. I see this as hypocrisy.

Again, I'm not opposed to a limited drug and alcohol testing regime, based on analysis of risk or response to incident, and preferably with some basis in evidence (from our industry).

However, if forestry companies want to talk about impairment, they should look at their own actions first and demonstrate their concern for safety by addressing the biggest problem first....the physical destruction of the workers through increased workloads at diminishing rates of pay...which I know from direct experience is directly implicated in injuries and accidents, and is probably an influential reason why some turn to substances to cope.

[Mike]

I've seen some good steps taken in relation to fatigue impairment, although much much more is needed there. Quite honestly, I find it astounding, insulting, and despicable that forestry companies should focus on drug testing for impairment before considering their own direct and intentional role in grinding workers half to death, and forcing them to work to the brink of physical collapse in order to maintain their earnings, and thus directly fueling impairment by fatigue. I see this as crude and inexcusable hypocrisy.

I think you are 100% right. I've long said that fatigue needs to be taken a lot more seriously than people have been doing so thus far...

But I also came here to say what Fluffer said --- holy shit would prices need to rise. You're talking about the decimation of 40-70% of your work force, possibly even more. When we're talking that one of the primary reasons people go planting is "for the experience" or "for the culture", and a clean camp isn't going to capture that well...Interfor could end up a bunch of really expensive high priced contracts for straight edge people, which I think would be hilarious.

[Evergreen]

Interfor's drug testing program is set to roll out May 1st of this year. Since it is currently only going to be post incident testing, it's most likely that planting contractor supervisors will decide that testing is not required in all but alcohol related events, so there most likely won't be an issue. Greenpeaks has a million trees or more to do in the interior for Interfor out of Midway and Nakusp so they'll be the guinea pigs. We coast contractors have been summoned to attend a training session for two days during our busiest time in mid March. We are being told to modify our drug & alcohol policies to conform to Interfor's.

I strongly object to this as an invasion of people's privacy. Most of us got into this business because we didn't want to toe the corporate culture line. We have our own culture and it has proven to work remarkably well. Nowhere else can productivity to the degree delivered by planters be found. I haven't seen injuries that could be attributed to drugs and I've never seen any statistics showing that drugs directly cause injuries in our sector.

WCB claims are expensive for contractors. A claim of any significance will cause the rate we pay to WCB to rise. We had a fellow tear his rotator cuff putting his gear in the back of a truck. It will cost us around $15,000 in 2016 alone. I suppose it would be to our advantage to insist on drug testing after every incident as it would most likely disqualify the worker from their claim. I'd imagine that any contractor might be on the lookout for a good reason to disqualify a worker if they could prove that they were high when an injury happened. We have a strict policy that nobody uses pot at work and if we thought that someone was, we'd really have to consider asking WCB to deny their claim. In a way it seems discriminatory in that there is as yet no empirical evidence to support the idea that planters who smoke pot are more likely to cause an injury to themselves or others. Interfor seems to be suggesting that someone who had a couple of puffs of pot 10 days before the contract is not fit to plant.
There is plenty of data to show that driving while high does cause impairment, although in Oregon statistics show that there has not been any increase in vehicle related accidents since pot was legalized.
The real crunch will come if Trudeau drags his feet in legalizing pot and Interfor insists that all employees be drug tested before they work for them. If both of these things happen, I hope we know about it before we bid on any more contracts for Interfor as our prices would have to reflect these practices. Once Western, Tolko, Weyerhaeuser and other big licensees get wind of what Interfor is doing, I fear they will be following in their foot steps.

This year will be my 42nd in planting. I have seen a lot of changes, most of them for the better, but judging by my strong negative reaction to this latest one perhaps it's time for me to head out to pasture.

[Nate]

I'm confused by Jordan's post about pre-hire screening being illegal, because in the oilfield pre-hire screening is the norm. Not sure what the difference is? They call it "pre-access" screening, perhaps there's a legal difference between testing for the purpose of hiring and testing for the purpose of accessing a particular private site? And they get around the difference by calling it pre-access and then saying that being able to access site is a condition of employment?

Until testing is pre-hire/pre-access/whatever you want to call it, I don't think any of this is much of a deal. There might be one or two stories of how someone gets victimized by a marijuana hit on their drug screen after an accident or something, but that seems like it.

Some silviculture companies who do work for energy companies already pre-test their employees before going on certain jobs/sites and it hasn't created any major problems that I know of other than a few temper tantrums.

Pandion's point about fatigue is well made, it's the real impairment problem in the industry, but it's not exactly a silviculture-only problem. Fatigue issues in silviculture aren't any better or worse than what I've seen in mining, harvesting, drilling, fraccing, farming, pipelining etc.

[jdtesluk]

The pre-hire issue is really a matter of semantics, and a guideline for implementation (as explained by a lawyer). If you discriminate against someone in the hiring process through use of a screening program, you are violating their rights. However, if conditions of employment include requirements to test, which may then result in loss of employment, you are fine. This difference may seem silly, but it is basically how companies worked around the rights issue.

As for not much of a deal, I think a broader context is worth consideration. Workers' rights are always under pressure and attack by corporate agents that wish to foist all liability on the worker, force the workers to submit to their conditions, and provide them with the least remuneration possible. This tool provides companies with another means of denying benefits, employment, or protection to workers.

Again, a limited testing system (i.e. post incident) seems like it may have utility, and may be tolerated. However, Evergreen has already pointed out the slippery slope that one forestry company is pondering, with a move toward full crew testing.

You also need to be careful about the way your information is utilized. It is one thing to give up personal and financial data, but now you are asked to submit biological data to a private company? What guarantees are you provided that the biological materials will be handled properly and responsibly? Corporate track records for responsible stewardship of personal information are atrocious at best. In the age of biometrics and DNA, I am staunchly against anyone demanding samples from my body based on anything other than a court order, or a medical process that I originally requested. If you think this sounds paranoid, just scan the headlines for the latest corporate data breach.

Of course, one can argue that all workers are protected by widespread testing. However, there is no data to support this in our industry. None. Zippo. We cannot point at after-hours events as evidence, and you cannot take examples from other industries and project them across a workplace that is entirely different. You don't compare oil workers to tree planters. Maybe farm workers, but not people that handle heavy equipment to people that handle a small 5 pound shovel.

To me, the fatigue issue reveals the hypocrisy in pushing a testing system over other safety reforms. If they were truly committed to protecting workers, they would do something about fatigue.

Think about it...does drinking or smoking cause tendonitis and blown out backs? I can think of only two fatalaties from our industry that involved substance abuse and impairment...and those were both after work functions no relate to productive operations. Meanwhile, we continue to see fatalities and close calls in the transportation of workers, under conditions in which the forestry companies leave the process of navigating dangerous terrain up to the lowest bid. There seems to be a contradiction between corporate action, and actual efforts to address injuries and fatalities in silviculture....at least when you compare widespread drug-testing to the many other things that could be or should be done to protect workers from harm

I won't oppose a testing regimen entirely. But I want to see a serious conversation about how it fits our industry, and protects our workers; our workers that lack a union or any sort of labour representation to protect them in the case of a problem. Don't forget that either. Silviculture workers have almost no power, and are being asked to bend over once more (after bending over 4000 and 5000 times a day already).

[Nate]

Of course it isn't about the best interests of the worker and it's about downgrading liability, but the principle is nothing new. I also don't think drug testing would have any substantive effect on real world safety in silviculture, but who's naiive enough to believe that's the purpose of it? Given that fact, I don't see why you can't compare planters to oil workers, why not? The foremen run equipment and are responsible for the transport of supplies and workers. The worker risk of injury/damage is lower than machine operators, granted, but an incident is an incident as far as corporate safety is concerned.

I for one don't care much about some shitty lab having my DNA or how they handle it, but I can understand why some would feel strongly about the issue. Privacy is arguably the most important legal frontier of the 21st century and there's no doubt it's right up there with bioethics in terms of slippery slopes.

The people who will or will not implement drug testing in the industry will do it for legal liability reasons, no other. There won't be a conversation with industry outside of maybe a workshop at a conference, the big boys will do it if they think it makes sense and they won't if they don't. I personally don't think it's worth their while to, but simply from an economics perspective. The prospective return is too little at this point for all the extra cost and headache it will incur.

[Scooter]

I can think of only one fatality from our industry that involved substance abuse and impairment

Two, perhaps? Julia, plus the much older Khaira guy that drank himself to death in Golden.

[jdtesluk]

I can think of only one fatality from our industry that involved substance abuse and impairment

Two, perhaps? Julia, plus the much older Khaira guy that drank himself to death in Golden.

The cause of the gentleman's death in Revelstoke (Mr. Kooner) was subject of a police investigation, and there are conflicting reports about the nature of his demise. It also was not a case of substance abuse causing and accident, but rather too much of a substance on a night off (which has happened many times).

[Angkorwat]

i started in the late 80's..shit i could list 10 fatalities in my first few years....from alcohol,drugs(personally some of the people woulda went that way...planting or not)...this job does tend to draw us extro/introverts)..fatique...Bear kill...and as many near deaths(limbs removed or certain internal organs) from not having radios or just some ignorant (times have changed) truck loggers...no names or companies being mentioned...guys i dont know if its best posting names of deceased...some of the people i know that passed away have siblings that work in the industry or connections and even though they might not be signed up to this site..dont need to here the story in some random rumour...jdtesluk/scooter...you should know better

i do agree with Evergreen and jdtesluk...this is more about reducing workers rights and finding any excuse to blame the worker(...no doubt about it,more workers get injured from poor working conditions/trying to do a job on a low bid(fatigue) then from alcohol/drugs...or what becomes combintion of both one sympton creating or enhancing the other
whatever it is,its not the industry/corporations fault...right...contract it out...we become prime contractor.."they" have zero injures for 2 years...win award for ISO complient...certified!!! buddy at home depot...im supporting them!!(not knowing some truck logger fell asleep at the wheel trying to make the same money in a day he did 15 years ago or some 27 year old rookie cutting a 85" diameter rotted out cedar on a 45 degree slope with little training)
Back in the the days of protesting old growth logging...one way of direct action was sixty penny nails...
so in the mill,
the saw blade would hit one of those and the blade/a chip of it/or part of the nail would hit the guy running the mill(this was rare) but ...of course...in the papers it was all the radical environmentalist fault and they were Deliberately targeting sawmill workers(it was about targeting equipment).(it was rarely mentioned the nails wrecked the blades,which were expensive and many a blade replaced)
the milll could have just installed a simple $200 plexiglass piece to protect the worker(some mills did have these and eye/chest injuries were pretty much non-extistant)...as there was many more injures just from regular flying debris( which was not reported)...
but what is scary...it was found out..in the boardrooms there was discussion of not installing these purposely to gain more traction from the public for the logging companies
So... no...this isnt as much about worker safety ...as it is about LAWCAP... insurance,how to alleviate costs and misdirect responsibility.
its sad..but of course it was only a matter of time before it was going to hit our industry...
what sucks! is the top dogs who sign off on this...probably have some 16 year old eastern european chick under their desk,10 lines of china white splayed on top and a wife at home wondering what the fuck shes going to have Surgically altered next.
i'm rambling

[Scooter]

guys i dont know if its best posting names of deceased...

A very valid point, except that in Julia's case, her father specifically wanted her name to be very, very well known. He wanted her death to be an example for the industry, to try to prevent other deaths.

Julia's dad (Colin) spoke at the WSCA conference in 2004. By the end of his talk, there wasn't a dry eye in the room. Unfortunately, that was before the time of proper video to be able to fully convey the emotions, but if you read the text of his speech, you'll see why it's appropriate that we never forget her:

http://www.replant.ca/juliajames.html

Also, although I fully agree that the details among some accidents should be kept confidential in many matters, I'm 100% confident that if I die in an industry-related accident, I want the details spread far and wide, even if it's because of a fuck-up of my own design. In fact, I especially want the information shared if it's my own personal fuck-up. Because if I did something really stupid that killed me (and I've had three extremely close calls that could/should have killed me while planting), then the more planters that know about it, the less likely that a second person dies from the same type of stupidity. To elaborate a bit, I'd say that if I went through those same three incidents time and time again, there would only be about a fifty-percent chance that I'd be writing this today. One was over-confidence, one was blatant stupidity on my own part, and one was just unfortunate bad luck that could have been much worse.

I was lucky, several times. No other way of putting it. If sharing information about our mistakes prevents future injuries or fatalities, I'm all for it. But yes, certain incidents should have details kept confidential for the families' sake.

[newforest]

another dunno-where-to-ponder-this-one-but-it-kinda-fits:

Didn't your newly elected Prime Minister promise to roll out full legalization, nationally? Will that happen? Will you marry me?

[RPF]

Everyone knows that marijuana use among individuals who plant trees for a living is part of the culture. But it's use is not limited to tree planters. Many loggers, fallers, and other forestry workers, also use the drug on a regular basis. Even the brass at Intefor know this. I think the intent of the policy is an attempt to prevent it's use during working hours, and to be used when someone is suspected of being under the influence at work.

I've heard through the grapevine, that since this policy was being introduced to test Interfor's regular employees, to be fair it needed to be expanded to include contractors. This is speculation on my part, but I don't think that the brass at Interfor really expect that all tree planters will be 100% clean, but they do expect that anyone showing up for work is sober and able to safely do their job.

I could be wrong in this thinking, but can you imagine how small the tree planting workforce will become if this practice is expanded industry wide. On the positive side, with a smaller workforce, the competition for "sober" tree planters will be fierce and tree prices will go up.

[theBushman]

another dunno-where-to-ponder-this-one-but-it-kinda-fits:

Didn't your newly elected Prime Minister promise to roll out full legalization, nationally? Will that happen? Will you marry me?

Impairment isn't impacted by the legality of the substance. If an employee can't stay sober long enough to go to work, I wouldn't hand them more responsibility than that.

[Scooter]

The interesting thing is that it is alcohol, not “drugs,” that has caused the “substance-related” in-workplace fatalities that I can think of. I can’t even think of a single minor injury that was drug-related, in my entire career. And if I sat down and went through my diaries and notes from over many years, I’m sure I could easily list a hundred different incidents that resulted in physical harm or significant equipment damage (ie. damage to any company or client equipment, or damage to any personal equipment other than planting bags or shovels). In my experience, drug-related incidents just aren’t a thing.

I had a long discussion about this last night with a police officer. No, I didn’t march down to the local police station to question them … it was just a close friend of mine. I was out having drinks with this person. So our discussion raised all sorts of questions and issues.

An interesting first question would be what Interfor considers to be “drug related” incidents. First and foremost, alcohol is a drug. If you look at all drug use in Canada over the past century, alcohol has been the most dangerous, by far. It’s killed literally millions of Canadians. I just looked for some stats quickly, and this simple one is probably the most relevant: The WHO estimates that worldwide, four percent of deaths are attributed to alcohol use.

Impairment versus use is going to be the big issue, I assume. What happens if someone has traces of drugs in their system from two weeks prior to commencing employment, but it is obviously not at a level of impairment? Would that be cause for dismissal or rejection of employment? I can’t see how. Perhaps it would be right now, if a zero-tolerance policy was in effect, because right now pot is still illegal in Canada. That would be an interesting legal situation though. What if a planter came from Colorado (I know a few planters from Colorado) and had traces in their system? That is a jurisdiction where smoking pot is legal. If they’re not impaired, and the consumption happened where it was legal, can a company dismiss or refuse a planter? That would be an interesting legal question.

Which leads to the next thing … what if pot is legalized in Canada? Then, the issue of impairment versus testing for trace residues becomes more important. That won’t happen for a while though. The issue right now appears to be the ability to do on-the-spot testing. My friend on the force is one of the narrow group of officers who is qualified to do drug screening, so it was an interesting discussion. I won’t get into it all, but the short version right now is that the big problem is finding a device which is able to do a roadside test of a driver for being under the influence of drugs, not just a sobriety test. California and two other jurisdictions are currently field-testing units. Britain has the DrugWipe device. Pending tests in the US, if those devices prove to be reliable for testing and are adopted by Canadian governments as a legally-defensible approach to testing roadside impairment, then our Canadian police forces will be able to report to government that they are able to obtain the tools to combat drugged driving. My friend doesn’t believe that Trudeau will move ahead on legalization until that happens, so he believes this means that legalization is at least two years off.

Regardless of when legalization happens, at that eventual point, I think it would be more difficult for Interfor (or anyone else) to discriminate on the basis of user habits that are legal. Could they discriminate on the basis of impairment? Probably. And no planting company wants to have planters who are stoned at work. But could Interfor dismiss someone based simply on the presence of trace residual amounts, in a jurisdiction where it was legalized (eventually)? Probably not. My friend on the force said, “That would be ridiculous.” If you’re predicating your employment policies on practices which are legal, you’re on pretty shaky grounds for discrimination, although that’s a separate and very complex discussion.

IF a company such as Interfor wanted to move towards restricting employment based upon behaviour outside of the worksite which is not illegal, and which doesn’t lead to impairment at work, what’s the next step that would lead to employment discrimination? For example, what if there’s a planter who likes to stick his penis into watermelons? That’s probably not illegal. It would be weird, and some people might judge another person for doing it. But maybe there are planters out there who do that. And maybe Interfor says, “We don’t condone the hiring of planters who stick their penises into watermelons, even though there are no legal restrictions on doing that.” And then the human rights lawyers come running and say, “Hey, you’re discriminating on the basis of something which is not illegal. You can’t do that!” (I’m obviously trying to use an extreme and ridiculous example, and no, I don’t stick my own penis into watermelons).

Let’s get back to the more tangible. If for some reason Interfor was going to attempt a zero-tolerance policy against drug use, then that necessarily means zero-tolerance for alcohol too. Alcohol is a drug. So if they start regulating employment status based on a zero-tolerance policy for drug use, they’d have to look inward. The first time that a vice-president had a glass of wine at a dinner at home with his wife, and then answered a work email after dinner while his BAC was at 0.02% … his employment would need to be terminated. He’s not over the legal limit, but he would test positive, and he’d be working. Sounds ridiculous, right? Well, no more ridiculous than discriminating against someone for the presence of residual marijuana in the system. So if Interfor was short-sighted enough to go down that road, they’d better quickly change their “no drug policy” to a “no narcotic policy,” or else any employee having a beer at home can be demonized.

Since legalization is not going to happen tomorrow, let’s look at a different issue: medical marijuana. I have several friends who have medical marijuana permits. I work with some. How would a licensee (I’ll try to stop referring to Interfor in particular) deal with someone who is currently legally allowed in Canada to use marijuana? If Interfor were to try to ban that person from employment, do we get into human rights litigation? I’m pretty sure that we would, especially if impairment wasn’t also an issue. There may be a risk here that a licensee is trying to avoid legal liability (drug use in the workplace) and is inadvertently kicking the can down the road to a different type of legal hot water.

What about other drugs? What about the use of legal prescription painkillers? That’s probably a bigger risk within the workplace. What about the use of over-the-counters? If I’ve had four Aleve and a Tylenol, am I going to be told that I can’t work?

What about people with disorders that require prescriptions for things like Adderall? Are they not going to be allowed to work?

If a licensee is going to target people with traces of drugs in their system, that could wipe out half of their entire workforce, including upper management and mid-level office staff. It would wipe out as many secretaries and VP’s as planters. Surveys indicate that more than 50% of BC residents use pot on an occasional, casual, or regular basis. That’s just one drug, and it would disqualify half of the entire workforce (not just limited to planters or field operations). Add alcohol and all other narcotics and all prescription drugs to the mix, and you’d eliminate over 90% of your entire workforce, including personnel in head office.

Is this about an issue of which we’re not aware? It seems to be a bit extreme. Are they reacting to a specific incident elsewhere in their operations that we don’t know about? Or are they trying to be proactive and be prepared for the possibility of legalization? If so, that’s going to be such a complex topic that I would think it would be easier not to take the lead, and instead, they should see what industry organizations recommend as an approach.

Is this about corporate culture? Are they simply trying to set a tone? I know of private mills that are owned by Christian families, where employees who drink or swear would not be welcome. Is this the same sort of thing? Maybe it’s a cultural thing that is the root of the current discussion? In that case, is it more about morals than about scientific evidence? I certainly wouldn’t test positive on any sort of test. For myself personally, alcohol is my drug of choice. However, I support legalization of pot. That’s because I don’t think people should dictate what other people do in their personal lives (ie. away from a work site), as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else. There are lots of people out there who don't smoke pot but who would support legalization, depending on the implementation. What about former smokers who now abstain? Maybe a person won’t ever be allowed to work at a certain licensee in the future because they’ve admitted to smoking pot in the past.

This was a bit of a disjointed essay (pardon the pun). Just some random thoughts that arose while I was thinking about this last night and this afternoon. Ultimately, I don’t think drug testing will ever affect me personally, even if I have to be tested at some point, so it’s a bit of a non-issue to me except for how it might affect the industry. My thought is that if Interfor is going to move forward with this, they should sit down and have some serious discussions with WorkSafe about it, and work with the guidance of the wise people at WorkSafe (that’s not sarcasm). I wonder if they already have?

My sense is that this isn’t directed at planters in particular, it’s a wider issue.

[Scooter]

This analogy also popped into my mind, if you catch my meaning ...

[Scooter]

I'm thinking more about this. A comment from above:

Initially Interfor will require any employee involved in a reportable safety incident where it resulted in at least one day off work or property damage greater than $2,500 to undergo an after the fact urine and/or mouth swab test if there are any indications that the employee may have been under the influence.

Essentially, does this mean that any incident involving fatigue (which is common, and inevitably because people are tired rather than impaired) could be argued as "possibly being under the influence"??

A bigger question perhaps ... what's the difference between a reportable safety incident and a reportable first-aid incident? Often, they overlap. So imagine this scenario, since practically everyone who has ever worked on the coast has experienced it ...
- A planter is working hard, and even though they may have ultra-sharp new caulks on, a piece of wet bark on a log comes loose when walking across it, and the planter goes down. It happens to me twenty times a day, sometimes.
- While falling, the planter hits their head. Even though a hard hat is being worn, it's common in a simple loss of footing to fall in such a way that you smack your head off the side of a log.
- Let's say this is a mild concussion. Very mild. Enough to give you a headache. Again, something that happens now and then.

The planter is expected to report all safety incidents, even those that don't result in lost time. That's the whole basis of the pyramid of safety: identifying near-misses, minor incidents, major incidents, etc. Companies (both licensees and contractors) WANT employees to report this sort of stuff, for record-keeping and statistical analysis. So the planter is sitting at the cache for ten minutes on the next bag-up, and the foreman comes by and asks how things are going. The planter says, "Well, I banged my head half an hour ago, when I slipped on some cedar slash, but it's all good." The foreman then goes and fills out a near-miss report, which gets handed in to the company owner with the tallies at dinner. The company owner, trying to be diligent and responsible, scans the form and sends it in to the licensee, because the licensee has asked to be notified within 24 hours of all near-misses, incidents, and accidents. Why would you want to hide this from the licensee? After all, a good reporting system is a keystone of a proper safety management system.

The next morning, the planter wakes up and has a slight headache. They're in a pissy mood, it's raining, and they don't want to work. So they say, "Hey boss, my head is still a bit sore from that bump yesterday, I'm going to take the day off to rest." The boss says, "Sure, your long term-health is what's best, that's no problem."

Now imagine if this happened in a remote inlet. And imagine if the forester finds out that the planter took the day off. Bam - lost time incident, safety incident, the planter needs to be tested in case they missed their footing because they were under the influence. The planting contractor is then told that the planter needs to be flown to Vancouver for testing. The planter loses two days of work. The company spends a bunch of money getting the worker in and out of the work location, and putting the worker up in a hotel for the night because they can't get back to the worksite the same day.

In a situation like this, everybody loses. The planter loses, because he/she loses and extra day or two of production. That's a lot of money. Our seasons are short enough. The company loses, because production schedules are messed up, and they may have to assume some of the costs of transportation and/or lodging, even though it is the licensee that should be assuming those costs. The licensee loses, because they just spent a fortune on an impairment test ... not because a planter was impaired, and maybe not because the planter was fatigued ... just because it was raining that day.

Ok, so the whole situation above is somewhat unfortunate. A lot of efficiency problems and extra costs. But what I've described above is not the REAL problem.

The real problem is that this sort of thing is going to predominantly do one thing and one thing only: cause people to stop reporting incidents. The only incidents that will still get reported will be the ones that can't be swept under the rug.

That would be an unfortunate undermining of the whole safety management system. Sometimes, actions have unintended consequences.

[jdtesluk]

Excellent observations Scooter.

The invasion of privacy could be interpreted as an effort to disqualify workers from receiving benefits. If a person did in fact imbibe or smoke, and if they are involved in an incident (even a day or two later, that had nothing to do with the said drink or smoke), a company may be able to use their "test" as an means through which to appeal a worker's claim for injury. Absolutely, workers will think twice about reporting things if they are concerned about testing implications.

Point that must be acknowledged here, is that if the testing does not occur until after the incident and after the damage and time-off has been determined, they have a limited ability to test for impairment at the time of the incident- and may only find signs of use.

I would be quite supportive of testing in any case where there is reason to suspect D&A impairment, particularly for potential driving (boating and flying and machinery) operations. However, I would want very tight timelines applied to the situation. That being said, extending this to the front-line workers (particularly in our industry) approaches disrespect for workers. I'm not against testing on principal. However, the current (suggested) application seems to pose a threat to labour rights.

While the testing regime is offered as a safety measure, I continue to see a lack of evidence to support its use in this industry, or other efforts to address fatigue-impairment to prove their commitment to deeper reform. I challenge the principals of the D&A testing regime to provide any evidence whatsoever from the silviculture industry to support this policy as a means to reduce injuries and accidents. I don't mean anecdotal bits, I'm talking about statistical facts, patterns of evidence, or validated widespread perceptions. I would welcome an informed debate with any managers introducing this policy.

[mwainwright]

on the plus side, planters could make money selling clean pee on the side.

[Emma]

Scooter, how do you deal with drugs in your crew?

[Scooter]

I don't know if "deal with" is a good phrase. I don't tolerate drugs in the workplace, plain and simple. Neither do the planting companies that I work for. I allow alcohol in camp, if consumed responsibly on a night off. I highly discourage drinking on the night before a planting day, although I'm certainly not going to frown on someone having a beer with supper.

I hope people don't take my opinions the wrong way. All the things that I've written so far are my own personal opinions, plain and simple, not those of any of the companies that employ me. My criticism of testing isn't that I want people to be able to get away with having drugs in their system. The industry is much, much cleaner than it was when I started planting, and that's a good thing. Outsiders may not realize it, but the industry has increasingly been self-regulating, year after year.

My biggest concern lies with the safety aspects. I'm not saying that drug use is safe - I'm saying that I don't believe that drug testing is the most effective way to improve safety in the industry. I think it's something where licensees are trying to make it look like they're dealing with a safety issue, but they're missing out on the bigger risks.

Can drug use in the workplace be an issue in the industry? Absolutely. But as I said in one of my original posts, I can't think of a single incident in my entire career where impairment or the recent/prior use of pot or any other related drugs made any contribution to an incident. Not one. I've supervised camps for a lot of years, and I've directly supervised crews, in the field, that have planted almost a hundred million trees. I've seen unbelievable stupidity. So many different accidents, ranging from minor cuts and abrasions to fatalities. People getting hurt is something that I worry about every single day as a supervisor, and almost every day of the off-season too. But when I'm working as a supervisor, drug use is almost entirely off my radar, because quite simply, I don't see it happening on the blocks that I'm in charge of. There's a long list of things that I see as hazards and risks, but I prioritize them. Focus on the big things.

If the licensees truly cared about safety, instead of about documenting due diligence and covering their asses for liability purposes, they'd sit down with contractors on a broader scale and actually try to fix some bigger risks. They'd make financial commitments to resources or practices that would more likely reduce the chance of planters getting injured or killed. There are major issues in the industry that are not getting addressed adequately by licensees. For example, there are licensees that reclaim roads before planting is done (because it's cheaper to do the work while the machinery is still there) and then expect planting contractors to sort out the access. There are major risks from things like fatigue, vehicle use, and fires. I'm sure I could make a huge list, but that's just a short one, for starters, of issues that will someday cause fatalities. Or perhaps I should say, "additional fatalities."

I don't know how to solve this problem. Maybe there are other approaches? Maybe the licensees could set up a program where every planter who volunteers to get tested gets paid a bonus of several hundred dollars, or the licensee works with the contractor so those people who voluntarily get tested receive a higher price per tree (which is funded completely by licensees rather than coming out of the contracted price). Is that feasible?

As I've said above, I feel that this is a reaction to something much bigger than the planting industry, However, the planting industry is going to get caught up in it, and it's going to cause more problems than it solves, ie. the issues that I mentioned earlier with people not reporting safety incidents.

[Scooter]

An article from the CBC about etiquette surrounding marijuana:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/marijuana ... 19?cmp=rss

[Scooter]

On the subject of reporting or not reporting incidents, here's something topical:

http://www.bcforestsafe.org/node/2794

[Scooter]

Attached are a couple of policy papers that I just saw on the WSCA website.

[Scooter]

Here's a valuable lesson for anyone travelling to the States:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pot-bor ... ign=buffer

Matthew Harvey wants to bring his three-year-old daughter Lika to Disneyland in California, but after being banned from the United States for the rest of his life, that task isn't going to be easy.

Harvey has not been excluded for having a criminal record, or for trying to smuggle drugs into the U.S. He's being punished for providing a seemingly harmless answer to a question posed by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection service.

"They said that I was inadmissible because I admitted to smoking marijuana after the age of 18 and before I'd received my medical marijuana licence," he said.

"Of course I'd smoked marijuana, Canada didn't even have a program back then. I smoked marijuana recreationally. I guess I should have basically lied because now I am inadmissible apparently," he added.

Harvey's woes began in 2014 when he was 37. He was driving from Vancouver to Seattle for a concert when a customs officer noticed a marijuana magazine in his car.

He was pulled in for questioning and says he was detained for six hours, during which he was questioned about his marijuana use. A legal medical marijuana user in Canada, who was driving into a state where recreational and medical use of the drug is also legal, Harvey thought nothing of telling the truth.

But while Washington state may have legalized pot, it is still a federal controlled substance and therefore under the same purview as the border: the U.S. federal government.

For the rest of his life, Harvey must now apply for advance permission to enter the U.S. as a non-immigrant. The travel waiver, which costs $585 US ($750 Cdn), is granted on a discretionary basis, which means it may be good for a year, or two, or five, depending on the discretion of the approval officer.

When the waiver expires, Harvey will have to apply again and pay the fee, again, which is going up to $930 US ($1,200 Cdn) later this year.

As Canada prepares to legalize and regulate weed, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale says that Canadians should be "well advised to understand" that the U.S. is entitled to enforce whatever laws it deems fit.

The minister also said that there are ongoing discussions between Canada and the U.S. on a range of issues and coming up with a better approach to dealing with pot is always on the agenda.

"The present marijuana regime that has existed now for many years in both Canada and the United States has clearly failed Canadian and American young people because North American teenagers are among the biggest users of marijuana in the western world," Goodale said.

"We will certainly work very hard to make sure that they understand that we're moving a regime with respect to marijuana that will be far more effective than theirs," he added.


Len Saunders, an immigration lawyer with a practice in Blaine, Wash., who has been employed by a number of banned Canadians to process their waiver application says he expects Canada's plan to legalize pot will create a "boom" in his business.

"I think more people are going to purchase (pot) when it's legal in Canada and then … when they enter the U.S. and admit that they've purchased it legal in Canada they are still going to be denied entry until they (get) a waiver."

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau publicly admitted in 2013 to smoking marijuana "five or six times" in the past, including during his time as an MP. That won't likely cause him problems, at least for now, says Saunders.

"Prime Minister Trudeau would be admissible under a diplomatic passport, but private citizen Trudeau would not be admissible and would need a waiver for the rest of his life" if he was sanctioned for that past use, Saunders says.

Saunders' advice to Canadians asked about their past marijuana use at the border is to refuse to answer the question. They may be held for several hours, but there is no legal requirement, he says, to answer the question.

Harvey, who is now facing the lengthy and costly process of obtaining a waiver to make his daughter's dream of going to Disneyland come true, has different advice.

"We should raise awareness that if you are crossing over the border, not to admit to using recreational marijuana. Just deny, deny, deny," he said.

[leaner]

Canada will never legalise pot until they can figure out how to deal with impairment. The task force looking at this will take years to debate the problems.

[poppycock]

Canada will never legalise pot until they can figure out how to deal with impairment. The task force looking at this will take years to debate the problems.

Good timing on that post. Or maybe you knew something. This came out today from one coastal company (which we will leave unnamed):

Drug Testing: On the coast in 2017 all our clients have now entered into a drug testing scenario for their workplaces. They have all signed onto the same program though they all have slightly different implementation strategies. It boils down to this: There is no impairment from drugs and alcohol in the workplace. That means to and from work and on the block. Really the only thing that affects us in Marijuana use. In 2017 there is no use of pot before work until we return home. Essentially if there is a serious incident the people involved will be tested. What is a serious incident? Worst case scenario is a lost time injury. This could be as simple as a trip and fall and subsequent lost time. It could be damage to a vehicle. It could be as serious as a serious driving incident.

There will be a form for all of you to sign that states you understand the program. If pot is found at work in some one’s skunk smelling day bag they are terminated. If the day bag smells then we have the right to go through it. In some cases on Private land, they have the right to search without cause. This raises all sorts of issues but basically there is no smoking pot at work. We can survive that easily. Now if you cannot abide by this then you should be looking elsewhere for work. Plain and simple. If you want to work on the coast and avoid this you will have to find a company that only does BCTS contracts. I will not argue with anybody about this. You have the choice to work with us or not. Make that decision now. I don’t want to have to let someone go and then hire to replace them in the middle of the season.

The issue of smoking after work and having a couple glasses of wine adds a whole host of other issues that as an industry we will have to cross that bridge when we get to it. In all likely hood legal recreational marijuana use will occur in 2017. As we all know the fat soluble THC remains in the body for some time. The question that will have to be solved by this industry program is impairment. The WSCA is working on this with the Safety Council, Unions, and Contract Logger associations. It seems to me that this testing program should wait a year until that is all sorted out but it is what it is and we have no choice but to accept it.

We are obligated to notify everyone who will work with us 2 months before the season starts. This is your notification.

[jdtesluk]

"In some cases on Private land, they have the right to search without cause."

This part intrigues me. Most of the letter is pretty clear. I think post-incident testing systems have merit, but there is also ample reason to be cautious of them. It is positive to take steps well in advance to inform workers of these policy changes. Obviously it would be a problem for some people to not know about this until they're standing on the landing. So with that, more details about the specifics will be important.

When they say "they have the right to search", I assume they mean the forestry company? When they say "search without cause", I wonder if they mean random gear checks? If so, I would assume that they want to reserve the right to act on suspicions or tips without being tied to a complex process. Interesting. Conducting searches is a sensitive process. You don't just dump a person's bag out on the ground. I would assume they will have someone training them in that process. A lot of time and resources invested in this then.

I'm also curious about the sensitivity of the testing. As a non-smoker, I have no clue whatsoever about the accuracy of the testing systems for determining WHEN a substance (i.e. THC) may have been taken in. If it is possible to show a person had smoked immediately prior to some event (i.e. vehicle incident), that will definitely be a positive thing in my view. However, if it simply indicates the person took in THC sometime prior (like 72 or 96 hours prior) that starts to get more fuzzy, particularly with the potential changes in recreational use laws. I understand there will be a presenter on this topic at the WSCA conference. I hope to ask them about some of these issues.

It is going to be very interesting watching this unfold. The first big forestry companies rolling this out will be setting an example for others to follow. Certainly, many others have considered it, but lacked the resources, commitment, rationale, or knowledge to implement such a program.Nonetheless, they will all be watching this and taking notes.

Sometimes you don't get a policy right straight out of the gate, and you have to learn through trial and error. It will be very interesting to see what we learn as this unrolls.

[Scooter]

This is good:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/or ... -1.3896935