It seems you're discriminating against those using an illegal substance in their own time because there would be remnants in someone's system after it was affecting them.
Nothing to do with it being that person's choice or anything like that
drug tests at work
- Thread starter AHarvey
- Start date
It seems you're discriminating against those using an illegal substance in their own time because there would be remnants in someone's system after it was affecting them.
Nothing to do with it being that person's choice or anything like that
Not just illegal but any drug. It's not discrimination.
how do you prove when someone is under the influence, or the acceptable amount. you can't it is unworkable.
I don't really get the discrimination point, myself.
I think I've contributed all that I usefully can to this thread. I can't really argue with that any more.
I think I've contributed all that I usefully can to this thread. I can't really argue with that any more.
Bingo, and until the day it becomes "workable" it is discriminatory and a breach of an individuals rights... can you really not see the issue here, and the potential for further injustice?
It's not discrimination in the least, the company has a duty of care to protect employees, customers and public.
There is no breach of individual rights either.
Why would I have a problem with it. they test for all drugs they can as well as having policy for untestable stuff. It is all zero policy.
You seem to be implying and agreeing that people are breaching contract regardless of weather they are under the infulence or not?
And you dont see any issue with that? you dont think such a term would fall outside of the scope of an employment contract?
And you dont see any issue with that? you dont think such a term would fall outside of the scope of an employment contract?
I'm not implying, that is the case.
Not at all, why would it. It can and does affect you at work.
Should it be upto the employer to prove you are under the influence. Take any drug it has a hole load of side effects. Not all will be shown in everyone. So should it be ok to take these drugs and for the employer to find out which side effects you are experience and make a ruling based on that?
Of course that is ridiculous and totally unworkable and yet they have a duty of care. Hence zero policy and why there is no problem and no discrimination.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,815
- Location
- Falling...
It seems you're discriminating against those using an illegal substance in their own time because there would be remnants in someone's system after it was affecting them.
Nothing to do with it being that person's choice or anything like that
Sure if people want to do drugs they can, but do so at their own risk knowing that it may affect them at work as you'll know and be aware of the drug tests that are performed in your workplace.
If you're stupid enough to take drugs and whilst working in a company that does tests then more fool you.
I know it sounds a little high and mighty, but I can't find myself feeling sorry for people who lose their job via drug tests.
Well, it is descrimiation no matter how you cut it.
What we have here is a conflict of interest, does a company enofce a regime of discrimination againgst a potentialy innocent employee just in case?
Well you certainly seem to have no issue with that. The larger ramifications of such a stance though, are potentially grave, because you essentially making it ok for an empolyer to dismiss any person at any time, with no viable evidence what so ever.
How, explain how it is discrimination. every drug is treated the same as are all employees. there is no discrimination against any certain group. So how do you deduce discrimination.
Again explain, I have suggested no such thing.
there is plenty of proof the drug is in your system and as such the risk is increased.
Yes agreed if you are under the influence, but we need to define what 'under the influence' is (and with certain substances by your own admission is not currently possible) before we can start destroying the lives of innocent people because of it.
m how are they innocent. You are not allowed to come to work with the drug IN you system. This is clearly explained and in the contract. there is no innocence involved.
No you don't. If a contract says "you will be dismissed if you fail a drug test" (or legal words to that effect), there's no consideration of what "under the influence" means. There doesn't need to be. The dismissal hinges on failing the test.
Because you are treating somebody who was unfit to work at some inditerminable point in the past, as unfit to work at the present.
Please state this 'proof' you speak of - I am talking about cannabis here.
discrimination:treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit
In this case, treating a person who was once unfit to work, as currently unfit to work soley on that basis.
That is not discrimination. Especially when contracts do not state about under the influence. As that is imposable to tell. You will not experience the same affects as others.
You could be totally safe to work with say a heyfever drug, where another person isn't. But this is not workable, therefore everyone has to be treated the same.
the drug is in your system.
You are wrong, some of the biggest employers in the country use it.
Ok we have established that say for example THC is in your sytem, how is the increased risk proven, as we have also estblished such a drug remains detectable long after it is 'active'?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,815
- Location
- Falling...
It's not unfair or unlawful, it's happened, not within my division, but it's certainly happened here, and even the unions couldn't help the chap out. I severely doubt we're breaking the law.
Too bloody right too, I don't want someone working with me putting my performance/job in jeopardy because he likes to get high in the evenings and on weekends.
I think it's selfish personally to expect to be treated differently because you do take drugs. If you treat everyone with an even hand (which the contract of employment does) then it no longer discriminates as everyone is at the same level of understanding. If drugs were legal, then I'd concur that it would be unfair, however, it's entirely up to the employer to enforce, legally, whatever rules they can (within the law) onto their work force.
Too bloody right too, I don't want someone working with me putting my performance/job in jeopardy because he likes to get high in the evenings and on weekends.
I think it's selfish personally to expect to be treated differently because you do take drugs. If you treat everyone with an even hand (which the contract of employment does) then it no longer discriminates as everyone is at the same level of understanding. If drugs were legal, then I'd concur that it would be unfair, however, it's entirely up to the employer to enforce, legally, whatever rules they can (within the law) onto their work force.
Since when did that make it an enforcable contractual term? lol! has such a case ever even been tested in a UK court?