SAFETY MUST COME FIRST
Everyone wants a safe work environment, including the provincial NDP government, which this week introduced a number of measures aimed at reducing injuries and deaths on job sites.
Employees will now have the right to refuse work they deem to be dangerous, for instance. They’ve always had the ability to reject tasks they felt put them at risk, but instead of protection being included in the Occupational Health and Safety Act, it will soon form part of Bill 30, the cleverly titled An Act to Protect the Health and Well-being of Working Albertans.
The problem, says Labour Minister Christina Gray, is that a person’s ability to refuse dangerous work doesn’t place sufficient onus on employers — an observation shared by the labour minister’s ideological twin, Gil McGowan, president of the Alberta Federation of Labour.
In fact, WBC changes — among other promised amendments — are said to have nearly brought tears to McGowan’s eyes, so moved was he by the gestures.
Shuffling the ability to refuse hazardous tasks from one piece of legislation to another bit of paperwork is all well and good. And it should be noted there is more money for Workers’ Compensation Act fatality payments paid for from the premiums of employers.
Still, there’s something odd about Albertans’ response to workplace dangers. Suncor has been lobbying for years to address “profound problems” with drug and alcohol use at its oilsands operations, but it’s been hampered at every turn by the employees’ union, Unifor local 707A4. Suncor says there have been 73 safety incidents in the past four years where workers tested positive for drugs or alcohol — many times, way over the legal limit. How can one group in society — government — espouse such regard for worker safety, while another — employees’ own union — be determined to fight measures such as random drug and alcohol testing that would keep employees safe?
Suncor — which reports it has spent $4 million treating substance abuse dependency since 2012 — points out random tests would only apply to safety-sensitive positions. It’s too bad that the union and the legal system can’t see the wisdom of coming together to prevent such fatalities in the first place. Any death payments will come from the employer, and perhaps the government, but if the union cares about its members’ contributions, beyond the union dues they are compelled to pay, it should value their safety rather than natter on about privacy breaches.
Most families, we suspect, would prefer to keep breadwinners alive rather than have their unions oppose tests that are designed to ensure everyone’s safety.