No Pot For Metrolinx

[Darts]

The policy at Metrolinx is that employees in safety sensitive jobs are not allowed to smoke/eat pot 24/7/365.

I can foresee one (some) employee filing a complaint with the OHRC. The OHRC will then rule that denying pot to an employee for any reason is a gross violation of their Charter rights.

Some of you probably heard of the "Soup Nazi". Now we have the pot Nazi. NO POT FOR YOU!

 

[Keebler Elf]

File away. You'll lose.

 

[explorerzip]

I think you've been smoking up if you think this is how the OHRC works.

 

[Grimnul]

Depends. If you use it medicinally like I do (as in was referred to a clinic by my family doctor and have a medicinal use card), then it actually is a human rights violation if your employer/landlord/etc. tries to tell you you can’t use it. I know this because I live in a building where you’re not allowed to use it and had to deal with/threaten the management over it.

For recreational use, yeah, it’s not a human rights issue.

 

[Darts]

Depends.

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/drug-and-alcohol-testing-–-frequently-asked-questions

 

[wigglee]

Do they have the same prohibition for alcohol? NO..... and it is far more dangerous and harmful.

 

[james t kirk]

Do they have the same prohibition for alcohol? NO..... and it is far more dangerous and harmful.

They have a 0 tolerance policy to alcohol.

So much as a trace in your system while on the job and you're fired. Whether you are impaired or not is irrelevant.

Pot will be the same. So much as a trace and you're fired.

Alcohol burns off fairly quickly. Pot does not and can be detected for months.

The policies will be written with respect to the employee being fit for duty and a definition with respect to there not being a trace of any recreational drug including alcohol.

As Keebler said above, you will lose any court challenge.

 

[underice]

Whats interesting about this is that the only reason I can see them going zero tolerance is due to the inability to determine when the cannabis in the system as actually consumed and if their is actual impairment.

Unlike alcohol,where you can definitely state their is active alcohol in a persons system.

So,if a large company like metrolinks is taking this position,how will they be able to actually enforce cannabis driving laws?

I mean,if a metrolinks employee takes them to court,and metrolinks argues that is the reason is we cant't be sure, and here is the science that proves we cant be sure and wins.

How can a court suddenly determine the opposite and state ,yes it was from two hrs ago and not two weeks ago?

 

[_Melissa]

They have a 0 tolerance policy to alcohol.

So much as a trace in your system while on the job and you're fired. Whether you are impaired or not is irrelevant.

Pot will be the same. So much as a trace and you're fired.

Alcohol burns off fairly quickly. Pot does not and can be detected for months.

The policies will be written with respect to the employee being fit for duty and a definition with respect to there not being a trace of any recreational drug including alcohol.

As Keebler said above, you will lose any court challenge.

I used to be friends with 2 diamond drillers. One of them did blow and the other was a pothead. I remember them frantically drinking cranberry juice and eating asparagus to flush it out of their system before their drug test. The guy who did blow wasn’t allowed to work but the pothead went off scott free. I’m not sure how much the pothead smoked but apparently it worked. I don’t know for sure if a few days of cranberry juice and asparagus actually clears your system of pot but this is what I observed.

 

[Darts]

yes it was from two hrs ago and not two weeks ago?

My understanding is the Metrolinx policy is pot is prohibited 24/7/365. So, it doesn't matter 2 hours, 2 weeks, 2 months, 2 years or whatever.

 

[wigglee]

They have a 0 tolerance policy to alcohol.

So much as a trace in your system while on the job and you're fired. Whether you are impaired or not is irrelevant.

Pot will be the same. So much as a trace and you're fired.

Alcohol burns off fairly quickly. Pot does not and can be detected for months.

The policies will be written with respect to the employee being fit for duty and a definition with respect to there not being a trace of any recreational drug including alcohol.

As Keebler said above, you will lose any court challenge.

So..explain how the joint I smoked 3 weeks ago makes me unfit to work today... it doesn't, so they need better testing procedures that are actually relevant to reality and treat people fairly, don't they?

 

[doggystyle99]

Great for Metrolinx to take the lead on this issue right away.

 

[Darts]

It definitely appears the Metrolinx policy will be headed to court.

"But when told about the new policy by a reporter Friday, John Di Nino, the national president the Amalgamated Transit Union, immediately vowed to challenge it.

“This is infringement on an individual’s human rights,” he said.

Di Nino said the union has no tolerance for workers being impaired on the job, but “it is hugely problematic and concerning when they are trying to control what we do on our personal time off property.”"

Justin W. Anisman, an associate at Toronto’s Brauti Thorning LLP and an expert in employment law, questioned whether Metrolinx’s policy would stand up to legal scrutiny.

“Employers cannot interfere with their employees’ rights to engage in recreational activities outside the workplace,” he said.

“In the same way you can’t ban people from drinking alcohol outside the workplace, you can’t ban them from smoking cannabis.”

"Nadia Halum Arauz, an associate at the MacLeod Law Firm, which specializes in labour law, said it’s reasonable for an agency whose operations affect public safety to have strong drug and alcohol policies. But she described the ban on using pot at home as “definitely an overreach.” "

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...workers-from-using-pot-on-their-own-time.html

 

[|2 /-\ | /|/]

Great for the Transit Union to take the lead on this human rights issue right away.

It definitely appears the Metrolinx policy will be headed to court.

"But when told about the new policy by a reporter Friday, John Di Nino, the national president the Amalgamated Transit Union, immediately vowed to challenge it.

“This is infringement on an individual’s human rights,” he said.

Di Nino said the union has no tolerance for workers being impaired on the job, but “it is hugely problematic and concerning when they are trying to control what we do on our personal time off property.”"

Justin W. Anisman, an associate at Toronto’s Brauti Thorning LLP and an expert in employment law, questioned whether Metrolinx’s policy would stand up to legal scrutiny.

“Employers cannot interfere with their employees’ rights to engage in recreational activities outside the workplace,” he said.

“In the same way you can’t ban people from drinking alcohol outside the workplace, you can’t ban them from smoking cannabis.”

"Nadia Halum Arauz, an associate at the MacLeod Law Firm, which specializes in labour law, said it’s reasonable for an agency whose operations affect public safety to have strong drug and alcohol policies. But she described the ban on using pot at home as “definitely an overreach.” "

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...workers-from-using-pot-on-their-own-time.html

 

[james t kirk]

So..explain how the joint I smoked 3 weeks ago makes me unfit to work today... it doesn't, so they need better testing procedures that are actually relevant to reality and treat people fairly, don't they?

Sure, I will explain it to you.

Metrolinx has this inconvenient thing called "liability".

It over rides your right to get high.

Imagine a scenario where a westbound GO Train driver blows through a red light and slams a commuter train into an eastbound freight train. 50 people are killed and hundreds injured. They arrest the driver on the scene and take him for drug and alcohol testing. He is found to have cannabis in his system. He swears that the last time he got high was 3 weeks ago.

Now the lawyers get in on the action. They argue that the driver had cannabis in his system and it impaired his availability and caused the driver to run through the red signal and slam into the freight train.

They launch millions of dollars in lawsuits against Metrolinx and the whole thing drags out in court for 7 years. During the trial, the lawyers for the victims bring in a pile of paid "experts" who go on and on about how even minute traces of cannabis can impair reaction times, blah blah blah.

In the end, the jury, being composed of such knowledgeable individuals [ sarcasm] finds Metrolinx to be liable for hundreds of millions plus tens of millions in legal fees. The case gets appealed to the Supreme Court, which costs another 50 million in lawyer fees and drags out for another 5 years. And on and on and on.

All so a train driver has the right to get high.

In such scenarios, juries are composed of morons who will award hundreds of millions of dollars because they figure that someone has to pay.

So Metrolinx figures that the public has a right to ride on a train or bus being operated by a guy who does not have recreational drugs in his system. They enact a policy which states that if you want to work for them in a safety critical position you cannot be a drug user. It's their right as an employer to make it a qualification for the job.

 

[james t kirk]

It definitely appears the Metrolinx policy will be headed to court.

"But when told about the new policy by a reporter Friday, John Di Nino, the national president the Amalgamated Transit Union, immediately vowed to challenge it.

“This is infringement on an individual’s human rights,” he said.

Di Nino said the union has no tolerance for workers being impaired on the job, but “it is hugely problematic and concerning when they are trying to control what we do on our personal time off property.”"

Justin W. Anisman, an associate at Toronto’s Brauti Thorning LLP and an expert in employment law, questioned whether Metrolinx’s policy would stand up to legal scrutiny.

“Employers cannot interfere with their employees’ rights to engage in recreational activities outside the workplace,” he said.

“In the same way you can’t ban people from drinking alcohol outside the workplace, you can’t ban them from smoking cannabis.”

"Nadia Halum Arauz, an associate at the MacLeod Law Firm, which specializes in labour law, said it’s reasonable for an agency whose operations affect public safety to have strong drug and alcohol policies. But she described the ban on using pot at home as “definitely an overreach.” "

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...workers-from-using-pot-on-their-own-time.html

1. Some union moron knows shit.

2. The lawyers will love to go to court on this one.

3. Metrolinx wins either way. If the courts rule in their favour, end of story. If the courts rule train drivers have the right to get high, then that's even better because that passes the hot potato from Metrolinx to the government. Now when the train driver blows through that red light and kills 50 people because he's high, Metrolinx gets to blame the courts.

It's better for everyone if people working for Metrolinx in safety critical positions aren't druggies. I sure as hell don't want a guy who has a pot habit driving the train my ass is on whether he thinks he's high or not.

 

[james t kirk]

Great for the Transit Union to take the lead on this human rights issue right away.

"Human rights issue"

That's funny.

 

[|2 /-\ | /|/]

"Human rights issue"

That's funny.

Whats the point of making weed legal if they are going to tell you can you can never take or will face the consequences. Where does it stop ? How about nurses, or doctors or paramedics or firefighters the list goes on and on and on. How about driving then where does it stop? Any vehicle or a truck of certain size? Will they say next if you smoke pot in the last 30 days you can’t drive? This is getting ridiculous and if metrolinx wins will set precedent and will enable this to continue to other sectors.

They need to figure out a standard and define a timeframe based on medical research on the long term effects to the body and set realistic measures. So set a realistic measure such as 12 to 24 hours after you smoke up you can’t perform these safety critical duties and back it up with approved research. If metrolinx wins this will eventually affect drivers as well and other work environments since you can find safety risks almost anywhere.

Until proper accepted medical research is done on short term impairment affects, companies can’t simply prohibit you from doing these recreational activities on you spare time in a country where its 100% legal. Where does it stop then? What will they prohibit next?

 

[james t kirk]

Whats the point of making weed legal if they are going to tell you can you can never take or will face the consequences. Where does it stop ? How about nurses, or doctors or paramedics or firefighters the list goes on and on and on. How about driving then where does it stop? Any vehicle or a truck of certain size? Will they say next if you smoke pot in the last 30 days you can’t drive? This is getting ridiculous and if metrolinx wins will set precedent and will enable this to continue to other sectors.

They need to figure out a standard and define a timeframe based on medical research on the long term effects to the body and set realistic measures. So set a realistic measure such as 12 to 24 hours after you smoke up you can’t perform these safety critical duties and back it up with approved research. If metrolinx wins this will eventually affect drivers as well and other work environments since you can find safety risks almost anywhere.

Until proper accepted medical research is done on short term impairment affects, companies can’t simply prohibit you from doing these recreational activities on you spare time in a country where its 100% legal. Where does it stop then? What will they prohibit next?

Companies can set whatever policies they want. Many companies have dress codes, or policies with respect to smoking cigarettes on company property, or in company vehicles or people dating each other, or moonlighting, etc. etc. The list is endless. It's how it works and having drugs or alcohol in your system is no different. The company is not forbidding you from getting stoned, the company is saying, "you are free to get stoned all you like, you just can't work for us." There is nothing illegal about that. The problem with pot is that it stays in your system for a long time, unlike alcohol.

In the mining industry, which I am familiar with, mining companies will have a 0 tolerance policy to any alcohol or recreational drug use. They can and do enforce random testing of employees, including the dreaded hair test. (And you can drink a tanker full of cranberry juice, it won't defeat a hair test as the drugs can be detected in the hair that was deposited there at the time the hair grew, though I suppose you could shave yourself from the top of your head to the tip of your toes.) I've been to remote mine sites in Canada and Australia where workers live in a work camp. The camps are "dry camps", meaning that there is no alcohol anywhere in camp. A guy lives in camp for the duration of his work cycle. Maybe 30 or more days and he has 0 access to alcohol and you're not allowed to bring it to camp on your person. The mining companies do not want the issues that come with guys drinking, even if it's on their own time. (Of course, the aboriginals have figured out that there is a lucrative market selling booze to hard up miners, but that's another story.) And the consumption of alcohol is also quite legal.

Smoking dope is legal, but it's not a constitutional right (like say freedom of religion, or freedom of association, or the right to due process under the law, etc.)

I don't want the guy driving my GO Train to have pot in his system at all. Same with the guy flying the airplane I'm aboard. I want him to be clean and sober and don't think that's too much to ask for. Live are depending on his performance.

 

[GameBoy27]

I wonder if Metrolinx has a policy in effect that says employees in safety sensitive jobs are not allowed to take/consume any substance (including prescribed medications) that could cause impairment/drowsiness 24/7/365? Because if you're allowed to work while taking prescribed opioids for back pain as an example, then that should be more worrisome than someone smoking a joint on a Friday night, then showing up for work on a Monday.

What this really tells me is the Police have no definitive way to tell if someone simply has THC in their system or if they're actually impaired.