Advice on co-worker taking drugs at work

[NVP]

Yeah I'm finding I now feel the effects rather than being used to them.

Try to use this as strength to not cave during the week. Also notice if you start going down fatty route as it'll eventually reduce that experience also


Kids all asleep, housework all done... peace out Respek!

 

[Energize]

Utterly shocking response by them! Surely this is a massive child safeguarding issue? It also doesn't matter if he's taking drugs outside of work time, if they're in his system during work time they could be affecting his performance.

Trace levels of drugs don't affect performance, a drug may only act for a couple of hours but have a long half-life so traces of the drug can be found in the system for a long time after the effects have worn off. Also drugs with a short half life may cause rebound effects when they have left the body. Thus drug tests are unreliable as an indicator as to whether someone is under the influence or not.

 

[builder22]

that's probably why workplace/driving drug limits are almost zero tolerance

it's pretty much..are you/have you been breaking the law or not?, maybe not 'fair' but it's the risk you take...

 

[Yadda]

Try to use this as strength to not cave during the week. Also notice if you start going down fatty route as it'll eventually reduce that experience also


Kids all asleep, housework all done... peace out Respek!

I hope that's not slang for doing the reefers.

 

[Smokey Deza]

OK, so what's the test, then?
What's the easy and reliable test I can administer to my staff, by which I can discover their own personal, specific tolerance levels to a given susbtance... before then applying the other easy and realible test to measure how much substance they've taken against this established tolerance level?

I don't think there's anything particularly easy about it. All contracts will have the typical verbage, 'don't come to work intoxicated' etc. But if you want to prevent it, you can't enforce it internally as all testing must be conducted through a third party company. Moreover, it's not always possible as drug testing is only allowed in the UK under limited circumstances. I.E Where drugs abuse can give rise to health and safety conditions or cause serious damage to a business.

My previous employer employs 1000s across Europe, but mostly here in the UK. When they introduced testing two years ago, it was as said conducted through a screening company (named Hampton Knight for the record.) They're basically scheduled to visit each depot periodically and upon arrival create a random list of employees to test. Outside this routine, if an employee is suspected of being under the influence, they can be instructed to withdraw from their duties and are placed under guard so to speak. This is until an unscheduled visit by the Doc arrives, and the employee is subsequently suspended until the now pending drug test results decide their fate.

In terms of reliability, well, you have to strike a balance. It might appeal to you to rule with an iron fist and adopt a zero tolerance policy. Cast out all the undesirables and be left with an elite workforce. But in practice that is not an effective measure. Take the example above, a considerable amount of the work force, depot to depot, is on something. Factories/warehouses, it's just the nature of this line of work. However, some of these individuals are actually highly experienced, loyal, hard-working dependable employees. Something not easily replaced after many years of service.

Now of course there're all sorts of ways to test for drug use. Continuing with my experience, their method involved two swabs under the tongue for 5>minutes or so. These two vials are then sent off to a lab and you only ever hear about them unless you test positive for something. So there's never any real closure to the uncertainty and you're on edge for a good two-three weeks thereafter.

Point is that these tests were definitely tailored to the needs of the business, especially with cannabis. The overwhelming majority of people who smoked weed passed, and only two failed because they were over the 'limit'. All things considered the only logically explanation for this, despite their denials, is that they had smoked right before their shift start. It was actually those that indulged in the powered varieties that did not fare so well.

Yes, and accidents can happen. Gear can turn out to be stronger than you expected, especially a new batch from a different supplier. You can mis-measure or something just as easily. Any number of things can happen, and I've known several my own self.
Either way, you're lying immobile, outright unconscious or stuck curled around the toilet as a direct result of your drug use... meanwhile there's an emergency or something going on with one of the kids for whom you're responsible, and you're thus negligent.
No argument about tolerances would matter at that point, and in seeking to mitigate or eliminate the risk of such things happening it is far easier, simpler and fairer to just ban employees from drugs.

Yes I do agree with this assessment, but only when applied to those inexperienced in its use where it could happen. If you want to continue to think otherwise that is your choice. But I will say unequivocally, a seasoned toker in is not going to suddenly keel over whatever strain their dealer has. The effects are almost immediate at this level of use so how you much you can continue inhaling is easily gauged. A newcomer or casual smoker doesn't have this ability, and can be quickly overwhelmed with noted symptoms with no options but to ride out the side effects. For lack of a better analogy, the reality of this happening is tantamount to me drinking a flask of whisky throughout my day at work.

Why would I do willingly do such a thing when I know it will impair me?

 

[Blackjack Davy]

I just feel like its weak/lazy management. The manager of the home was recently sacked (for various reasons) and the current manager is a stand-in (the deputy manager) who is in the process of applying for the manager job. She is very young though (I guess mid-late 20s)

This sort of thing happens all the time people don't like/want the boat rocked so just ignore stuff until it comes to a head then act hysterical/tyranical when the poop hits the fan and everyone suffers as a result.

Unfortunately in low paid low morale jobs its all too common.

 

[ttaskmaster]

In terms of reliability, well, you have to strike a balance. It might appeal to you to rule with an iron fist and adopt a zero tolerance policy. Cast out all the undesirables and be left with an elite workforce. But in practice that is not an effective measure.

I shouldn't have to.
If you're the kind of person to break the law and obtain illegal substances for recreational purposes, your trustworthiness will be questionable. If you're even half-smart, you'll make sure your employers don't ever find out about it, though. If you're not smart enough to even manage that, that's again grounds for concern.

Yes I do agree with this assessment, but only when applied to those inexperienced in its use where it could happen. If you want to continue to think otherwise that is your choice.

So just how experienced do you have to be, before you are immune from mistakes?

 

[NVP]

If you're the kind of person to break the law and obtain illegal substances for recreational purposes, your trustworthiness will be questionable.

I don't see the synonymity.

 

[builder22]

 

[ttaskmaster]

I don't see the synonymity.

In the literal sense, or just the inferred?
OK, if you are willing to knowingly break the law and risk up to 5 years in prison, just for a bit of a high, what else might you break the law over? Why should I trust you not to break the law elsewhere, such as when taking responsibility for my child's life?

 

[NVP]

Haha so not general trustworthiness, simply in regards to obeying the law. Which is moot as your basis is the fact they have already broken the law nice

 

[ttaskmaster]

Haha so not general trustworthiness, simply in regards to obeying the law. Which is moot as your basis is the fact they have already broken the law nice

Not entirely sure what you're trying to say, as your sentences are a bit scatty in terms of layout. Can you rephrase, or something?
If you mean to separate offences out and disregard one in terms of the context of another, I don't see how that is supposed to work. Either you can be trusted or you can't, and if your history suggests you can't then guess what - You won't be.
I'm not trusting a child's life to someone whose trust is conditional.

 

[NVP]

Basically someone caught speeding may also rape your child, got ya

 

[ttaskmaster]

Basically someone caught speeding may also rape your child, got ya

Even as you phrase it, that's not a totally unsound theory, actually... and likely why they still consider some convictions as 'unspent'.
Look at how they do the different security clearance checks, especially the DV and beyond. Certain things are immediate and permanent barriers to employment.

 

[dowie]

Look at how they do the different security clearance checks, especially the DV and beyond. Certain things are immediate and permanent barriers to employment.

Plenty of myths about this - if that were the case then what about these senior RAF officers and their use of drugs, sex workers etc.. it's more about being open and honest not automatically excluding people because they took some drugs in uni or slept with a sex worker or a person of the same sex before.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/24/raf-military-files-stolen-blackmail

"This information included details of criminal convictions, investigations, precise details of debt, medical conditions, drug abuse, use of prostitutes, extra-marital affairs including the names of third parties.
[...]
The spokesman confirmed that the people involved were from the senior ranks who had been vetted at the highest level because they had access to top secret information. The information commissioner's office confirmed that they had not been told about the loss of the vetting files, only that personal details of servicemen and women had been stolen.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Plenty of myths about this - if that were the case then what about these senior RAF officers and their use of drugs, sex workers etc.. it's more about being open and honest not automatically excluding people because they took some drugs in uni or slept with a sex worker or a person of the same sex before.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/24/raf-military-files-stolen-blackmail

What about them?
You cited an example of information being used in already ongoing investigations.

"The data is not routine vetting information, but relates to those cases that have been referred to RAF" specifically because "the individuals have serious vulnerabilities that affect their suitability to obtain/retain a security clearance" - You then claim it's not about excluding them as a result... even though that may well have been the likely outcome in these specific investigations?
Sorry, the damage was already done and being looked into. The fact that it became public knowledge doesn't change a thing in that regard.

As for things that happened in uni and anything like an actual conviction, that will be down to whether the incident is spent or not prior to recruitment. If it develops once you've been in post and progressed up the ranks over many years, that is what the investigation is for.
If you're still "fairly new", as per the OP and cannot manage to keep suspicions off you for even that short a period, then more fool you and good luck down the job centre.

 

[MassiveJim]

Quick little update to this hilariously bad company.

My Partner has been pressing her manager to complete her supervision so that she knows if she has passed her 6 month probation or not.
She has found out that her manager has refused to fill it out as instructed by the area manager, instead the area manager and the manager that should be in charge of her (the one that is in charge of another home that hasn't yet opened) have filled out her probation paperwork, the area manager has given her low marks in any area relating to teamwork, she wants to extend her probation by 2 months and have her travel 90 minutes each way to her home in Leicester for 2 months so that she can monitor her.
However, neither of these 2 managers have ever worked with my partner and several scores were either omitted or marked low, my partner had to go to the manager and point out that she had actually carried out the relevant tasks/training, and he said oh ok I'll change it and write it up again.


Needless to say she is now job hunting, and filling out application forms etc

 

[NVP]

What a joke!

 

[AHarvey]

I think with that they are basically trying to work her out of the business so she doesn't cause future issues.

I'd be looking as well and then ripping them to shreds online. Local papers etc If it gets out what they are like it'll do more damage than just looking at taking them to court etc.

I'd be naming and shaming.

 

[ttaskmaster]

I think with that they are basically trying to work her out of the business so she doesn't cause future issues.
I'd be looking as well and then ripping them to shreds online. Local papers etc If it gets out what they are like it'll do more damage than just looking at taking them to court etc.

This, wholeheartedly.
If there's any kind of regulatory body that covers them, drop them an anonymous email or two, as well. **** them.