Not to such a degree that a drug that lasts a few hours ends up lasting days, there are physical limits. But since your testing concentration in a drugs test, it really doesn't matter.
drug tests at work
- Thread starter AHarvey
- Start date
Not to such a degree that a drug that lasts a few hours ends up lasting days, there are physical limits. But since your testing concentration in a drugs test, it really doesn't matter.
So what about mr salesman whose KPIs sky-rocket due to cocaine-fuelled selling?
The drugs are actually positively impacting their performance.
Or the person who indulges vast quantities of booze on week nights, yet performs to the needed level, compared to the teetotal employee who only gets 4 hours of sleep a night and thus suffers in terms of performance.
One gets the sack based on an alcohol level test, and the other is fine.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,788
- Location
- Falling...
Not necessarily. Whilst we haven't had people caught out by drug testing (either because they're too clever to get caught, or just because they don't do it - and I can believe it), we have let people go owing to performance issues.
Furthermore, I don't believe that that's accurate, though if it is, I'm sure it can't last long and why do that to yourself? Furthermore, being tired and performing badly is just as bad as I said.
I really don;'t see what the big deal is. Employers have every right to protect their image, their workforce, and deal with their codes of work in any way they see fit.
If you don't like the idea of being drug tested, either stop taking drugs, or find another job... fairly simple to me.
If people are trying to defend taking illegal drugs, yet fighting a legitimate lawful test - it's pretty ironic, non?
I know I know, I sound a little "hollier than thou" (thought I'd get the comment in first), but I have no sympathy for people who feel the need to take drugs and lose their job over it I'm afraid. Sure, I can only judge by my own moral code. I've been naughty in my youth so I can completely relate, but as a reasonably mature responsible adult, earning a living and developing my career is more important to me than getting drunk/high/etc...
Furthermore, I don't believe that that's accurate, though if it is, I'm sure it can't last long and why do that to yourself? Furthermore, being tired and performing badly is just as bad as I said.
I really don;'t see what the big deal is. Employers have every right to protect their image, their workforce, and deal with their codes of work in any way they see fit.
If you don't like the idea of being drug tested, either stop taking drugs, or find another job... fairly simple to me.
If people are trying to defend taking illegal drugs, yet fighting a legitimate lawful test - it's pretty ironic, non?
I know I know, I sound a little "hollier than thou" (thought I'd get the comment in first), but I have no sympathy for people who feel the need to take drugs and lose their job over it I'm afraid. Sure, I can only judge by my own moral code. I've been naughty in my youth so I can completely relate, but as a reasonably mature responsible adult, earning a living and developing my career is more important to me than getting drunk/high/etc...
As has been said, repeatedly, lol! some drugs tests are fundamentaly flawed for testing fitness to work.
Things like alcahol and cocaine are metabolised vey rapidly so a positive test based on a threshold amount can to some extent demonstrate that a person may be impared by the drug.
Cannabis is a different kettle of fish, the test is flawed in that, as has been said, you still test false positive weeks or even months after the drug was consumed due to the way it is metabolised.
A person who smokes a joint will be unfit for a few hours, possibly a day, not two weeks or more.
Performance testing and the diciplinary route for poor performance is a far more effective way to to keep standards up. Its ethincal as its non intrusive, it dosent infringe on a persons right to have a life outside the work place.
It makes much more sense from the employers perspective, as it will prevent good employees being sacked for no reason, and will catch some others out who are idle/incompetant. They otherwise wouldnt be picked up on and cost the company a fortune it left undetected for the long run, which they often are.
Its just common sense, I find it funny we still get people in this day and age who, at the mention of drugs, still get all hysterical, and start screaming 'wont somebody think of the children11!!11'
You need sound science to measure performance, and the drug test for THC as one of these measures is anything but, theres simply no two ways about it it.
Things like alcahol and cocaine are metabolised vey rapidly so a positive test based on a threshold amount can to some extent demonstrate that a person may be impared by the drug.
Cannabis is a different kettle of fish, the test is flawed in that, as has been said, you still test false positive weeks or even months after the drug was consumed due to the way it is metabolised.
A person who smokes a joint will be unfit for a few hours, possibly a day, not two weeks or more.
Performance testing and the diciplinary route for poor performance is a far more effective way to to keep standards up. Its ethincal as its non intrusive, it dosent infringe on a persons right to have a life outside the work place.
It makes much more sense from the employers perspective, as it will prevent good employees being sacked for no reason, and will catch some others out who are idle/incompetant. They otherwise wouldnt be picked up on and cost the company a fortune it left undetected for the long run, which they often are.
Its just common sense, I find it funny we still get people in this day and age who, at the mention of drugs, still get all hysterical, and start screaming 'wont somebody think of the children11!!11'
You need sound science to measure performance, and the drug test for THC as one of these measures is anything but, theres simply no two ways about it it.
Last edited:
I agree with this.
Empoyers certainly do not have the right to deal with thier codes of work 'any way they see fit'
Simple, yes, also ill thought out and Discriminatory.
I dont see the irony, the test is hardly legitimate.
Thats your view, I too am a reasonably mature and resposible adult developing my career. It's a bit nieve for you to suggest someone like myself thinks getting high is more important to me than my job. Ironicly quite an immature statement if you ask me!
Exactly! And if your use of any drugs compromises your ability to work in such environments, you should be fired before you put coworkers or anyone else at risk. Still doesn't address the inadequacy of testing for cannabis, or the issue of latent cannabis in your system not equating to your ability to perform said tasks.
And, as has been demonstrated, the THC test is not fit for purpose in this respect.
It will clearly give a positive result when an individual is not under the infuence.
It that a hard concept for you to grasp then you need to do a bit of homework regarding how the test works and how the drug is metabolized.
The test is unreliable, that is a scientific fact. You can ignore the fact, but that wont change reality.
Look, the issues with the cannabis test are comprehensively documented, metabolites in you fat cells are not active drugs.
Please, pretty please with cherrys on top, go and educate yourself.
I know full well what the tests show. Thanks. It makes no difference it is a banned and controlled substance, just like many legal drugs. Get caught get sacked. Nothing wrong with that.
You have no idea how it will affect you and for how long.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,788
- Location
- Falling...
Yes they do, hence why there's a contract of employment. As long as it's legal, they are entitlted to do it.
In what way is it descriminatory?
It is 100% legitimate.
Thats your view, I too am a reasonably mature and resposible adult developing my career. It's a bit nieve for you to suggest someone like myself thinks getting high is more important to me than my job. Ironicly quite an immature statement if you ask me!
As stated, I was airing my view - thank you for reminding me.
I wasn't suggesting that you or anyone was was thought it more important to get "high" over work. So my comment wasn't really naïve more stating/reflecting my opinion on how I would gauge a professional image. I don't see the immaturity in my comments - but then again I'm old for my age
Again and again, you're continually failing to see the point - drugs in your system does not equate to drugs affecting your mind. The random tests used by employers are processed in exactly the same fashion as medical toxicology tests, because they're analyse in the same lab. Barring extreme circumstances, these tests are almost universally testing for metabolites, not the THC itself - these are indicators of THC breakdown, not psychoactive THC levels, and prove nothing about what substances currently in your bloodstream are affecting your physiochemical state of mind. If you could hop off that irrationally high horse of yours for just a moment and pay attention, you might learn exactly how you're making yourself look ignorant.
Edit:
It is 100% legitimate.
It's not, for the reasons stated here. It would be, if they used the forensic method of THC detection, but they don't.
I wasn't suggesting that you or anyone was was thought it more important to get "high" over work. So my comment wasn't really naïve more stating/reflecting my opinion on how I would gauge a professional image. I don't see the immaturity in my comments - but then again I'm old for my age
I agree with this, even beyond the whole "fitness to work" arguement. Whether I consider it a valid policy or not, I don't put anything like this in front of my career at the moment. If you know you'll get fired for having traces in your system, don't leave traces in your system - argue either side of the debate you like, but I've no sympathy for people foolishly "making a stand" if they put their career at risk.
Last edited:
Err... the point is irrelevant? so are you saying that it does not matter weather you are fit/unfit, you should lose your job either way?
"Even if you showed you are not under the influence it is still irrelevant."
Well I would say that was very rellevant. its the whole purpose of having a drugs test in the first place, is it not?
"Even if you showed you are not under the influence it is still irrelevant."
Well I would say that was very rellevant. its the whole purpose of having a drugs test in the first place, is it not?
Last edited:
It's not a question of legality, it is the question of fit to work. Alcohol isn't illegal but it is against most contracts to be under the influence while working.
I think the government should take it a step further and make it compulsory for all UK companies to have random drug tests and prove each year that they have tested a %age of their work force.
It's an issue of increased risk and you not knowing how long it affects you. No way you can prove when you took it and the fact it's against the contracted.
I have not said anything about illegal drugs. There are legal and illegal drugs that are banned on the job.
So your agruement boils down to "that's how it is, like it or lump it"? If they tested for psychoactive compounds, or capacity to perform your tasks, I'd be aggreeing with you 100%. They're not, so I think you're wrong. The point is only irrelevant in regards to current employment laws, not to the intention of those laws - or rather, not to the intention those laws claim to pursue.
Increased risk, drugvtest only shows levels that exact minute. Not days before. You aren't tested everyday and it's against your contract.
So yes it is irrelevant.