Article content continued

Goldsbie: It strikes me as not too unlike the questions surrounding CCTV surveillance: Does the available evidence justify the implementation of an extensive, expensive and inherently invasive system from which the benefits will nevertheless outweigh the drawbacks? When a proposal is variously premised on dodgy statistics and the citation of incidents that range from the anecdotal to the hypothetical, I would suggest that the test has not been met. Common intuition that a given measure will have a given effect is insufficient, especially when so much is at stake; if you really want to compromise individuals’ rights, you better have a scientifically sound case for doing so, at the very, very least. Commissioners should have referred the report back to staff and told them that some effort would have been appreciated.

Gurney: I think Chris was closer to the point, though, JG. But first I’ll quickly lay out where I stand: I’m neither for nor against the tests, and would be eager to be convinced they could work. I haven’t seen the U.S. report Chris cited, so if he were to say that we shouldn’t do this because it will add costs without much expectation of benefit, I could nod thoughtfully and think, “Hey, this Selley feller is a sharp one!” But all of the other arguments raised don’t do much for me. Chris lays out the litigation and morale issues, but that says more about why the policy would be hard to implement than it does whether it should be. And while JG’s comparison to CCTV is really very apt, I’m not sure he’s on as solid ground when he muses about the rights. Surely there is no positive right to be intoxicated at work? And I suspect most employers could treat intoxication during work hours as grounds for offence (probably under a catch-all contractual section for aggregious conduct, but given the day and age, maybe directly under regulations relating to intoxication). If we agree that intoxication at work would be a firing offence, then doesn’t it follow that the employer must have reasonable means to test for that (even if, as Chris had alluded to, all things being equal, the employer might as well not bother?) I think a lot would hinge on the specifics of the tests, and what time period they’d cover. Showing up to work sober after a weekend of getting baked and listening to the Allman Brothers is one thing (a great thing). So I’d agree there is some issue of rights there, but not just from the overall perspective.