drug tests at work
- Thread starter AHarvey
- Start date
If tests were carried out before every shift, I would agree with you. They however are not and it is not reasonable to expect that.
You can not deny you are at increased risk.
Yes, from not knowing. I can't believe you're still not getting this - the test that they perform, and I'm strictly speaking about cannabis here, does not tell you whether a person's fit to work or not, regardless of the result. Positive results tell you that at some point a person was unfit to work, but they don't tell you whether they're unfit to work now. If you're firing people who could potentially be a risk, then you're calling for a blanket ban on anything that can potentially alter your mental state - not just drugs and alcohol, but sleep regulations, certain food, over- or under-exertive exercise and menstruation. You're living in a crackpot world of crisp, clean sheets and legislated affection according to your social standing.
Personally if I worked/managed a place that involved operating heavy machinery, I wouldn't be interested in working with anyone that considered smoking canabis at anytime acceptable.
Is any part of that aimed at me? Why would Spie be involved in my place of work?
My mistake, for some reason I thought you worked at OcUK :S
I get that.
It is irrelevent at some point you where unfiot to work. You can not show when or if you where at work or not.
It is not feasable to work this out, or perform tests before every shift.
Therefore there is nothing wrong with the test or being sacked over it.
You are at an increased risk and teh company has a duty of care.
You can't ban everything. it is about duty of care and resonance risks and yes there are regulations on more general things like tiredness. Just like driving.
It is irrelevent at some point you where unfiot to work. You can not show when or if you where at work or not.
It is not feasable to work this out, or perform tests before every shift.
Therefore there is nothing wrong with the test or being sacked over it.
You are at an increased risk and teh company has a duty of care.
You can't ban everything. it is about duty of care and resonance risks and yes there are regulations on more general things like tiredness. Just like driving.
Since I have not heard one valid argument for random drugs testing the only conclusion I can draw from this thread is that people who are for random drugs testing have a moral belief that taking drugs is wrong and believe that employers should have the right to make up whatever contract they like regardless of how unethical it is and interfere in the private lives of employees despite there being no tangible safety benefit.
The facts of that matter are,
Drugs can remain in the body for days after use despite having no effect on the persons brain so a drugs test will not show that someone is under the influence of a drug thus leading to the firing of innocent staff members.
Drug tests only show up a very limited number of drugs so many people under the influence of drugs such as GHB will go undetected leading to a massive inconsistency.
The facts of that matter are,
Drugs can remain in the body for days after use despite having no effect on the persons brain so a drugs test will not show that someone is under the influence of a drug thus leading to the firing of innocent staff members.
Drug tests only show up a very limited number of drugs so many people under the influence of drugs such as GHB will go undetected leading to a massive inconsistency.
Again this holds no weight as all drugs are tested, legal or not.
Taking drugs of any sort could have an effect on your work. Nothing private about that.
And many people believe taking legal drugs is wrong...
They don't when taken days before which is my point.
And it is not feasible to test before every shift. therefore is irreverent.
Duty of care. If or maybe when technology improves to a point you can carry out an inexpensive test before every shift. I would agree with you. Although there is still image of company to think about.
And is irrelevant it is about how drugs can affect you.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. How are they going to test for compounds they've never seen before? How would they test for mephedrone, when its chemical structure was different enough from currently banned compounds to make it a legal substance until it was banned in response to hysteria and ignorance perpetrated by sensationalist media? What about drugs like the 2Cs, or the 5-MeO groups, of which more crop up faster than they can be recognised and banned? What about natural intoxicants, like DMT, or its synthetic equivalents? It comes as no surprise that each of your erroneous claims so far is backed by increasingly ignorant bases and false assumptions. So far I've yet to see any logic or reason in any of your posts.
Last edited:
It's not irrelevant because 2nd grade maths allows a calculation of when the drug was taken based on the drugs half life.
Exactly, people aren't interested in workers being under the influence of a drug, just if they have taken it in their own private time, otherwise the concentration of the drug would be taken into account.
now you just being picky. Do you really want a list of drugs they test for.
What has grammar got to do with it and logic is subjective.
it is not reasonable for companies to do this and I doubt it is feasible.
What has grammar got to do with it and logic is subjective.
it is not reasonable for companies to do this and I doubt it is feasible.
You must be joking, it takes all of 5 seconds to make the calculation.
And everyone metabolises at a slightly different rate and will have there own under the inference time. As you yourself have already stated.
It is not an exact science, again if it was I would agree with you.
Just started a job where we have these.
There was a 'Drugs & Alcohol' awareness policy I signed when accepting the contract. Refusal to participate will result in disciplinary action/dismissal.
They are totally random in regards to timing and also who is picked. They literally take a register of who is in on the day and 'eenie meenie miny mo' down it.
Nothing to hide as I don't dabble in drugs and rarely drink heavily so I'm more than happy to be dragged away from my desk and paid to **** in a pot.
I don't have a problem, if they were my employee's I'd want to make sure they weren't high as a kite or drunk as skunks whilst 'working' for me.
There was a 'Drugs & Alcohol' awareness policy I signed when accepting the contract. Refusal to participate will result in disciplinary action/dismissal.
They are totally random in regards to timing and also who is picked. They literally take a register of who is in on the day and 'eenie meenie miny mo' down it.
Nothing to hide as I don't dabble in drugs and rarely drink heavily so I'm more than happy to be dragged away from my desk and paid to **** in a pot.
I don't have a problem, if they were my employee's I'd want to make sure they weren't high as a kite or drunk as skunks whilst 'working' for me.
For my own information, given that individuals will break down and deal with different drugs in different rates, how exactly do you find out how long it has been since a particular person was under the influence?
Well im afraid you are wrong, a contract of employment CAN dictate you are not at work whist under the influece, it CANNOT dictate thaat you cant get druk/high outside working hours.
So that leaves us with PROOVING that someone is under the infuence whist at work. The Cannabis/THC test does not demonstrate this, that is a fact. It is therefore unfit for purpose.
You cannot change logic and science with legistlation, contracts, or indeed opinion.