Drug testing

[Mister Mix]

Is it really that bad if you have the odd spliff or a few lines of charlie?

I think it is pretty obvious who is bang at it all the time and if it is affecting their work

 

[dingodan]

"Nothing to hide? then nothing to fear."

When they want to scrutinize your personal lifestyle choices, and you don't defend your right to privacy, you set a precedent. The weight of arguments about privacy with the big things later on will be diminished because you did not object when it came to the small things.

When they eventually start asking you about your political leanings and sexual preferences, you will have little grounds to object because you have already accepted that your employer has a right to delve into things in your life which are personal.

We object to the small things, because the big things will always be just an casual extension of the smaller ones.

 

[smudge]

When I'm here on contract for 3 months I'm on zero tolerance for alcohol. We get tested randomly, I agree to all this when I sign my contract. So, 3 months without a drop! It's a breath test for alcohol & sometimes urine for drugs.
When I get home I am a very cheap date & can be seen giggling like an idiot after one sniff of the barmaids apron!

 

[Seagull over Canaryland]

Unfortunately lots of things that once were taken 'on trust' at work are no longer accepted because of the litigious world we live in and the influence that insurers exert on employers. For example if you are required to drive a company vehicle is your driving licence periodically checked by your employer to confirm it is still valid? OK it might feel a bit big brother-ish but there will be a bad egg or two in most companies who don't care about that stuff. Is that not reasonable?

Seems reasonable to conduct tests where there is a safety critical element to the job eg operating machinery etc or where there has been a previous problem or bad experience in a related business. It may be seen as a good practice in that occupation, so not to do so leaves the employer open to question. Especially in occupations where being unfit through drink or drugs is gross misconduct and therefore liable to summary dismissal. The employer has a duty to ensure a safe workplace and employees have a duty towards each other.

I suspect that employers in higher risk occupations or those with relevant activities will be under pressure from their insurers to conduct tests especially with the potential consequences of an employee being unfit through drink or drugs causing a serious mishap.

Finally I would expect most employers to have introduced such testing only in consultation with the workforce and any unions. The latter will seek to ensure there are proper grounds for conducting such tests, the control meausres to be observed and if these these are reasonable but ultimately will not completely object if testing identifies a minority of staff who are putting the wellbeing of the wider workforce at risk.

 

[elninobonito]

Is your work banning coffee and other such 'drugs' that could change a persons behaviour at work too then? Im no drug user but have defo been hungover in the office before.
The worst that happened was that spell check had to work a little harder?
As an existing employee under contract can they force you to have these tests?

 

[smudge]

Is your work banning coffee and other such 'drugs' that could change a persons behaviour at work too then? Im no drug user but have defo been hungover in the office before.
The worst that happened was that spell check had to work a little harder?
As an existing employee under contract can they force you to have these tests?

Depends on the job surely?

 

[StillHateBellotti]

Do you mind saying what company? I have 2 Drug Detection dogs and can screen all employees entering the building and carry out random searches of offices/lockers/personal effects etc. I charge £35 per hour and a lot cheaper and less intrusive than their current plans I would imagine.

More than likely already done, but i gather its for people who have used drugs not smuggling them in!

 

[User removed 4]

Do you mind saying what company? I have 2 Drug Detection dogs and can screen all employees entering the building and carry out random searches of offices/lockers/personal effects etc. I charge £35 per hour and a lot cheaper and less intrusive than their current plans I would imagine.

have you left the mob then ?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

out of interest what line of work are you in?

Selling programmes?

 

[Garage_Doors]

I hope you do not mind me saying that for someone with such strong views you seem very ill-informed on the subject.

I'm genuinely very shocked at the suggested levels of drug taking for the under 30's.

 

[Dropkick Turnip]

"Nothing to hide? then nothing to fear."

When they want to scrutinize your personal lifestyle choices, and you don't defend your right to privacy, you set a precedent. The weight of arguments about privacy with the big things later on will be diminished because you did not object when it came to the small things.

When they eventually start asking you about your political leanings and sexual preferences, you will have little grounds to object because you have already accepted that your employer has a right to delve into things in your life which are personal.

We object to the small things, because the big things will always be just an casual extension of the smaller ones.

Well said!

The argument for not just rolling over and taking whatever someone else fancies shoving up you has never been more eloquently and succintly put than this.

This isn't about objecting to being drug tested, this is about not surrendering personal liberty. Those that spout smug rubbish like "Nothing to hide then nothing to fear" are deluded and merely add to the problem.

 

[xollob]

That implies you can guarantee that 1 in 10 people under 30 is taking illegal drugs
That is a very big claim.

The 2010/11 BCS estimates that 40.1% of
young adults aged 16-24 have ever used
illicit drugs, a decrease from 48.6% in
1996. In 2009/10 lifetime prevalence was
40.7%. One in five young people have
used one or more illicit drug in the last
year (20.4%) and around one in nine have
used drugs in the last month (10.9%). Use
of illicit drugs in the last year (20.4%) has
decreased since 1996 (29.7%) and is at a
similar level as the 2009/10 BCS (20.0%),
this decrease coincides with the slow
decline in cannabis use throughout most
of the decade.

SOURCE http://www.ic.nhs.uk/webfiles/publications/003_Health_Lifestyles/Statistics%20on%20Drug%20Misuse%20England%202011/Statistics_on_Drug_Misuse_England_2011v3.pdf

 

[xollob]

I work in a "SAFETY CRITICAL ENVIRONMENT" and therefore we get randomly tested every 21- 28 days on average. If I make a mistake at work it could cost 1 or numerous lives. (and if 1 of my team kills people whether on drugs alcohol or not then I could face manslaughter charges) so although I agree with a persons liberty and "personal life + private life thing" I suggest that if people can't accept the drug and alcohol tests in my profession then they should change careers.

Just Sayin

 

[scarby]

I work in a "SAFETY CRITICAL ENVIRONMENT" and therefore we get randomly tested every 21- 28 days on average. If I make a mistake at work it could cost 1 or numerous lives. (and if 1 of my team kills people whether on drugs alcohol or not then I could face manslaughter charges) so although I agree with a persons liberty and "personal life + private life thing" I suggest that if people can't accept the drug and alcohol tests in my profession then they should change careers.

Just Sayin

I fit water meters, hardly life threatening is it? Agreed if your working in the railway industry, electric and the like....