|
||
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
||
|
|
Issue No. 148 | 16 August 2002 |
|
||
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Peak Performance
Interview: Labor Law Unions: Critical Conditions Bad Boss: Shifting The Load History: Peeking Out Safety: Flying High Corporate: Salaries High, Performance Low International: War on the US Wharves Review: And the Signs Said... Poetry: Tony Don't Preach Satire: Latham Dumps Rodney Rude as Speech Writer
Politics The Soapbox The Locker Room Bosswatch Human Rights
 Miranda's Not Fair on OutworkersAnother Capitalist Party?Justice For All?Kill the Photos!Right Wing Lackies
|
|
|
Safety Flying High
************* Carl Scully seems set to impose compulsory random drug and alcohol checks on NSW rail workers. This follows two separate incidents in the past three years. It seems as though we have heard it all before, in very similar circumstances. Noel Cox from the Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Enginemen (AFULE) spoke about alcohol and drug abuse among NSW enginemen in 1988 at a conference on "Screening for Drug Abuse - a community challenge" in Canberra. The paper noted that there had been two serious train accidents in NSW over a three-year period. John Mathews in his health and safety manual for union officials noted that the nineties would be a testing time for unionists as the pressure came on from employers to introduce more testing. Random testing had become a craze in the US when he was writing his book (first edition 1988, second in 1993) and was rare in Australia. The US zeal was driven in part by the general US Administration's "war on drugs" which overlooked a multitude of sins such as CIA support for Central American and Afghani drug lords. He also noted that it gave the government and the employers the chance to reposition OHS issues as an employee rather than an employer responsibility. It fitted in nicely to the individualism and pro market ethic that had come to dominate. Unions in Australia recognise the core concerns and are willing to co-operate and develop rehabilitation programs, but seek to avoid blaming the victim. They have consistently opposed random testing and have been willing to allow its introduction only under exceptional circumstances, such as where public safety is involved. Here is where Scully can claim that the introduction of random tests in NSW rail are necessary as many people are involved as passengers and crew. Where the issue becomes complicated is in the efficacy of the testing and what they are testing for. Traces of marijuana or the THCs in the substance, for example, can remain in the urine for weeks or months after the substance has been used. It would be hard to argue that this has the potential to impair the performance of workers after an extended period without taking the drug. There are other things that drug tests cannot detect. They include whether intoxication was in fact due to exposure to the drug tested for; the extent of the effect of the drug on the person's behaviour; and the difference between a casual user and a regular abuser. It also fails to address the issues raised by Noel Cox back in 1988. He pointed to factors contributing to alcohol and drug abuse with the way shiftwork was operated being a major concern. "Train operators generally have been assessed as above average consumers of alcohol. Irregular shift work and the social disabilities shift work creates is the reason given for this trend. ... Sleep patterns are irregular and, in most cases, of a short duration. Leisure time is often not at times when families and friends are free. The time lapse after social entertainment and the commencement of work is often short and therefore recovery time after consuming alcohol is not enough for effects of the alcohol to have worn off." Given that the new railway timetable that was supposed to be introduced in April this year had to be abandoned (or should I say postponed) because there were not enough train drivers, I would think that the situation regarded poor breaks between shifts and a mixed up rostering arrangement has not improved since 1988, especially as no government since that time has been especially generous in funding our public transport system, choosing instead to support private sector road builders. There is no doubt that drug and alcohol abuse and train driving are a very dangerous combination and that there is a need for early detection of any problems drivers have with drugs and alcohol. Cox points out that the specific skills in train driving require training, knowledge of track gradients, the location of signals the weight and size of the rolling stock being shifted and recall of details of the track. There is a terrific description of the care and skill involved in Barbara Kingsolver's novel Animal Dreams that illustrates that its not simply a matter of sitting and adjusting a throttle and applying a brake when you have hundreds of tonnes of train and freight behind you for a kilometre or so and a hill to climb and come down, when half the train is going up and the front is on the way down. Cox points out that most train accidents are not drug related. There have been some and the penalties have been harsh. This has not prevented workers from abusing alcohol and drugs so less punitive ways of ways of dealing with these issues must be found. The state government at the time Cox was writing was introducing random breath and urine testing and the AFULE did not believe this would properly address the issues. The testing would not result in drug free train operations and they instead sought an investigation into the nature of the enginemen's work and the stress levels experienced. The drug issue needed to be addressed as a social problem. The recent reasonable hours case and the many recent reports and studies on rising stress levels all would back up the case the union made in 1988. Working hours have been rising, insecurity amongst employees has increased and the deregulation of the labour market with pressure for employees to be more flexible all contribute to a more stressed work situation and more pressure to seek ways to relax or deal with anxieties. The ACTU developed policies on these issues some time ago and sought to point out that alcohol and drug abuse and use may be symptoms of larger problems in terms of workplace organisation, as pointed out by Cox (above). The ACTU said that if alcohol and drug abuse is identified as a serious problem, then unions and employers should work towards a program that should (1) be solely related to safety at work; (2) have full participation in and joint control by workers and their representatives; (3) be applicable to workers AND management; (4)address the workplace causes of alcohol and drug misuse; (5) be consultative, educative and rehabilitative, not punitive;(6) maintain confidentiality at all levels. The union that has developed the most comprehensive approach is the CFMEU Building Trades Group and they provide an excellent example of the constructive approach that unions have taken, without management support. Mathews suggest that safety representatives should argue with employers who wish to implement random drug testing along the following lines: � What is the purpose of the testing? If it is to detect workers under the influence through impaired work performance, then that is the job of supervisors and fellow workers. Random testing complicates the issue for them. � If it is to identify candidates for treatment and rehabilitation then a normal 'employee assistance program' is all that is needed. Otherwise the assumption must be that the real reason for the testing is punitive. � Are other aspects of the drug and alcohol testing problem being addressed? If they are, then random testing may simply fade away as an issue. � As a last resort, OHS representatives should point out that random testing is predicated on a view that the workforce cannot be trusted; its basic assumption is that all workers are closet drug addicts and constitute a threat to themselves and others. If an employer is calling on workers to co-operate with the firm to raise efficiency, increase productivity and make suggestions for improved working procedures, then a program that flies in the face of these calls, and indeed contradicts them all, is hardly appropriate. If random testing is called for because of public safety concerns, as seems to be the case with train operators, then it should be agreed to under only the most stringent conditions, providing workers with full information as to procedures to be used, the reasons for their use, and the rights of access workers have to their records at any time. The recent examples of employers denying workers access to OHS materials and accident reports because they claim changes to privacy legislation make it illegal to provide such access does not provide much confidence in employers being willing to allow full participation in improving OHS situations, and the lack of regard they have for their employees well-being will only potentially contribute to rising stress levels and potential problems with drugs and alcohol. The Privacy Committee of NSW reported on drug testing in the workplace in 1992 and recommended that workplace drug testing, except when authorised specifically by legislation, should only take place when: (i) a person's impairment by drugs would pose a substantial and demonstrable safety risk to that person or to other people; and (ii) there is reasonable cause to believe that the person to be tested may be impaired by drugs; and (iii) the form of drug testing to be used is capable of identifying the presence of a drug at concentrations which may be capable of causing impairment. This last matter is crucial with the concern noted above with THC that stay detectable for long periods, without them being able to be seen as a cause of impairment at work. A punitive regime that seems to be favoured would bypass this standard. The testing should also be permitted subject to procedural standards, set out in legislation, to protect the privacy interests of those tested. See: Noel Cox (1988). Alcohol and Drug Abuse Among NSW Enginemen. in Journal of Occupational Health and Safety Australia and New Zealand; vol. 4 no 5, pp 437-440 John Mathews (1993). Health and Safety at Work: a trade union safety representatives handbook. 2nd edition (Leichhardt, NSW Pluto Press). Chapter 16 Drugs and alcohol at work pp399-408. The Privacy Committee of NSW (1992). Drug Testing in the Workplace. no. 64 October. Office of the Federal Privacy Commissioner National Privacy Principles. http://www.privacy.gov.au/publications/npps01.html Privacy Laws Threat to OHS Representatives. in CCH Compensation Week, issue 40, 30 July 2002, p3 Barbara Kingsolver (1990). Animal Dreams. (New York: HarperCollins) Occupational Health and Safety Commentary and Cases 48-412 (CCH Australia)
|
| Search All Issues | Latest Issue | Previous Issues | Print Latest Issue |
|
© 1999-2002 Workers Online 
|
|
