drug tests at work

[Energize]

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.

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?

Data from journals gives you the relevant percentile data for user groups.

Your argument for this seems to be very weak, going by your logic that they may have been under the influence means you have to fire everyone because they may have taken a short acting drug at work or one that you cannot detect, someone who has a trace of thc in their system is about as much a risk of harming someone as anyone else.

 

[Glaucus]

snip

Actually it's not that simple, you can certainly be fired for stuff outside of work. Like dragging comapnies name through the media.

And if you have drugs in your system, then you are at increased risk and untill testing is cheaper and easier then that is all they have to go on.

Data from journals gives you the relevant percentile data for user groups.

Your argument for this seems to be very weak, going by your logic that they may have been under the influence means you have to fire everyone because they may have taken a short acting drug at work or one that you cannot detect, someone who has a trace of thc in their system is about as much a risk of harming someone as anyone else.

It's still percentiles.
there's no evidence for those other drugs you suggest.
Contract is also quite clear on the zero tolerance.

 

[Deadbeat]

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.

You're right there, it was a cheap shot and I apologise. I'll edit the post in a moment. Logic, however, is not so subjective as you may think. At the very least, you should be able to construct an explaination as to the train of thought that led you to your conclusions, namely, that because somebody was at one time in a state unfit for work, they should be dismissed from their occupation without any evidence to say they were affected while actually at work. And a list of drugs tested for would be pretty useless - there's no way to make an exhaustive list of substances that can affect your capacity for work.

it is not reasonable for companies to do this and I doubt it is feasible.

It's quite feasible, though I'm pretty sure that the calculation would require a fixed and accurate value of the quantity consumed of the drug in question in order to produce a time frame. As for it being reasonable, of course it is - it's the onus of the employer to provide justification for firing an individual, not to do as they please based on personal opinion.

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.

Agreed here, too - which is why teting for the metabolites of a drug is, again, completely useless. The only way to effectively assess a person's inability to work is to test for active substrates - I couldn't give a crap if there's no limit on that, because I agree 100% that people should not be taking any form of narcotics that would affect their job.

 

[Glaucus]

It's quite feasible, though I'm pretty sure that the calculation would require a fixed and accurate value of the quantity consumed of the drug in question in order to produce a time frame. As for it being reasonable, of course it is - it's the onus of the employer to provide justification for firing an individual, not to do as they please based on personal opinion.

Not in the slightest, the contract is quite clear and nothing you can do proves that the drug is not in your system.

 

[mattyfez]

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.

Ok so we are getting somewhere - it's not an exact science, so we have to draw a line. Sound fair enough?

Now the drawing of the line is a complex matter with a drug such as THC as opposed to things like alcahol and cocaine, THC is metabolised very slowly and is traceable in the body weeks and sometimes months after it can be considered active in any way - again that is a scientific fact, there is no arguing with it.

The test, as it stands is simply not fit for its intended use, it does not demonstrate anything relevent health and safety at work.

To say the test should be used simply because its the only thing available is not very sound reasoning, if for example the test could show if a person had ever taken cannabis, or the chemical make up of cannabis was such that it remined permanently tracable in the body, then somebody tesing positive from a party when they were 16, by your view is just as fair as somebody testing postive using the current test.

 

[Glaucus]

To say the test should be used simply because its the only thing available is not very sound reasoning, if for example the test could show if a person had ever taken cannabis, or the chemical make up of cannabis was such that it remined permanently tracable in the body, then somebody tesing positive from a party when they were 16, by your view is just as fair as somebody testing postive using the current test.

that is taken outside of the contract. even a few weeks is a short enough period of time.
The risk is still there and the company still has duty of care and ontop of that the contract is very clear.
the test shows increased risk, that is fit for duty.

 

[Deadbeat]

Not in the slightest, the contract is quite clear and nothing you can do proves that the drug is not in your system.

Ok, glossing over the whole "in your system Vs. affecting your mind" argument again, the onus isn't on you to prove you weren't under the influence of narcotics, the onus is on your employer to prove that you were, specifically, while you were at work. The drugs tests they use prove that there are traces of drugs in your system, but they cannot prove whether you are or are not under the influence.

 

[Energize]

It's still percentiles.
there's no evidence for those other drugs you suggest.
Contract is also quite clear on the zero tolerance.

Studies show that over 70% of adults use alcohol, just as a drugs test shows that that individual uses whatever, it's no different.

The contract is irrelevant to the issue of the effectiveness of random drugs testing.

 

[alx]

Or you test people who appear to be under the influence, which is obvious in many cases...

I completely agree that what you do in your own time is up to you, but when you work in dangerous industries, such as I do (petrochemicals), I'd rather play it on the safe side. I also understand that having drugs in your system and being under the influence are different things, but when you have lives and people health at state it appears employers would rather deter people from ever doing it in the first place.

In fact where I'm about to work they do both, you can report people who you think are under the influence and random drug/alcohol tests take place as well.

 

[Gilly]

Data from journals gives you the relevant percentile data for user groups.

That isn't really an answer, is it?

 

[The Running Man]

is it even illegal to consume drugs?

i thought it was only illegal to be caught in possession or to supply etc.

hence why they dont lock up overdose cases who end up in hospital?

 

[Glaucus]

Ok, glossing over the whole "in your system Vs. affecting your mind" argument again, the onus isn't on you to prove you weren't under the influence of narcotics, the onus is on your employer to prove that you were, specifically, while you were at work. The drugs tests they use prove that there are traces of drugs in your system, but they cannot prove whether you are or are not under the influence.

No it's not. The contract is quite clear. It's a legally binding contract.

the company has a duty of care and has to achieve that in a way that is reasonable to all bodies. Which is why testing for everything does not have to happen. As it is unreasonable to do so.

is it even illegal to consume drugs?

i thought it was only illegal to be caught in possession or to supply etc.

hence why they dont lock up overdose cases who end up in hospital?

what relevance does that have on a companies duty of care?

 

[Energize]

That isn't really an answer, is it?

What do you want to me to do, copy and paste 10 pages from Rang and Dale?

 

[mattyfez]

And it is not feasible to test before every shift. therefore is irreverent.

Well it is rellevant, it's highly rellevant - you seem to be arguing that its completly ok for someone to loose thier job because the company cant proove they are sober. Think there may be some human rights issues there?

 

[Glaucus]

Well it is rellevant, it's highly rellevant - you seem to be arguing that its completly ok for someone to loose thier job because the company cant proove they are sober. Think there may be some human rights issues there?

Not at all.
You can prove you are sober by not having any in your system. Well in alcohols case as you can produce some naturally, a very small amount.

 

[The Running Man]

No it's not. The contract is quite clear. It's a legally binding contract.

what relevance does that have on a companies duty of care?

im not saying that they do not. but clearly if you took something that was say, apparent in your hair but not physically affecting you - or your ability to do the task in hand safely, then it is an infringment on your civil rights really isnt it?

i mean, what next emotional tests? you cant go to work if you have had a family row, or mid life crisis, or hell even if your in a bad mood?

unless you can physo-analyse people to establish their exact frame of mind, concentration levels or even will to do the job then everything else is pretty much a waste of time anyway.

 

[mattyfez]

No it's not. The contract is quite clear. It's a legally binding contract.

Err no, a contract is not binding if it contains terms which are deemed unfair.

 

[Glaucus]

im not saying that they do not. but clearly if you took something that was say, apparent in your hair but not physically affecting you - or your ability to do the task in hand safely, then it is an infringment on your civil rights really isnt it?

i mean, what next emotional tests? you cant go to work if you have had a family row, or mid life crisis, or hell even if your in a bad mood?

unless you can physo-analyse people to establish their exact frame of mind, concentration levels or even will to do the job then everything else is pretty much a waste of time anyway.

This is where reasonably and unreasonable comes in. It is unreasonable to test for substances 6 years ago, before your contracted start. it is very reasonable to test you for the last few weeks.

You can report people for tiredness, mental health, depression ect. the framework is there and in place to deal with it. however it is unreasonable to routinely test for.

Err no, a contract is not binding if it contains terms which are deemed unfair.

They are deemed fair though.

 

[mattyfez]

Not at all.
You can prove you are sober by not having any in your system.

Yes you can, but the point is (again) that some tests do not show sobriety/fitness. They just show that at some point in your past you were not sober. This information is of no practical use.

 

[Glaucus]

Yes you can, but the point is (again) that some tests do not show sobriety/fitness. They just show that at some point in your past you were not sober. This information is of no practical use.

It is if it that period falls within your contract. You are tested before you start the job.