Random Alcohol and Drugs Testing In The Workplace.

We operate a zero tolerance policy on self-inflicted impairment to carry out work-related tasks and I've had to test a few people over the years.

It's generally only done if someone is obviously drunk or off their head on something and they have the right to refuse to be tested.

But that in itself is generally viewed as an admission of guilt and invariably leads to disciplinary action being taken against them.

Breadman wrote:We operate a zero tolerance policy on self-inflicted impairment to carry out work-related tasks and I've had to test a few people over the years.

It's generally only done if someone is obviously drunk or off their head on something and they have the right to refuse to be tested.

But that in itself is generally viewed as an admission of guilt and invariably leads to disciplinary action being taken against them.

I don't for one second advocate that people should be at work impaired BUT to suggest random testing just in case they might be is frankly out of order UNLESS they work in a high risk job. I have no problem with a boss saying to someone who stinks of booze or is clearly high on something that they need to be tested or else. I just don't agree with the whole suspicion of everybody whether they deserve it or not that random testing implies. It's hard enough to hold down a job in these tough economic times and I can see plenty of employers abusing the power this would give them as a means to shed staff without having to pay them off. I truly feel this has been badly thought out and that as a general rule of thumb most people go to work ready to do just that to the best of their ability. To start painting them as targets in this way is morally wrong.

luckyPeterpiper wrote:

Breadman wrote:We operate a zero tolerance policy on self-inflicted impairment to carry out work-related tasks and I've had to test a few people over the years.

It's generally only done if someone is obviously drunk or off their head on something and they have the right to refuse to be tested.

But that in itself is generally viewed as an admission of guilt and invariably leads to disciplinary action being taken against them.

I don't for one second advocate that people should be at work impaired BUT to suggest random testing just in case they might be is frankly out of order UNLESS they work in a high risk job. I have no problem with a boss saying to someone who stinks of booze or is clearly high on something that they need to be tested or else. I just don't agree with the whole suspicion of everybody whether they deserve it or not that random testing implies. It's hard enough to hold down a job in these tough economic times and I can see plenty of employers abusing the power this would give them as a means to shed staff without having to pay them off. I truly feel this has been badly thought out and that as a general rule of thumb most people go to work ready to do just that to the best of their ability. To start painting them as targets in this way is morally wrong.

Where are you getting this idea from that it'll be used like that?

It's a ball-ache to do and involves HR, a senior manager and the company nurse, so it's a load of mither to organise.

I just can't see companies using this as a tool to get rid of people they don't like.

And the whole debate seems a bit knee-jerk if I'm honest because employers have always had the right to test their staff, so why's it a big deal now?

I genuinely see both sides to this argument, (despite my earlier comments). I can see it going the same way as the lie detector. Hard decisions being made on vague results, interpreted by an alleged 'expert'. I would definitely agree with the testing of people who have positions where lives may be at risk, drivers, pilots, etc. I've had, and known other jobs where drinking was not allowed for a certain number of hours before goig on shift, etc. These are accepted as part of the job, and random testing should prove no problem, but for literally no-reason testing, then no.

Breadman I think it's the fact that it's going to be RANDOM testing, ie spot checks carried out whenever the employer feels like it. I've worked for companies where testing was done regularly and rightly so and I have no problem with that BUT surely you can see the inherent 'blank cheque' being handed to employers if this becomes law. It seems that employers will be allowed to set the rules as to who is tested, when and how much alcohol etc is considered to be sufficient cause to discipline or terminate an employee (as in their employment not their lives) which to me stinks. As I stated on an earlier post on this thread there have been many cases of people being breathalysed on their way to work the day after a party and losing their driving licence because they were still slightly over the limit without realising it. I simply feel that there is no place for testing people on spec without due cause UNLESS they're in a job where impairment of any kind poses a GENUINE risk to Health and Safety. If you're just a clerk with a bit of a hangover at your local bank or something then I think you shouldn't be at risk of losing your job. If you work in a factory with dangerous machinery or you work as a health professional with patients lives in your hands then of course you shoudn't be allowed to work with any level of impairment and you should know that yourself. 

Blanket testing at random on people who you have no reason to suspect of impairment is simply wrong, it damages already strained relationships between employer and employee in a difficult economic time. If the employees are constantly looking over their shoulders and afraid that their social life might result in them losing their job then productivity will suffer. Morale will be lower in the workplace than it already is and if an employee is made to feel they aren't trusted then I'd suggest that would lead to yet more problems. Honestly, in most cases random testing has no moral or ethical use and even from a purely economic standpoint it could be very bad for business. That's without getting into the debate about who sets the limits, who does the actual testing, where are the results obtained and how are they verified by the employee and employer in a way that both parties can agree to accept? I appreciate that if someone comes to work still obviously drunk then they deserve to be sent home without pay if not dismissed for gross misconduct but to start testing people on spec is in my opinion bad for business and morally wrong.

In total I have had about six or seven tests in the past five or so years, some random and some by appointment. This has been done when I have required access to various sites. However as an end user,both as an employer or at home hiring somebody's labour, I would expect a service I pay for to be done correctly and the fact that somebody has been on the lash or had a joint could impair the final product would leave me some what pissed off.
I don't have a problem with the tests and can't see any problem with them. If you have a drink or drugs problem you won't admit it as such is the beast. Therefore if you fail a test and refuse counselling or to mend your ways then your career progression deserves to take a nosedive. Quite how anything different to this bottom line could result is beyond me, and I can't think of any vocation with an exception.
As a side issue I once confronted a government official on this testing matter with regard to having a slice of cake in Amsterdam. She stated that if I failed a test I would still be subject to counselling/disciplinary procedures where ever I sampled, as it would be difficult to prove from both sides where I had indulged. Furthermore I was informed that at the time it was only tolerated in Holland but not legal. I believe since then that the coffee bar doors have been shut to non locals having cake?

As I keep saying SK I have no problem with mandatory testing in situations where health and safety are compromised by any degree of impairment. I agree that where someone's productivity is noticeably down and where there is good reason to suspect alcohol or drugs to be the cause then they should be told to take a test and then be told to accept help or face losing their job if that test is positive. However, random testing, on spec and at will on employees where there is no reason to suspect anything is simply wrong. I cannot and will not support yet another way of making employees fearful of losing their job especially in an age where the jobs are so hard to come by in the first place. Morale in the workplace is at an all time low as it is, (source:CBI study on morale carried out in 2012 third and fourth quarters and 2013 first and second quarters that was quoted in BBC news just a week ago) and adding in a random spot check to see who had a beer last night in their time off is not going to help. 

I know there are many jobs where no alcohol or drugs are permitted to be in the bloodstream at any time when working and rightly so; however those jobs are mostly held by highly paid professional people with the intelligence to know that anyway. To bring it in for everyone regardless is frankly a silly idea.

I'm certainly not campaigning for support for the situation, I merely posted as an aside my experiences when I was informed that I would have to consent to having them should I wish to visit and work in certain areas. Indeed my attitude to some extent was a "fuck that" but as you would expect it was needs must and I had no skeletons in the cupboard.
However since then I have thought about this situation and cannot see where there is not a case to answer for no requirement, so the fact this has been mooted in higher places brought on the topic.
I have been questioned on various occasions by work acquaintances on what the scenario was, and indeed one gentleman was particularly interested because he dabbled. The fact that both drugs and booze modify the behaviour of the recipient leaves a difficult argument to veto any introduction of these tests in the workplace and the fact that it doesn't affect whoever in their employ will not be recognised until it does in the form of a mishap.

Business is business and staff should be (and always have been) assessed on their performance/ability to do the job. They sign a contract to do a role to an agreed level and that is the only legal relationship between the employer and the employee.
If they don't perform well then there should be procedures in place to rectify that e.g. disciplinary measures, retraining, re-assignment or termination of employment etc.
All this is set in the context of employment legislation.
The reasons why someone underperforms are irrelevant. Even more irrelevant is the potential to underperform when actual performance is fine.

If employment legislation allows employers to discriminate against staff on the basis of of their lifestyle preferences there is a problem with society and we're heading down the road towards genetic profiling (sorry - you didn't get the job/have trebled your insurance premium/will be terminated at birth etc. because you have a 67% chance of contracting cancer within the next 25 years) My own preference would be to base employment on the ability to do the job.

wanderlust wrote:Business is business and staff should be (and always have been) assessed on their performance/ability to do the job. They sign a contract to do a role to an agreed level and that is the only legal relationship between the employer and the employee.
If they don't perform well then there should be procedures in place to rectify that e.g. disciplinary measures, retraining, re-assignment or termination of employment etc.
All this is set in the context of employment legislation.
The reasons why someone underperforms are irrelevant. Even more irrelevant is the potential to underperform when actual performance is fine.

If employment legislation allows employers to discriminate against staff on the basis of of their lifestyle preferences there is a problem with society and we're heading down the road towards genetic profiling (sorry - you didn't get the job/have trebled your insurance premium/will be terminated at birth etc. because you have a 67% chance of contracting cancer within the next 25 years) My own preference would be to base employment on the ability to do the job.

What a load of pompous bollocks.

Alcohol testing to Brave New World in two paragraphs......

Utter tripe.

Soul Kitchen wrote:

bwfc1874 wrote:Against it, what people do in their own time is their business, not the companies.

If I was to smoke weed at the weekend and then fail a test it would probably count against me in terms of my career progression, which is bullshit.

Yes, your right, checking whether you are incapable of doing your job due to intoxication is bullshit.

Impaired? How long do you think the effects of cannabis have an effect, and how long do you think it would show up on a drugs test?

Don't try and be a smart arse, you're fucking terrible at it.

Surely it depends on what kind of job you do? I would of thought the armed forces and emergency services already have something in place to test for abuse but working for the BEN and selling newspapers on a streetcorner would be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

bwfc1874 wrote:

Soul Kitchen wrote:

bwfc1874 wrote:Against it, what people do in their own time is their business, not the companies.

If I was to smoke weed at the weekend and then fail a test it would probably count against me in terms of my career progression, which is bullshit.

Yes, your right, checking whether you are incapable of doing your job due to intoxication is bullshit.

Impaired? How long do you think the effects of cannabis have an effect, and how long do you think it would show up on a drugs test?

Don't try and be a smart arse, you're fucking terrible at it.

Cannabis can remain in your system from anything from a couple of days to two weeks, check  for yourself.
Next time you arrive outside a house to taxi somebody,  think should I be doing this?

Soul Kitchen wrote:
Cannabis can remain in your system from anything from six weeks to three months. Check for yourself.

Not sure at all about this one SK. I'm pretty sure Cannabis/Marijuana only stays in the bloodstream for 48 hours maximum. I suspect it's the main reason why Rio at United deliberately did a runner and avoided a drug test. If as suspected, he had taken cannabis on Saturday evening after the game then a urine or blood test would have shown negative by Tuesday. I'm reliably informed that the vast majority of testing is carried out Monday to deliberately catch players who may have indulged over the weekend.

Cocaine is a different matter altogether. Most drug testing involves the removal of a hair follicle because although it leaves the bloodstream relatively quickly it is absorbed into your hair and can remain in the root for over 3 months.

That could explain why so many players have shaven heads!

And how long do you think the effects of cannabis last? Unless you think the answer to that is between 2 days and 2 weeks then your comment was bullshit.

bwfc1874 wrote:And how long do you think the effects of cannabis last? Unless you think the answer to that is between 2 days and 2 weeks then your comment was bullshit.

The (admittedly few) people I know who smoke cannabis are all boring, paranoid, self-obsessed fuckwits, who I wouldn't trust to find their arse with both hands.

So you could say the effects are permanent.

Sounds like it's just your friends who are 'boring, paranoid, self-obsessed fuckwits, who you wouldn't trust to find their arse with both hands.' Blaming cannabis for their short comings isn't right.

bwfc1874 wrote:Sounds like it's just your friends who are 'boring, paranoid, self-obsessed fuckwits, who you wouldn't trust to find their arse with both hands.' Blaming cannabis for their short comings isn't right.

I never said they were my friends, although I've known one of them since school.

I used to go to the match with him and drink with him in the pubs of Bolton.

Then for some unknown reason his occasional use of cannabis increased dramatically.

And he became a proper boring, argumentative, self-absorbed wanker who we all now avoid.

Long-term, sustained cannabis use is a one-way trip into cuntdom.

Breadman wrote:

Long-term, sustained cannabis use is a one-way trip into cuntdom.

I agree. How any country could ever consider legalizing it is beyond me.

Breadman wrote:

bwfc1874 wrote:Sounds like it's just your friends who are 'boring, paranoid, self-obsessed fuckwits, who you wouldn't trust to find their arse with both hands.' Blaming cannabis for their short comings isn't right.

I never said they were my friends, although I've known one of them since school.

I used to go to the match with him and drink with him in the pubs of Bolton.

Then for some unknown reason his occasional use of cannabis increased dramatically.

And he became a proper boring, argumentative, self-absorbed wanker who we all now avoid.

Long-term, sustained cannabis use is a one-way trip into cuntdom.

Think it depends on each individual person and of course how much/often they're smoking.

Like any other vice if you do it every day and let it control your life  you will undoubtedly run into difficulties. But personally I'd much prefer to smoke with some friends at the weekend and go to a gallery/bar/park than go out on the piss. It's less damaging than alcohol and without the hangover. I certainly don't think weekend smoking would impair me Monday to Friday in any way.