CBC Calgary series on farm worker rights

CBC Calgary has being doing a series on farm worker safety. Here are links to the three videos they've done:

Lack of WCB coverage

Migrant farmworker housing

Farm worker protection

You can also see a couple of longer clip of an interview with Eric Musekamp (Farmworkers Union of Alberta)

-- Bob Barnetson

Video of migrant farm worker quarters in Alberta

CBC has posted a video tour of migrant worker living quarters in Alberta (a 2010 video). The quality of the video bad but there is lots of evidence of mold, over crowding, cooking in the laundry room, etc.Seventeen workers lived in this three-bedroom house. In this video, we see that for migrant workers, workplace health and safety often goes beyond the worksite into the housing that is provided for them (or more likely rented from) employers.

-- Bob Barnetson

More on drug testing

A reader sent me a link to a column from the Winnipeg Free Press on drug testing. It makes for fairly compelling reading around the issue of false positives (i.e., drug tests that flag workers as users when they are not):

With a 99 per cent accuracy, it seems reasonable to think only one per cent of employees will be wrongly accused of doing drugs. Not so, because of a little thing called the base rate: If 10 per cent of workers are actually on drugs (the base rate), a test 99 per cent accurate will falsely accuse people eight per cent of the time, not one per cent. That means almost one out of every 10 people testing positive will be innocent. 

How does that work? Here’s the math. Assume we test 1,000 people. Of these, 100 are intoxicated (10 per cent base rate) and our test will identify 99 of them. Nine hundred are not intoxicated but the one per cent error rate in the test means nine of them will be falsely identified as intoxicated. So in all, 108 people will test positive for drugs, of which nine (or 8.3 per cent) are innocent.

It takes a minute to grasp the math but it is worth the effort. Then, as the article continues, imagine what happens when the tests aren't 99% accurate, but more like 38-68% and then add in gaming of the tests (psst... can I borrow some urine?). Suddenly the potential impact false positives takes on more urgency and the concerns of labour groups is more understandable. Not only do these tests not reduce the incidence of workplace injury, but they raise a significant spectre of false accusations. Makes you wonder what is behind this whole endeavour.

For those keen to learn more, an interesting (albeit older) article on this topic is "Predictive probabilities in employee drug testing".

-- Bob Barnetson

Migrant Worker Film, September 30

A new film The End of Immigration will be shown at the Edmonton International Film Festival at noon on September 30. This documentary looks at temporary foreign workers (including some from Alberta) and their experiences. It will also be shown in Montreal on October 2 and 15.

In related news, a new report examines how Canada's employment and immigration laws make temporary foreign workers vulnerable to exploitation.

-- Bob Barnetson

Farm safety tussle continues

Alberta is the only province that continues to deny Alberta’s ~12,000 farm workers basic safety rights, such as the right to refuse unsafe work or the right to know about dangers in their workplace. You can see me chatting about this issue on Alberta Primetime last week here. CBC is also working on a series about this issue.

Last year, the Alberta government struck the Farm Safety Advisory Council. This council was designed to provide the government with advice on issues around farm safety and comprised mostly industry and government representatives (there was one appointee from UFCW to represent the voice of labour). Many people (including myself) saw this as a stalling tactic by the government, which was hoping the issue of regulating farm safety in Alberta would go away.

It hasn’t and likely won’t.  Farm safety is a good wedge issue for the Liberals and the NDP. There is little urban appetite for workplace rules that result in maimed and killed farm workers (including kids and migrant workers). Yet, if the PCs attempt to mollify urban voters by regulating safety, they will lose more rural support to the Wildrose. I expect further political hammering on this issue.

In the spring, the Council provided the Minister of Agriculture with a report about farm safety regulation. Neither the Minster of Agriculture nor the Minister of Human Services have made any public moves on this report (like releasing it) for seven months. On the weekend, the Calgary Herald revealed it had a copy of a draft report, which was confirmed as broadly representative of the final report.

The gist of the report (which I have not seen) is (not surprisingly) that farming should remain outside the ambit of provincial OHS laws and that industry should use education and some form of self-regulation to make things safer. To be fair to the government, it has not taken a position on whether or not it will live up to the commitment made by the Premier last September to regulate farm safety. But this report is rather discouraging.

The assertion that education is a more effective way to reduce injuries than enforcement is simply untrue. Studies indicate that farm safety education has no impact on injury rates—likely because hazardous conditions remain unmitigated. This recommendation ought to give the government significant pause about adopting the council’s (self-serving) report.

The political bind for the government is that doing something may cost significant rural support (and may set off a feud in caucus). Yet (once again) doing nothing means the government will have the blood of the next dead farm worker plainly on its hands. If that farm worker is a kid (and there is a good chance a kid will die doing farm work next year), platitudes about how the death is “tragic” and “deeply saddening” may not be enough to sweep the issue under the carpet. 

Eventually, urban voters are going to wonder why the government keeps accepting the recommendations of the foxes about hen-house security in the wake of all of these dead chickens.

-- Bob Barnetson

More on random drug testing...

Last week I was on CBC discussing random drug testing, noting that there was no evidence random drug testing reduced injuries. You can see a summary of the research that I posted the other day after several folks requested it. 

I provided a link to this summary to the organization behind the random drug testing because they wanted a copy of the studies I'd reviewed. Tonight I got a letter from them. I responded and I thought posting both bits of correspondence (since the letter to me was copied to CBC!) might be insightful for students interest in how evidence contributes (or not) to policy making.

-- Bob Barnetson (not Bartensen!)
___

September 11, 2012


Pat Atkins, Administrator
Drug & Alcohol Risk Reduction Pilot Project


Dear Dr. Bartensen:

Thank you for taking the time to speak with me on the phone this morning to discuss your guest appearance on the CBC Edmonton radio show on September 5, 2012.

During the CBC segment you indicated that you were not able to find any studies that link workplace safety and alcohol and drug testing, and could not find any evidence of the deterrent effects of random testing. When I asked if you could provide me with copies and links to the research you mentioned on the radio, you said you could not remember any specific studies and that you based your conclusion on what you learned from a journal browse in the library.

As the Administrator of Alberta’s Drug and Alcohol Risk Reduction Pilot Project (DARRPP), I have accumulated some of the current research on the subject of alcohol and drug testing in the workplace, and I thought it would be helpful to share some of this information with you so you can refer to it in the future.

I also have some other relevant information to share relative to alcohol and drugs generally.

First, I am attaching an article from Cornell University which indicates a strong link between the implementation of alcohol & drug testing and increased safety in the construction industry. It is entitled “Construction companies find benefits in testing for drugs, Cornell study finds.” This study found that the implementation of drug testing reduced injury rates by 51% within two years of implementation.

I would also like to refer you to the US Department of Transportation (DOT) study, also attached. Random alcohol and drug testing was implemented by the DOT for motor coach carriers in 1995, and, in 2008, they had achieved a 47% decrease in positive tests for drugs and a 60% decrease in positive tests for alcohol for workers who were in a random testing program for both drugs and alcohol. This same study showed that in 2008, for workers in random testing, the post-incident positive test rate for drugs was down to 1.24%.

In addition, a separate study of the U.S. road transportation industry, which looked only at fatal crashes where alcohol was involved during this same time period showed a 23% decrease for workers who were random-tested. This shows that random testing can be successful in deterring workers from being impaired on the job and endangering themselves and others.

In our conversation I pointed to recent events at Toronto Transit. In 2007 a serious accident occurred on the job where the operator was killed and several workers seriously injured. In a post-incident test, the operator was found to have measureable levels of THC, likely consumed during his work shift. Following this incident, a comprehensive A&D testing program was approved by the TTC, which was implemented in 2010. At that time, random testing was recommended but not approved. In 2011, another accident occurred resulting in the death of a passenger. The driver was charged with criminal negligence causing death and possession of cannabis. Following this event, the TTC approved random testing. I think these studies and findings are quite relevant.

In Northern Alberta, many organizations have had extensive safety programs in place for decades, making every effort to take actions to ensure the health and safety of workers and the public. Most have also had A&D testing programs in place for 10 years or more, as well as education programs, training for workers and supervisors, availability of EAP and treatment programs (often paid for by the organization), speakers and symposiums for workers and supervisors. In spite of these efforts, drugs and drug paraphernalia are still being found in camps, on heavy equipment and on work sites, and workers continue to test positive in post-incident tests. Pre-site access testing still results in substantial numbers of positive tests, in spite of the fact that workers are aware that the testing will occur.

One organization also found that close to six times more alcohol and drug abuse problems are revealed in substance abuse expert assessments after incidents occur than pre-emptive tests prompted by supervisor observations – and this is in spite of years of extensive education and supervisor training. Continuing to maintain the status quo and ignore the pressing need to improve workplace safety would be irresponsible on the part of site owners, who have a legal obligation to maintain a safe workplace. Given the data we have about the positive effects of random testing as a deterrent and its clear, measurable impact on improving workplace safety, the introduction of random testing for safety sensitive positions in Alberta’s oil sands and construction industries is a reasonable and responsible action.

DARRPP will also provide accurate Alberta wide statistical information relative to alcohol & drugs. The scope and efficacy of such information ought to allow intelligent and insightful conclusions to be drawn. This is part of the reason this is a “pilot project”

Employers are also responsible for respecting the human rights and privacy of employees. DARRPP participants all accept their obligations under the Alberta Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Alberta Human Rights Act, and the Personal Information Protection Act. For your reference, I am also attaching DARRPP’s participant guidelines, which clearly document these obligations.

Random workplace alcohol and drug testing is a powerful tool that has been proven to deter irresponsible behavior, prompt people with dependencies to get help, reduce injuries and save lives. As DARRPP’s Administrator, I can assure you that the pilot project has been designed to respect human rights and privacy, and I am confident that the testing will be implemented responsibly by participating employers.

As a former oil sands worker and resident of Fort McMurray for over 30 years, I am concerned at the alcohol and drug-related risks that are present in Alberta’s oil sands and construction industries. I trust you will find this information useful. Please let me know if you need additional information.

Sincerely, 

Pat Atkins, Administrator
Drug & Alcohol Risk Reduction Pilot Project

CC: CBC Edmonton Radio
___

Pat,

Thanks for your letter.

I’m not entirely sure what to make of your letter, but I did want to clarify a few things,

First, the assertion I made on the radio and on the phone was that I could find no studies that linked random workplace drug testing (as opposed to alcohol testing) to injury reductions and that I could find no studies that linked drug use to increases in injury rates. When you asked for the studies, I indicated that I didn’t happen to have a list, rather I had simply spent some time in the library reading studies.

But I did undertake to provide you with a list. I emailed you a link to my blog (where I posted the studies I reviewed) alone with a summary of each. You’ll find that they do indeed support my assertion. Most of interest to you will be the systematic review done for the government of Alberta in 2006—it is the most recent and most comprehensive.

Second, the Cornell study which you referred me to (and which I provided you a copy of since you hadn’t bothered to get a copy or read it!) did not refer to random drug testing (which is what is at issue). Rather, it refers to drug testing generally (which may or may not include random testing). Additionally, it isn’t a very good study (low response rate, small sample). So it doesn’t support random drug testing as a way to reduce injuries, which would have been evident if anyone at DARRPP had bothered to read it.

Third, I can’t comment on the DOT study (it was not attached) other than to observe that a study that finds random testing led to a reduction in positive tests does not tell us anything about whether random testing resulted in a reduction in injuries. All it tells us is that positive test results dropped.

Fourth, the study about random alcohol testing is not relevant to random drug testing. Alcohol and drugs appear to be quite separate issues and I have little concern with alcohol testing if there is some good reason to do so.

Fifth, the TTC examples are interesting, but again they do not provide any evidence that random drug testing reduces injury rates or the much more basic issue of whether drug use (outside of work or while at work) results in an increased rate of injury. An equally valid interpretation is that TTC got spooked and decided to cover their ass via testing after the second incident.

Sixth, your assertion that this is a “pilot study” is problematic in a couple of way. This study is not occurring in a laboratory with willing participants and disinterested researchers. You members are compelling their workers to participate in this study (which is unethical). These “researchers” have multiple and often conflicting interests at play which compromise their judgment. There is no reason to believe that your intervention will be effective based on the available data. Having such a belief is generally a precondition to experimenting on humans, where the experiment could result in significant harm (in this case, reputational and career consequences). And the rationale you are using justify invading the privacy of workers (i.e., that drug testing will make the workplace safer) assumes the hypothesis you are researching is true. Yet all of the available evidence indicates the opposite! 

Seventh, you note that:

“Random workplace alcohol and drug testing is a powerful tool that has been proven to deter irresponsible behavior, prompt people with dependencies to get help, reduce injuries and save lives.”

On the issue of random drug testing, this simply is not true. There is no evidence of this! What you are making is an ideological statement. You are entitled to have this opinion, but when you take action that affects the livelihood of others, you need to be able to substantiate such a statement and you have not done so.

Bob

The evidence for drug testing in Alberta workplaces

Last week, I appeared in a CBC call in show about the implementation of random drug testing among Suncor employees as part of the Drug and Alcohol Risk Reduction Pilot Project (DARRPP) in Alberta’s energy and construction sectors. 

The basic argument made by DARRPP for random testing is a safety one: violating employee privacy rights is warranted because random testing will make workplaces safer. Preparing for the interview, I read a number of studies that (to my surprise) indicate (1) random drug testing (as distinct from other kinds of drug testing) is not generally associated with a reduction in injuries and (2) drug use (as distinct from alcohol use) on the job or off is not associated with an increase injuries. This seems to undercut the safety argument almost entirely, which was the message I delivered on the show.

Since then, I’ve had a fair number of emails and phone calls with people asking about the evidence. This is a complicated request: (1) there are many studies, and (2) designing and executing a study often entails significant tradeoffs so sometimes findings require some expertise to understand. There is also the matter that it is not possible to prove a negative (i.e., that drugs never cause injury rates to go up and that random drug testing never causes injury rates to go down). Rather, we typically require those who assert a relationship (i.e., DARRP) to show evidence that it exists, so let’s start there.

The DARPP website cites two studies. The first indicates random alcohol testing of drivers in the US transport industry reduced fatal crashes by 23% among large trucks. DAARPP doesn’t tell us which study that is and I didn’t run across it. But the question at hand is whether illicit drug testing (not alcohol-testing) reduces injuries, so this study has no real bearing on the issue.

The DARRPP website cites another US study that shows mandatory alcohol and drug testing reduces positive tests by 50%. Again, I couldn’t find the study but let’s assume this is correct. The question is whether a reduction in positive test results is associated with any difference in injury outcomes? On this, we have no information. As drug tests measure prior use (but not impairment), positive tests might have little to do with workplace injury rates. Or the reduction might indicate gaming behaviour (“Psst. Buddy, can I borrow some urine?”). If so, a reduction in positive tests is largely meaningless.

DARRPP also kindly sent me a press release about a 2001 study they thought I should look at: Gerber, J. and Yacoubian, G. (2001). Evaluation of drug testing in the workplace: A study of the construction industry. Journal of construction engineering and management. 127(6): 438-444. While this study found that firms that implemented drug testing saw a 51% reduction in injury incident rates, there was no indication that these results stemmed from random drug testing (as opposed to pre-employment, reasonable cause and post-incident testing—none of which are the subject at hand). This study also has a small sample and poor response rate. Overall, this study really tells us nothing useful about the impact of random drug testing on workplace injuries.

I looked back through my notes and browser history and started to pull together what I reviewed for the CBC interview. Rather than attempt a half-assed systematic review, what I’ve done is selected those articles which present such reviews themselves. This should allow anyone who is keen to do so, the ability to go back and review each article on their own.

Institute of Medicine (1994) Under the Influence? Drugs and the American Work Force. Washington: National Academy Press. This book-length review is one of the better reads, despite the relative age. It found no good studies on the effectiveness of random drug testing (pp. 226-227). The effect of a drug in a laboratory varies and can be either positive and negative (depending on dose and testing). It is difficult to transfer this knowledge to determine the impact of drug use in the workplace. There was too little data to indicate that drug use was associated with increase injury and it is unclear if there is a causal relationship (i.e., some other factor may be at play).

A slightly more recent review is Macdonald, S. (1997). Work-place alcohol and other drug testing: A review of the scientific evidence. Drug and alcohol review. 16(3): 251-259. This article also indicates that there was little evidence for a linkage between drug use and workplace injury and no evidence drug testing significantly reduces workplace injury.

A study by three Alberta researchers for the government of Alberta is Beach, J., Ford, G. and Cherry, N. (2006). Final report: A literature review of the role of alcohol and drugs in contributing to work-related injury. Edmonton: University of Alberta, Department of Public Health Sciences.  On the issue of “is personal drug use associated with workplace injury”, this study is worth quoting at some length:

Overall this literature is difficult to evaluate, and probably inadequate to reach a definitive conclusion. If drug use is associated with work-related injury it appears to be more apparent among males, possibly more likely to occur with cocaine use, and possibly only occurs in certain situations such as when driving or in other ‘high risk’ work. Further, while a slim majority of studies appear to show an association of some sort, even within these studies this does not necessarily constitute causation. (pp. 13-14)

The authors found the evidence also too slim to know if drug use at work or immediately before a workplace injury increased the risk of injury. On the question of whether drug testing of any type affected workplace injuries, the studies were too weak to say anything definitive.

Moving onto actual studies, one of the larger studies is Hoffman, J. and Larison, C. (1999) Drug use, workplace accidents and employee turnover. Journal of drug issues. 29(2): 341–364. This study used nationally representative US data to find that drug use in general is not associated with a higher risk of workplace injury, with little indication of any such relationship in higher risk occupations such as construction, transportation and skilled labour.

An interesting study is Macdonald, S. (1995). The role of drugs in workplace injuries: Is drug testing appropriate? Journal of drug issues, 25(4): 703–23. This study uses self-reports to conclude illicit drug use is not a major cause of job injuries. This study seeks to control for (and understand) the impact of other variables on the relationship between drugs use and injuries—a failing of many other studies.

One of the studies that is sometimes cited as indicating random testing is effective is Miller, T., Zaloshnja, E. and Spicer, R. (2007). Effectiveness and benefit-cost of peer-based workplace substance abuse prevention coupled with random testing. Accident analysis and prevention. 39(3): 565-573. A careful read shows that the interactive effect of peer-based interventions and random drug testing was associated with a one-third drop in workplace injuries. The authors note that is not possible to disentangle the effect of the two interventions (peer intervention and random drug testing). The time series data shows the vast majority of the reduction followed the peer intervention; injury data is effectively flat after random testing starts. It may be the threat of testing may have contributed to willingness to participate in peer intervention, but we don’t know that.

Another construction-specific survey is Olbina, S., Hinzo, J. and Arduengo, C. (2011). Drug testing practices in the US construction industry in 2008. Construction management and economics. 29(10): 1043-1057. This study reports a statistically significant relationship between positive random drug tests and higher injury rates, suggesting drug use can increase the change of injury. There were a number of limitations noted in the study: 14% response rate, with only two-third using random testing, small sample size (53 firms), and a bias towards larger firms. An average of 2.23% of random tests were positive, suggesting illicit drug use is minimal.

The question I’m left is this: if there is no evidence that random drug testing reduces workplace injury rates, why would employers spend money on it?

There are several possible answers. They may have been sold a bill a good by companies that do the random testing. The notion that testing will reduce injuries accords with most people’s (incorrect) common-sense reaction that testing should reduce injury rates so that would be an easy enough sell.

Or there may be some other agenda at play. Testing may dissuade drug users from working at places with testing. If drug-use is associated with other undesirable behaviours (e.g., propensity to quit), then perhaps random testing is really about winnowing out these workers.

Testing also implicitly blames workers for workplace injuries, taking the heat off employers for organizing work unsafely and off the government for doing a poor job of enforcing the rules. And it makes it look like employers are doing something about the problem of workplace injuries. There is also a strong moral dimension to the issue of drug testing that can sometimes cloud people’s judgment.

Or perhaps these companies just believe (contrary to the evidence) that testing works. They are certainly entitled to believe that. Except that testing is a huge invasion of workers’ privacy and is demeaning, so ought to occur only when there is some evidence of its efficacy at increasing safety. Absent such evidence, the case for random testing looks pretty weak.

-- Bob Barnetson