Canadian Employers. Typical policies?

[PocketJokers72]

Here in the USA, we have EOE (Equal Opportunity Employer) and other similar programs and many US Employers are big on 'drug-free' workplaces so they conduct pre-employment drug screening, as well as background checks for felonies and stuff.

In Canada, what does a typical employer do for pre-hire screening?

[celiboy]

In my experience the only times they will do a comprehensive background check (credit score, financial risk indicators) is when applying for any government job. I have never heard of a Cdn employer doing a drug test before hiring.

I should also note that many companies have a requirement that they must check a reference from your current employer as a last step. This can be sticky if you get a bad reference b/c then you won't get the new job and your current boss will know you are looking. Normally this is just a formality.

[HopeydaFish]

Most employers will ask you on the job application if you've been convicted of a criminal offence. Very few companies (outside of the government) actually do a background check, though.

I've never heard of a Canadian company conducting drug tests. It seems to be commonplace in the US, though. It has always struck me as strange and invasive for companies to do this.

[PocketJokers72]

EOE in the US is supposed to mean that companies hire without regard to gender, race, etc.

Does Canada have something similar?

No/Very few Canadian companies conduct pre-hire drug screens? really?!? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]


Only reason I'm asking is that a friend of mine has an opportunity to work for a Canadian company, and is wondering what to expect pre-hire.

[krimson]

There is pretty much 0 drug screening. The only instance of drug screening I have heard of where I live is when my friend was getting a job at the airport. I have worked for National Defense, and had to undergo a full background check, but did not require drug screening.

Most places I have worked at have not even required a police report.

[gamblore99]

[ QUOTE ]
I've never heard of a Canadian company conducting drug tests. It seems to be commonplace in the US, though. It has always struck me as strange and invasive for companies to do this.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. What you do on your own time should not be your companies concern.

I remember seeing an episode of King of the Hill where Hank hires the drug addict, and has to accomodate him. Are companies in the U.S. worried about something like that?

[PocketJokers72]

I think most US employers are more worried about the safety issue of having someone stoned/coked up on the job. The funny thing is, if you really are a hardcore drug user, all you have to do is get past the pre-hire screening. After that, you never get checked again. The military does constant drug screens, but this isn't applicable to the civilian world.

The only time some US companies will re-screen you is if you have an accident on the job (crash a forklift, etc.).

Edited to reflect appreciation:
Many thanks to my northern neighbors for the responses.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]

I've never heard of a Canadian company conducting drug tests. It seems to be commonplace in the US, though. It has always struck me as strange and invasive for companies to do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nearly half of all workplace fatalities and injuries are caused by drug or alcohol intoxication. The cost of injuries and lost time is in the dozens of billions. These costs are borne by the employer and the public in the form of increased prices and worker's comp payments. In any job involving driving, lifting, or working with machinery, not testing is insane.

More intelligent companies do occasional random drug tests of current employees, in addition to test for suspicion, so it's not true that all you have to do is dodge the pre-hire screening.

[HopeydaFish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I've never heard of a Canadian company conducting drug tests. It seems to be commonplace in the US, though. It has always struck me as strange and invasive for companies to do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nearly half of all workplace fatalities and injuries are caused by drug or alcohol intoxication. The cost of injuries and lost time is in the dozens of billions. These costs are borne by the employer and the public in the form of increased prices and worker's comp payments. In any job involving driving, lifting, or working with machinery, not testing is insane.

More intelligent companies do occasional random drug tests of current employees, in addition to test for suspicion, so it's not true that all you have to do is dodge the pre-hire screening.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it makes sense to test people who are working with potentially dangerous equipment. However, I've seen quite a few posts on here from people who were being drug tested for office-type jobs. Where is the justification in that?

I also remember watching an episode of Mythbusters where they tested the "myth" that eating poppy seeds will lead to a "false positive" in a drug test (like in the Seinfeld episode). They were amazed to discover that eating even small amounts of poppy seeds (like what would be found on a bagel) would cause a false positive on the drug test. If the test isn't anywhere near 100% effective, how fair is it to fire (or not hire) people who fail the test -- especially people who aren't working with dangerous equipment?