workplace drug tests

Message

lazarus · #16 Post by **lazarus** » Tue Dec 16, 2014 5:06 pm

fatboy wrote:
lazarus wrote:
fatboy wrote: If the employer suspected drug use ( I believe employee was targeted ),they should have discussed this and then tested to see if drug use affected his ability to work.
Why?
If you suspected an employee was working and trying to disguise an injury would you simply fire them for not disclosing this, a health issue that may lead to loss of income if discovered.....?
Even though they still performed tasks to total satisfaction....?
Drug use or drug reliance is a health issue whether the drugs come from your doctor or your dealer

I disagree. A post earlier on questions the reliability and accuracy of drug tests and if that is true I see no reason why an employer would go to the cost of testing. But if testing was reliable then checking for heroin, cocaine etc is perfectly justifiable. Last thing you want as an employer is an employee with an expensive drug adiction. It isnt just the safety issue - there is alos the issue of money security, theft etc. And an employee who is prepared to break the law in the area of drugs is likely to have a fairly relaxed attitude to other laws. Its why you dont employ people with criminal records.

Worth adding, I wouldnt employ an alcoholi either.

As for the TUC/union view I have always found that a good guide as to what not to do.

old git · #17 Post by **old git** » Tue Dec 16, 2014 6:18 pm

Well lets all stand up those of us that live in glass houses, what a load of carp!
While I don't condone the use of drugs at work or in any other context (and lets not get into a discussion about 'drugs' like drink, fags, legal highs, etc.)
we have ALL broken laws, speeding, parking on yellow lines (just for 2 mins while we pop into the shop) gunning it through a yellow light whatever.......anyone that says they haven't well...........I don't believe you!
I have broken the law occassionally, we all have its a matter of degree.
If the employer thinks someone is on the weed, then catch them & sack them, if they cant catch them, then they are innocent until proven, simple as that.
Stop all the holier than thou carp.

fatboy · #18 Post by **fatboy** » Tue Dec 16, 2014 6:49 pm

I'm with you there old git !
What I'm looking for here is fairness and honesty, obviously some do believe this should not be wasted on humble employees who may have made the mistake of falling foul of a drug screening which is far cheaper and less accurate than drug test.
The TUC work closely with ACAS,helping to formulate employment law

#19 Post by **mangocrazy** » Tue Dec 16, 2014 7:40 pm

+1 old git. I really can't stand sanctimony in any of its forms. I'm certain that (for example) the Banks don't test their dealing room traders for cocaine (even though its use is endemic in the City), because they're making them loadsamoney. But the poor factory worker can't have a relaxing spliff at the end of the day or he gets the sack. One law for the rich, another for the poor.

squadron Nero · #20 Post by **squadron Nero** » Tue Dec 16, 2014 8:19 pm

Interesting thread.

I won't tolerate any of my lads using drugs or alcohol on site. A lot of the time we're working at height, using power tools and in conjunction with large plant. I don't care what they do at home but why should I put myself and the other lads at risk because someone turned up pissed / high. Even if they only injured themselves I'm still at risk of a lawsuit as I have a duty of care to make sure everyone is fit for work and competent.

It's not just that though, somebody who isn't compos mentis isn't going to be as productive either and that hurts my wallet

#21 Post by **mangocrazy** » Tue Dec 16, 2014 10:02 pm

I fully understand that no-one wants employees turning up for work under the influence (or suffering the after-effects) of drink or drugs of any type. I certainly wouldn't if I was an employer.

But drug tests, by their very nature, are looking to find the residues of drugs in an employees bloodstream. Unless they've been using the substance in question within the previous 24 hours, they are likely to be free of the effects, but still have the markers in their system. So someone can go on a bit of a bender on a Friday night, recover over the weekend and turn up chipper for work on a Monday morning, only to get caught by a random drug test, as residues or markers persist for much longer than 24/48 hours.

How is that fair? The individual has done his recreational drug use in his own time, and turned up for work in a suitable state, but still fails a potentailly career-threatening test. Their work performance won't be affected, but their long-term employability may well be.

I know what the response will be from certain sections; 'if it's your job that's at stake, don't do the crime'. But the point still remains that people have a right to do what they want to in their own time, as long as it doesn't impinge on their work performance. Drug testing, by its very nature, blurs that line to an unacceptable degree.

squadron Nero · #22 Post by **squadron Nero** » Tue Dec 16, 2014 11:00 pm

That would be great in an ideal world but more and more responsibilities are being put on employers and with the claim culture we find ourselves in... Why should we put our businesses at risk?

Imo it's just not worth it for many reasons.

#23 Post by **mangocrazy** » Tue Dec 16, 2014 11:13 pm

I can certainly see how you view it from an employer's perspective, but how serious a problem have you found it? Do people turn up the worse for wear from drink or drugs and then expect to work? And do you enforce drug testing for your employees?

old git · #24 Post by **old git** » Wed Dec 17, 2014 6:25 am

Right, we all want everyone to be safe that's a given.
So like the old 'those that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones' routine, you should all start using breath test kits the morning after, see how many get to drive to work next day.
Its all a matter of degree.
To be clear, I don't agree with drugs work or no work, but lets cut the crap, we all bend the rules when it suits us.
Been on the Pi$$ Friday night & work Saturday morning..........at height, with tools, drive a big lorry.............
Lets not hang these people because we have some idea that MAYBE they are smoking something/injecting/snorting or whatever.
Test - prosecute - clear those are the only three options.
Nothing more to see here, case closed.

fatboy · #25 Post by **fatboy** » Wed Dec 17, 2014 6:58 pm

Well my manager stated that company policy is 'zero tolerance' to even a 'trace' result, which differs from his own views.
It may well be in your system but this does not in any way indicate you are unfit to work,this then may have further implications on civil liberties, is,
Is it fair that you lose your job because the antibiotics/antidepressants you are on have given a false marker for coke or speed but you had no idea that any of this bullshit could happen because your doctor is helping you ?
Not very good at all is it ?

fatboy · #26 Post by **fatboy** » Wed Dec 17, 2014 7:10 pm

I must say in 8 years in my job the most dangerous performance affecting factor is fatigue,that is the worst thing I have seen regarding poor decision making with regard to refuse/recycling collection......
No real test for that is there?

squadron Nero · #27 Post by **squadron Nero** » Wed Dec 17, 2014 8:11 pm

mangocrazy wrote:I can certainly see how you view it from an employer's perspective, but how serious a problem have you found it? Do people turn up the worse for wear from drink or drugs and then expect to work? And do you enforce drug testing for your employees?

I haven't found it a problem, I've only got 3 lads so we're tightly knit. As we're such a small business I know none of them do drugs, so it's not a worry or any call for any testing.

Yes we've all turned up with a hangover but if I thought one of them was still under the influence from the night before I'd have no hesitation in sending them home for the day.

Maybe it does infringe on your civil liberties but if something goes wrong and the HSE prosecute me, where will my civil liberties be as I spend my time in prison. Ok maybe they'd just put a prohibition notice on the site or my business but then everyone's out of a job. Or I could end up with a massive fine sending the business through and again no business, no jobs for anyone.

I don't run a democracy. It's very much a dictatorship, it's my way or the highway. Anybody that wants to do it feel free but I don't need the headache.

slickliner6 · #28 Post by **slickliner6** » Thu Dec 18, 2014 11:46 am

surely if you sign your contract of employment and in it, it states "random drugs test or screening is in force".

Then you know the rules, if its in your time off or at work,it doesnt matter.???

blinkey501 · #29 Post by **blinkey501** » Thu Dec 18, 2014 8:42 pm

slickliner6 wrote:surely if you sign your contract of employment and in it, it states "random drugs test or screening is in force".

Then you know the rules, if its in your time off or at work,it doesnt matter.???

I like the fact that they do random drugs tests at work.

"We" all know the rules.

And with big machinery driven by operatives there should be nothing in your system that should affect your judgment.

#30 Post by **mangocrazy** » Thu Dec 18, 2014 10:23 pm

Hmmm, it's all getting a bit fraught in here. I'd make the following observations:

1. If your contract states that random drug tests can and will take place, you know exactly what you're signing up for and there can be no excuses or get-out clauses if you take the job.

2. If you're the boss of a small company and run a tight ship (as you have every right to), then your word goes, and you can choose employees with a similar/reciprocal attitude to yours.

However if the company that you work for tries to spring a random drugs test on you when such an eventuality is not in your contract, then you have every right to refuse.