Government to Consider Random Alcohol testing for pilots

[234james]

http://globalnews.ca/news/3254770/alcoh ... m=Facebook
Randomly testing airline pilots for alcohol consumption because criminal offence in Canada for any member of a flight
crew to work within eight hours of drinking alcohol or while under the influence.

[Old fella]

“It really depends on the reason you’ve been pulled over,” Anber says. “If somebody is pulled over during a RIDE program, the best thing is to hand over your licence and remain silent - anything you say can be used against you.”

Taken from:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-dr ... e29583815/

The article also says that police are allowed to do random sobriety tests. The "remain silent" is presumably referring to volunteering information, not to keeping your mouth shut to avoid a sobriety test.

Yes, that is how I see it, never volunteer any info and I personally wouldn't. If I am asked to provide a breath sample at the roadside into a screen device , it is a lawful demand and I have to comply.

[Rockie]

If this actually happened, it wouldn't faze me one bit.

You and many other people feel the same way, the problem is once you forfeit your rights on this it's much harder to defend them for something else. For instance how do you permit this violation of your rights but draw the line at the police searching your car and house without cause?

[AuxBatOn]

This is not the same Rockie and you know it. Random testing for professionnal pilot with a professionnal expectation that they will not be drunk and with the direct responsibility of hundreds of people vs joe random at home watching TV with absolutely no direct responsibility.

Old Fella: I always found that being nice to law enforcement goes a long way in influencing how they, in turn, will deal with you. I am always nice to them, small talk and all and despite being pulled over half a dozen times in my life, I never had a single ticket. If you are a d*ck to them and refuse to answer their questions, your mileage may vary.. Believe it or not, they are human beings and, like all professions, some of them are absolute d*icks but the vast majority are actually nice people trying to do their job right.

The world is not against you, most people try to do the right thing to improve people's lives. There is no conspiracy....

[Rockie]

This is not the same Rockie and you know it. Random testing for professionnal pilot with a professionnal expectation that they will not be drunk and with the direct responsibility of hundreds of people vs joe random at home watching TV with absolutely no direct responsibility.

Take it up with the courts AuxBatOn, they view it as exactly the same. The courts think there has to be a compelling reason to infringe on an individual's rights in this regard and so far it seems they haven't found one. That's not to say they won't at some point, but as mentioned several times before the bar is set very high. That's also why Minister Garneau's musings about sobriety testing is largely irrelevant because to implement it he will have to convince the courts that it's necessary. He wouldn't be the first government official to run face first into the judiciary, Harper did it all the time because he never did figure out his laws have to comply with the Canadian Constitution. Guess who decides that?

Read the links I provided on page 1 of this thread.

[Old fella]

This is not the same Rockie and you know it. Random testing for professionnal pilot with a professionnal expectation that they will not be drunk and with the direct responsibility of hundreds of people vs joe random at home watching TV with absolutely no direct responsibility.

Old Fella: I always found that being nice to law enforcement goes a long way in influencing how they, in turn, will deal with you. I am always nice to them, small talk and all and despite being pulled over half a dozen times in my life, I never had a single ticket. If you are a d*ck to them and refuse to answer their questions, your mileage may vary.. Believe it or not, they are human beings and, like all professions, some of them are absolute d*icks but the vast majority are actually nice people trying to do their job right.

The world is not against you, most people try to do the right thing to improve people's lives. There is no conspiracy....

Thanks for the tips AuxBat, but I am too old and have been around way to long......... In dealing with the state and any of its various branches, I assert my Constitutional Rights and have no shame in doing so. Why, because Constitutional rights are the supreme laws of the Country and nobody is above the Constitution starting with the PM then down to my level and everybody in between. That also includes Law Enforcement and I did have an incident where did exactly that. You are indeed correct in that you interact in a courteous/respective manner and that is what I will do but make no mistake about it, the Country has given all of us our rights and they are ours to use – period and full stop.

[HiFlyChick]

...False positives happen. Happened to me. Stressful....

Wow - stepped away for 2 days and this thread went crazy....
Thanks, CI - this is the kind of answer I was looking for. This is a real reason against allowing drug/alcohol testing for no reason. It would be concerning how to prove that you hadn't consumed alcohol - proving something didn't happen is far worse than proving it did.

Regarding the argument about an employer asking about pregnancy - seriously? I guess you were trying to argue the slippery slope concept, but I'd hardly compare being pregnant (during which you can fly, BTW, and which does not endanger the lives of your pax) with being drunk.... (but kudos to trying to push my buttons based on me being a woman)

I also don't get the comments about how oil fields workers are tested and that being considered voluntary. I guess you meant voluntary by company, as opposed to industry imposed, because if your company says I want a drug test and you refuse, pretty sure at that point it's mandatory if you want to continue your employment (assuming you were so informed when you accepted the job).

I also agree with the comment that when metal gets bent, the test should be done. And with regards to the absurd comments about other occupations being tested, if the occupation deals with the possibility of killing a bunch of people, then that's a valid argument. The comments about testing teachers and Tim Horton's workers, though, are argument for the sake of argument. Never forget that if we as pilots screw up we can kill people - depending on the op, sometimes lots of people. I'm not saying in far-fetched, absurd ways and crazy scenarios, I'm saying in common accidents because a mistake was made, people die. If you don't get that, or refuse to face it, you've got no business flying for a living.

One problem I would have with testing in any case is the cost, especially with regards to small operators. Does anyone know how much it costs to get a sample tested (and is peeing in a cup accurate enough to do it, or would it have to be a blood test?)

[AuxBatOn]

If you put the onus on TC for testing (randomly showing up at a pilot lounge for a test before a flight, getting a sample and testing it), there would be no cost to small operators. This way, it would be a standardized process with no bias.

From experience, the sample takes 2-3 minutes to get. People only had to provide urine samples and it was only for drugs. A breathalyzer would work for alchool.

[cdnpilot77]

Regarding the argument about an employer asking about pregnancy - seriously? I guess you were trying to argue the slippery slope concept, but I'd hardly compare being pregnant (during which you can fly, BTW, and which does not endanger the lives of your pax) with being drunk.... (but kudos to trying to push my buttons based on me being a woman)

Ok....how about this...

I choose not to employ you because you're a women.

Does that infringe on your personal rights against discrimination? Or Is that something that would be widely acceptable?

You can't be selective, either you're for the constitutional rights or not.

Personally I would like to keep everyone's rights in tact.

[Old fella]

If you put the onus on TC for testing (randomly showing up at a pilot lounge for a test before a flight, getting a sample and testing it), there would be no cost to small operators. This way, it would be a standardized process with no bias.

From experience, the sample takes 2-3 minutes to get. People only had to provide urine samples and it was only for drugs. A breathalyzer would work for alchool.

I have real difficulty seeing Transport Canada Aviation asserting itself into this kind of activity based on my experience working with them at the HQ and Regional level. I won't get into the logistics either, way to much to mention.....

[Mostly Harmless]

I haven't seen this argument here yet so if I missed it, I guess I'll just be echoing someone else.

The foundation of all western legal systems is the presumption of innocence. As has been stated, one can and should be tested when there is cause to do so, or an accuser. I can and will then face the evidence and the accuser.

The "you have nothing to hide" argument takes a jackhammer to the foundation of the entire legal system on which our society is built by presenting me with the fact that I am now presumed guilty until proven innocent. The evidence is no longer collected to present an argument of guilt, but it must now be collected to prove innocence. Adding to that issue, I can no longer face my accuser as I very much doubt Garneau (who has never met me or anyone I know) will turn up at my court case to be questioned.

The tests are not infallible. The government is not infallible... it is comprised of people and has been known to go on witch hunts because of those people. To support any loss of civil rights is to toss away every thing that made this nation such a fantastic place to live and I would argue that your desire to feel safe never outweighs my right to freedom and privacy.

People should never fear their governments.

[Old fella]

I would have a hard time giving a rebuttal to this point of view. Well said!

[AuxBatOn]

The foundation of all western legal systems is the presumption of innocence. As has been stated, one can and should be tested when there is cause to do so, or an accuser. I can and will then face the evidence and the accuser.

No one accuses anybody of wrongdoing when random testing. It is just an assurance that rules are beng followed by a group of people in positions that are safety sensitive. That's all.

[Old fella]

The foundation of all western legal systems is the presumption of innocence. As has been stated, one can and should be tested when there is cause to do so, or an accuser. I can and will then face the evidence and the accuser.

No one accuses anybody of wrongdoing when random testing. It is just an assurance that rules are beng followed by a group of people in positions that are safety sensitive. That's all.

Here is one for you. How about random testing at Nav Canada's seven Area Control Centres, what about maintenance operations at the all the major airlines and their associated feeder lines. Safety sensitive there I would think.

[AuxBatOn]

Why not?

[CpnCrunch]

I haven't seen this argument here yet so if I missed it, I guess I'll just be echoing someone else.

The foundation of all western legal systems is the presumption of innocence. As has been stated, one can and should be tested when there is cause to do so, or an accuser. I can and will then face the evidence and the accuser.

The "you have nothing to hide" argument takes a jackhammer to the foundation of the entire legal system on which our society is built by presenting me with the fact that I am now presumed guilty until proven innocent. The evidence is no longer collected to present an argument of guilt, but it must now be collected to prove innocence. Adding to that issue, I can no longer face my accuser as I very much doubt Garneau (who has never met me or anyone I know) will turn up at my court case to be questioned.

The tests are not infallible. The government is not infallible... it is comprised of people and has been known to go on witch hunts because of those people. To support any loss of civil rights is to toss away every thing that made this nation such a fantastic place to live and I would argue that your desire to feel safe never outweighs my right to freedom and privacy.

People should never fear their governments.

Well, the fact remains that random alcohol and drug testing is perfectly legal in non-unionised workplaces, and in unionised workplaces with certain restrictions. It's also legal for the police to do random sobriety tests. Your argument is more idealistic than based in reality.

[AirFrame]

If you put the onus on TC for testing ... it would be a standardized process with no bias.

I'll give you standardized, but I don't buy that it would be without bias. The person doing the testing would be required to show results, and I can easily envision some manager with the expectation that there are drunk pilots out there directing his staff to find results to make his metrics look better. Maybe i've just worked in too many bureaucratical companies where common sense eventually gets thrown out the window once you get to a certain level of management.

[CD]

Additional discussion on this topic in these threads as well:

AvCanada: Air Tindi Fatal TSB Report To Be Released March 20, 2013
AvCanada: BC Ferries riding "high"?
AvCanada: Pilots and Alcohol
AvCanada: Random Drug and Alcohol Testing

[CpnCrunch]

False positives happen. Happened to me. Stressful. But even in a supposedly repressive state like the UAE it wasn't an issue. Canada has far more legal protections.

As I understand it, you can have false positives for the breath test, but that's not really a big deal because they will do a more accurate blood test. There don't seem to be any false positives for the blood test as far as I can see. You can get a positive result without drinking alcohol if your gut is creating a lot of alcohol, but that's not really a false positive because you do in fact have too much alcohol in your blood, and shouldn't be flying/driving.

[Mostly Harmless]

There are frequent posters on here who I know I will never influence their opinion because they are the people who can never look at the other side of an argument and admit that the other person might have a valid point of view. Even when someone agrees with some of you, or admits you have a valid point, you will still argue just because it's not EXACTLY what you said.

The original poster asked for an argument as to why not. I have said my peace. You will not change my mind on this and I will stand up to defend my rights not to be accused of criminal activity without some sort of cause being present. Those who are arguing for this are, rather oddly, arguing for the institution of fascism in all it's glory. The absolute control of everything everyone says, does, and thinks by the state. Sure, the intentions might be grand and wonderful but we all know that the road to hell is often paved with good intentions. If you choose to give up your personal rights, that is your choice. But you cannot make that choice for me.

I've noticed that no matter what your political stripe these days, that all roads are leading to the same destination... they are just taking different routes. The Conservative types want strong law and order to control everyone into doing what they want. The Liberal types want strong government presence in all areas of life like this, political correctness, controlling everyone into doing what they want. Either way, it's someone trying to control what I do and how I think. Either road you take leads to a dictator and a police state of some sort or another. Is that what you people really want?

Rights come with responsibilities. Be responsible to society as a whole when you are exercising your rights (and don't show up to work impaired, for example). But for those who cannot act responsibly, we already have laws in place to deal with those people. More of the same doesn't fix a problem. As flight crew, it is your responsibility to not go flying with someone who is not up to the job that day. That is exactly what happened in the Sunwing case, the system worked!

Enjoy the day, I'm off to have some fun.

[CpnCrunch]

Those who are arguing for this are, rather oddly, arguing for the institution of fascism in all it's glory. The absolute control of everything everyone says, does, and thinks by the state. Sure, the intentions might be grand and wonderful but we all know that the road to hell is often paved with good intentions. If you choose to give up your personal rights, that is your choice. But you cannot make that choice for me.

Gotta love the slippery slope argument! Complete lack of intellectual effort...

As pointed out we're already on the slippery slope as far as sobriety testing is concerned, so it's too late. Fascism here we come...

Anyway, not all countries are like the USA, with their descent towards fascism in full swing. Things happen a bit differently in Canada...the outcome of the recent "hacking" scandal in BC is a great example of how Canadians being (mostly) reasonable people results in a good outcome.

[Old fella]

My Lord Byron Moment:

Esteemed AV posters say Random testing is here, they think
Against Airline pilots who have issues with drink
Should the Airline executives be on board, to wit
The travelling public they pontificate, every bit
Can our common taters think positive with the bray
The travelling Visa card extra, they’ll pay
The airline industry tis safer, all hail
Others say "eff" this I’m going by rail

[Rockie]

Well, the fact remains that random alcohol and drug testing is perfectly legal in non-unionised workplaces, and in unionised workplaces with certain restrictions.

I don't know where you're getting this from. In the most recent case the SCC ruled on this was the takeaway according to all the legal firm analysis I've been able to find. While this case refers to a unionized workshop bear in mind privacy laws and individual rights make no distinction between union and non-union. Privacy laws are privacy laws, and individual rights are individual rights. Unions cannot bargain those away.

"The points which can be taken from the Supreme Court’s decision include the following:

The dangerousness of a workplace, while relevant, is not alone an “automatic justification for the unilateral imposition of unfettered random testing with disciplinary consequences.” According to the Court, that factor:
has never, to my knowledge, been held to justify random testing, even in the case of “highly safety sensitive” or “inherently dangerous” workplaces like railways (Canadian National) and chemical plants (DuPont Canada Inc.), or even in workplaces that pose a risk of explosion (ADM Agri-Industries), in the absence of a demonstrated problem with alcohol use in that workplace.

A finding that a workplace is dangerous is, according to the Court, only the beginning of a “balancing test”, assessing the benefit to the employer versus the impact on an employee’s privacy. In short, the employer must demonstrate that “the need for the rule outweighs the harmful impact on employees’ privacy rights”.
Universal drug or alcohol testing will not be allowed when the expected safety gains are minimal and infringement on employees’ privacy rights are severe.
“Deterrence” as a reason to implement a universal drug testing policy is unlikely to be upheld.
An employer can impose random drug or alcohol testing if it represents a “proportionate response in light of both legitimate safety concerns and privacy interests.” Evidence of a safety risk must be present, such as a general problem with substance abuse in the workplace. In Irving, eight incidents over a fifteen year period were found not to reflect a significant problem with workplace alcohol use.

The Court accepted that certain situations do permit testing, stating as follows:
In a workplace that is dangerous, employers are generally entitled to test individual employees who occupy safety sensitive positions without having to show that alternative measures have been exhausted if there is “reasonable cause” to believe that the employee is impaired while on duty, where the employee has been directly involved in a workplace accident or significant incident, or where the employee is returning to work after treatment for substance abuse.

In other words violating your privacy and individual rights is not legal, but can be done if enough justification is present. According to the SCC eight incidents over fifteen years in a single workplace was not sufficient justification. Compare that with the aviation industry...

[CpnCrunch]

Well, the fact remains that random alcohol and drug testing is perfectly legal in non-unionised workplaces, and in unionised workplaces with certain restrictions.

While this case refers to a unionized workshop bear in mind privacy laws and individual rights make no distinction between union and non-union. Privacy laws are privacy laws, and individual rights are individual rights.

http://www.mathewsdinsdale.com/ohs-news ... gust-2015/

"When discussing random testing, it is important to draw a distinction between the requirements flowing from human rights legislation and those which are drawn from management rights clauses in collective agreements. While human rights legislation applies to all employers, non-union employers are free from the restrictions imposed by management rights language".

And here is a good summary of the differences between unionized and non-unionized workplaces in terms of random alcohol testing:

http://kw-law.com/content/alcohol-testi ... tands-gain

[Rockie]

Here's another legal summary which is markedly different than the one you posted. As we are talking about rights here any non-unionized employer seeking to infringe on their employees rights would be wise to consider their actions.

Initial Implications and Takeaways

Certainly non-union employers will press hard to say that Irving is limited to the labour context, and possibly restricted to random alcohol testing. However, there are indications that the decision will have broader implications, most notably the court's comments at para. 20 referring to the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Entrop v. Imperial Oil Ltd. in 2000: "even in a non-unionized workplace, an employer must justify the intrusion on privacy resulting from random testing by reference to the particular risks in a particular workplace. There are different analytic steps involved, but both essentially require attentive consideration and balancing of the safety and privacy interests."

Further, the court's strong language around the protection given to employee privacy, including reliance on cases decided under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, despite the absence of any government action, suggests that employee privacy will feature prominently in any future dispute regarding drug and alcohol testing.

Employers in both union and non-union environments should therefore be prepared going forward to justify random testing initiatives on the basis of evidence of a general drug or alcohol problem in the workplace, and to respond in a fulsome way to arguments regarding the intrusiveness of such testing initiatives on employee privacy."

Irving provides little guidance with respect to the degree of seriousness of a drug or alcohol problem in the workplace that is required to justify random testing. The court's decision suggests that it is reasonable to hold that "only" eight documented incidents of alcohol consumption or impairment in the workplace over a period of 15 years is insufficient. Nor was the deterrence value of random testing given real consideration. It may be that it will take a serious string of fatalities or truly catastrophic workplace incident before workplace safety is given greater consideration in the face of employee privacy concerns. This may be a call to action for the legislative branch of the provincial governments.

http://www.blakes.com/mobile/bulletins/ ... tinid=1755