drug tests at work

[Glaucus]

The debate is that the methods used are unfair, and by you own admission are "unworkable".

The alternative is unworkable. this is very workable. Drugs in your system you are out. Nice and easy, the risk is there.
You can not prove you where not at work still under the effect.

 

[mattyfez]

The alternative is unworkable. this is very workable. Drugs in your system you are out. Nice and easy, the risk is there.
You can not prove you where not at work still under the effect.

That is a very uninformed point of view, we have already covered that this.

 

[Glaucus]

That is a very uninformed point of view, we have already covered that this.

How so, I am informed. I just disagree with you. So stop trying to use that point and as now shown so does the law.

You take a substance you will be affected for x-hours. You do not know how long this effect will be. This is what companies base it on.

None in your system no risk. It really is that simple.

 

[Gilly]

That is a very uninformed point of view, we have already covered that this.

If an employer chooses to take a zero tolerance stance, following a proper period of consultation and notification, I think they should be able to. Any found in your system, whether affecting you there and then or not, and you're gone.

 

[mattyfez]

How so, I am informed. I just disagree with you. So stop trying to use that point and as now shown so does the law.

You take a substance you will be affected for x-hours. You do not know how long this effect will be. This is what companies base it on.

None in your system no risk. It really is that simple.

It is not that simple, not even for a second.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMqQLgw7Uz4

You cannot have a zero tollerance policy, or it results in a breach or rights, (see above) I rest my case.

 

[Glaucus]

You cannot have a zero tollerance policy, or it results in a breach or rights, (see above) I rest my case.

yes you can have a zero tolerance and it really is that simple. Positive tests have to be then confirmed in the lab.

 

[mattyfez]

facepalm

 

[Gilly]

You cannot have a zero tollerance policy, or it results in a breach or rights

How can the Army do it then?

 

[Angilion]

The amount of alcohol produced by ingested foods is negligible and any drug test worth it's salt would easily dismiss such low values anyway, so I don't understand your shock/horror at this.

I was referring specifically to a policy that stated zero.

I agree about fatigue, but that's why there managers, to ensure their staff are performing properly, and KPIs etc.. to make sure targets are being hit. One would hope that there would be a pro-active approach to lack of performance.

So why is that not the right approach for drug use as well? It's much more relevant than traces of drug use that aren't having any effect.

 

[Glaucus]

So why is that not the right approach for drug use as well? It's much more relevant than traces of drug use that aren't having any effect.

It's meant to be pro active not re active. It is ensuring a safe working environment.

 

[mattyfez]

How can the Army do it then?

They shouldnt be able to, in my view. I cant see how it can be justified.

 

[mattyfez]

It's meant to be pro active not re active. It is ensuring a safe working environment.

There is no such thing as a safe working environment. There is however a difference between being proactive and being an over zealous bureaucrat.

 

[Angilion]

It's not about overall performance. It's about being fit fir duty in safety critical jobs or jobs you use heavy machinery.

i) Drug testing is not about being fit for duty. You're not even attempting to differentiate between active and inactive drugs, active and inactive dose...you're doing one thing and claiming it's something else.

ii) Factors other than drugs can impact whether or not a person is fit for duty far more than drugs, especially inactive traces of drugs that have no effect at all.

If you were actually interested in fitness for duty, you would be testing fitness for duty. You aren't, so you're not.

 

[Glaucus]

There is no such thing as a safe working environment. There is however a difference between being proactive and being an over zealous bureaucrat.

which comes back to duty of care and minimizing forseable and testable risks.

i) Drug testing is not about being fit for duty. You're not even attempting to differentiate between active and inactive drugs, active and inactive dose...you're doing one thing and claiming it's something else.

you can't differentiate between the two. Every one will react differently and be influenced for different periods of time.

ii) Factors other than drugs can impact whether or not a person is fit for duty far more than drugs, especially inactive traces of drugs that have no effect at all.

Which funnily enough, is also in policy

 

[Angilion]

There is no problem with test. You have drugs in your system you are at increased risk. Really is that simple.

Really isn't. See my post above, currently post 213.

 

[Glaucus]

Really isn't. See my post above, currently post 213.

It really is. see previous 10 pages.

 

[Freefaller]

I guess we'll all have to agree to disagree.

I don't like drugs, and drink very little so I'm necessarily going to have a much more negative attitude towards it.

Others are more open minded to alcohol and drugs and this is where the conflict starts. For me it's just very black and white - though normally I'm an advocate for "life isn't black and white, but shades of grey" - however in this instance I'm afraid my mind is fairly firmly set. Alcohol and drugs have no place in a working environment, whether or not you can prove it affects your performance directly or not - they have a detrimental effect on most people. There are plenty of areas where drugs/alcohol is strictly enforced, doctors, pilots, police, army - and too right IMO. You go into that line of work knowing the score - and you sign as such on your contract.

I'm not saying ALL companies SHOULD adopt the same approach, that couldn't be further from what I'd want, however I fully support companies and sectors that do and see nothing wrong with it at all. As you know when you sign your contract what you are letting yourself in for. Then if you want to play dice with your career/life it's your call. Ignorance is no excuse, and 1 night of accidental fooling around is no excuse either if you get caught - IF you work in such a company/sector.

Other than that, I'm all for people going out and enjoying themselves and get up to whatever they want in their private lives - but there are too many stories of drunken fights, abuse, drink driving, drug related ailments and death etc... for me to see a positive spin on it.

I know i sound very dull, I make no apology for that, but that's just my opinion.

 

[mattyfez]

which comes back to duty of care and minimizing forseable and testable risks.
you can't differentiate between the two. Every one will react differently and be influenced for different periods of time.

There is a big difference between minimising risk, and making discriminatory decisions that can affect peoples lives. Its at best unethical, and should really be criminal.

It really is. see previous 10 pages.

No it is not, see previous 10 pages.

 

[Angilion]

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.

Will you be honest and stop pretending that your objection to all drug use has anything to do with fitness to work?

You'll ignore other factors that affect fitness to work.

You'll punish people for drug use even if it doesn't affect their fitness to work.

Your claims about the issue being fitness to work are very far from being convincing.

 

[Glaucus]

and making discriminatory decisions that can affect peoples lives.

It is not discriminatory, you have not shown why it is. You play with fire be prepared to get burnt. If you had no idea about the policys, you would have a point. But they are very clear and you even have a test before you start.

You know full well the rules and regulations of your job, abide by them. It is no different to hundred other terms and conditions. When you come to work you have to meet certain criteria.


You didn't know how the contracts where worded, didn't know other things apart from drugs are in policy and thought it is illegal or unifocable. all have been shown to be wrong.

Will you be honest and stop pretending that your objection to all drug use has anything to do with fitness to work?

it is fitness to work, I use to smoke cannabis before I got my current job, I no longer do. This has nothing to do with my personal vioews of drugs.

You'll ignore other factors that affect fitness to work.

Where? many other things are in policy and you can be signed of work, sent for counselling and if needed sacked. The difference is these are not feasible to test and they have to be a reaction.

You'll punish people for drug use even if it doesn't affect their fitness to work.

It may and does.
What it comes down to, is you have no idea when you will be fit for work again.

Your claims about the issue being fitness to work are very far from being convincing.

Or you haven't read anything and ignore it due to your personal views