RE:RE:RE:Why Membership not Allowed to Vote on Proposal?I have a few comments:
1) As a recovered alcoholic, the circumstances that lead to alcoholism can absolutely be attributed to a situation / challenge in the workplace. Sometimes this "situation" can be driven by the employee, and sometimes by the employer.
2) Where I live in Canada many unionized shops help their employees with addiction issues including paying for rehab, and sourcing out other treatments that are covered by provincial health insurace. In either situation the company takes a lead role in helping the employee seek treatment, and in many cases, due to the nature of addiction, it can happen more than once.
3) I absolutely agree the company has a duty to other employees and the public writ large to ensure that their employees conform to a zero tolerance substance use policy (during working hours). I am in complete agreement that employees should be subjected to random testing, and suspended when they are at work and under the influence of a substance that can affect their safety, or the safety of others. Suspended with or without pay is a debate I don't intend to have here.
Where I believe we differ, is that I don't think the employee should be summarily dismissed, or "left out in the cold", or blacklisted. Addiction is an extremely complicated issue, it is most definitely not a "just say no" situation. The days of blaming addiction on simple choices are long behind us.
I believe workers have an obligation to support their employees who are dealing with addiction. For the record, I am not a unionized employee. I'm white collar, and my employer absolutely supported me and their continued support has contributed to my over 3.5 years of sobriety.
Corporations have a duty to help their employees, but they must also balance that duty with safety. Both are absolutely achievable.
As for the shift rules, I side with the company. This doesn't sound a lot different from what we ask for from other sectors, like doctors, nurses, police, construction, snow removal etc. I think it's the nature of the industry. If that doesn't align with an employee's lifestyle then they need to decide if that area of work is for them. Having said that, there should be some reasonable rules about what is allowed (hours/week, hours per shift, overnight hours, etc.)
~dileas
louel wrote: Anyone being under the influence of drugs or alcohol any where iear the work place should be not only fired but also have their names circulated among other employers to be used in screening applicants. It is an absolute hazzard to other worlers and the company. The company should be able to immediately dismiss or send the worker home till they have at their own expense proven they have at no cost to the company they have been clean for a one year period minimum.
We had a driver who slipped by drug detection Sent him on a over night trip where he got stoned on Cocain and caused a major multi vehicle accident in the fraser canyon. Drinking driving is a crime. So should it be drugs and alchohol in the workplace.
If someone gets hurt or killed due to a worker being impaired. The company is always penalized from every way possible.
Now they are expecting the corporation to pay for rehabilitation. It was not the company who got the person using drugs ao made them an alcholic. Responsibility should rest with the offender, Not who they are employed by.