drug tests at work

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.
Click to expand...

exactly it is UNREASONABLE to test for unless they are showing symptoms. that goes for pressure, stress, drug abuse, the rest of it too...

being affected by a drug is not different from any of those u describe for me. but women dont get tested once a month for any psychological issues in the work place do they?
 
The difference is one is easy and cheap to test for and reduces the risks of accidents. if you only test when there are symptoms. You are not reducing those risks.

humans have emotions and health problems or various states throughout the month. it is unreasonable and impracticable to test or restrict this. Unless someone goes to an extreme. It's minimising risks in a sensible way, not removing them entirely.
 
Last edited:
in either case, i agree.. so u either test everyone for EVERYTHING that could lead to deficiencies at work, or you dont. whats not fair about that?

otherwise you are cherry picking and descriminating against a potentially legal activity, and allowing those who may actually be a larger percentage of risky employees to get away with it?

i dont understand your logic here im sorry.
 
Energize said:
What do you want to me to do, copy and paste 10 pages from Rang and Dale?
Click to expand...

Well, no, but if you need a whole 10 pages when all I'm asking for is a quick description how can it be simple enough for a company to implement across the board?
 
Nickg said:
i dont understand your logic here im sorry.
Click to expand...

One is sensible to test for the other isn't. we are all humans, we are not perfect. you can not legislate against a bad nights sleep. Or menstrual cycle.
If someone takes taht to teh extreme and can't stay awake at work then you can act.

The other there is no need to take drugs and if there is you notify your manager and he may restrict your duties or clear you.
 
AcidHell2 said:
It is if it that period falls within your contract. You are tested before you start the job.
Click to expand...

Again, no its not, a person is not breaching thier contract if they are not under the influence whilst on the job.

For example, If a person has a smoke on a friday night, then goes on holliday or 2 weeks, and then returns to work, and then gets a positive THC test, and gets the sack - how can they possibly be under the infuence?

The test is not rellevant.
 
Gilly said:
Well, no, but if you need a whole 10 pages when all I'm asking for is a quick description how can it be simple enough for a company to implement across the board?
Click to expand...

All you need to do is give the test results and user data to an expert and they will give you the answers.



Has there actually been a single peer reviewed study showing that random drug testing increases safety in the workplace over other methods?
 
One is sensible to test for the other isn't. we are all humans, we are not perfect. you can not legislate against a bad nights sleep. Or menstrual cycle.
If someone takes taht to teh extreme and can't stay awake at work then you can act.
Click to expand...

well to me it would appear sensible to test everyone for low levels of concentration, brain waves etc.

you seem to have an opinion that someone who had taken drugs would DEFINATELY be in a worse state to work than someone who had missed a nights sleep, for instance. but what if this opinion was incorrect and that infact it was found that mssing a nights sleep OR having a domestic row, breakup, divorce etc had a large psychological impact than say, having consumed a drug 48 -56 hours previous?

then would you change your mind about what is sensible or cost effective?
 
Nickg said:
well to me it would appear sensible to test everyone for low levels of concentration, brain waves etc.
Click to expand...
How is that feasible.

Nickg said:
you seem to have an opinion that someone who had taken drugs would DEFINATELY be in a worse state to work than someone who had missed a nights sleep,?
Click to expand...

Not at all, both have increased risk. One you have complete control over and testable and duty of care. The other is not, unless they show extreme signs of it;.
 
yes, it extends to everyone, even those who took drugs? who is there to protect them from a cafein addicted under pressure HR person on a frenzy with a drug tester?

what you are saying is this:


Person A, we cannot actually conclude how fit for duty that person is at this particular moment in time, however we do know that he took a substance we deem to be unsuitable for use at work, but we dont know how long ago he took it,

Person B, we can see aggravated behavior, or know they are having divorce or lack of sleep, which could impact their performance today, but because we dont have a standardised test, we should ignore this behaviour completely

doesnt seem too fair to me.
 
Nickg said:
Person B, we can see aggravated behavior, or know they are having divorce or lack of sleep, which could impact their performance today, but because we dont have a standardised test, we should ignore this behaviour completely
Click to expand...

except it isn't ignored, that is an extreme. For example. a worker was signed of for several weeks and sent for free counselling as he was going through a divorce and going to court about kids.

the difference is you can not tell this from the outset and there is no reasonable way to test for it. Once they start showing signs you can do something about it.
 
mattyfez said:
"a person is not breaching thier contract if they are not under the influence whilst on the job."
Click to expand...

They are because the contract is not worded in that way. It is worded in a zero policy way and that you will get the sack if you refuse or have drugs in your system. Not how under the influence you are.
 
Thats not what I said, I said:
"a person is not breaching thier contract if they are not under the influence whilst on the job."

You seem to be implying and agreeing that people are breaching contract regardless of weather they are under the infulence or not?
 
mattyfez said:
You seem to be implying and agreeing that people are breaching contract regardless of weather they are under the infulence or not?
Click to expand...
Yes

The contract is worded in a zero police way.
That means it makes no difference if they are under the influence or not. Just that the drug is in the system.
 
I don't get where the "descrimination" argument comes into it, or where it's illegal to do so. As if it is then over 500,000 people within our FTSE100 company, that we employ globally will have signed an illegal contract (though clearly the different companies within the company, and in different countries may have different policies - but I was just making a broad statement).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom