Dankdude
Well-Known Member
WHY BAN VIDEO OF POT SMOKING WORKERS?
In the construction industry, managers want competent and sober people doing the job - for both quality of work and safety's sake.
One site manager believed two of his workers in Toronto were smoking marijuana on their lunch breaks, so he videotaped them in their pickup truck, accused them of smoking up and fired them.
The case is before the Ontario Labour Relations Board. But what is no longer before the board is the video tape.
The labour board says the video is inadmissible as evidence. It violated the two alleged dopers' right to privacy.
With that tossed, it's down to "he said" versus "he/he said." Good luck to the manager who's worried these guys may have been stoned and as such may not have been as careful on the job as someone not under the influence of drugs.
If they were high, that could compromise their safety and the safety of their coworkers on the job.
But the board didn't like the fact the manager pulled out a video camera to support his eyesight and resultant testimony at a board hearing.
Did he use infrared technology to penetrate tinted glass? Or was this in plain sight? If it is in plain sight, the board erred greatly.
One wonders how the board would rule had the L.A. police officers who beat the heck out of Rodney King in 1992 come before the board, complaining about bystander George Holliday filming their attack. Would the board have tossed that video footage?
We understand the desire to protect an individual's right to privacy. The Big Brother concept is scary and intrusive. Yet, given the difficulty in proving someone is high on marijuana, and the fact it was one man's report against two others, one can understand why the supervisor wanted to videotape the incident.
Is it invasive? Perhaps if these guys were in their own garage or inside their home. But this was at a construction site in broad daylight. Concerns of worker safety must hold some merit here.
If the two workers were high, and someone, including themselves, had been hurt on the job, the site manager would certainly be in front of a Ministry of Labour board again - but to face charges of workplace safety violations.
Pubdate: Thu, 25 Jan 2007
Source: Sudbury Star (CN ON)
Copyright: 2007 The Sudbury Star
Contact: [email protected]
Website: Osprey Media. - The Sudbury Star
In the construction industry, managers want competent and sober people doing the job - for both quality of work and safety's sake.
One site manager believed two of his workers in Toronto were smoking marijuana on their lunch breaks, so he videotaped them in their pickup truck, accused them of smoking up and fired them.
The case is before the Ontario Labour Relations Board. But what is no longer before the board is the video tape.
The labour board says the video is inadmissible as evidence. It violated the two alleged dopers' right to privacy.
With that tossed, it's down to "he said" versus "he/he said." Good luck to the manager who's worried these guys may have been stoned and as such may not have been as careful on the job as someone not under the influence of drugs.
If they were high, that could compromise their safety and the safety of their coworkers on the job.
But the board didn't like the fact the manager pulled out a video camera to support his eyesight and resultant testimony at a board hearing.
Did he use infrared technology to penetrate tinted glass? Or was this in plain sight? If it is in plain sight, the board erred greatly.
One wonders how the board would rule had the L.A. police officers who beat the heck out of Rodney King in 1992 come before the board, complaining about bystander George Holliday filming their attack. Would the board have tossed that video footage?
We understand the desire to protect an individual's right to privacy. The Big Brother concept is scary and intrusive. Yet, given the difficulty in proving someone is high on marijuana, and the fact it was one man's report against two others, one can understand why the supervisor wanted to videotape the incident.
Is it invasive? Perhaps if these guys were in their own garage or inside their home. But this was at a construction site in broad daylight. Concerns of worker safety must hold some merit here.
If the two workers were high, and someone, including themselves, had been hurt on the job, the site manager would certainly be in front of a Ministry of Labour board again - but to face charges of workplace safety violations.
Pubdate: Thu, 25 Jan 2007
Source: Sudbury Star (CN ON)
Copyright: 2007 The Sudbury Star
Contact: [email protected]
Website: Osprey Media. - The Sudbury Star
