Drug Testing in the Workplace

[garyinderry]

Don't be fooled into thinking these tests are to protect employees. Doing these tests reduce the insurance premiums therefore save the company money. As with anything īn business, its down to money.

 

[Ethan]

Well i was hoping to sort of avoid the alcohol area because it think that should be treated differently and yes some jobs should have a zero ( well as close as you can get ) limit for people arriving for work the next day

They are talking more about the illegal drugs

Marijuana is the soft drug where the tolerances - levels in body after consumption etc are im led to believe already been used for these companies - having a splif the night before will level certain levels and the companies doing the testing with know these levels and be able to advise

But what about cocaine , herion , ampths , even steriods - the class A drugs that appear to be getting more and more popular.

But the only valid argument is built on unfitness to do the job, so you have to take that in the broadest sense. You can't bar someone from work because they took marijuana a week ago, but OK someone which is near the legal limit of alcohol.

The effect of these different illegals drugs are all very different. The half life of heroin is very short, in the order of a few minutes, so it is more or less gone in about 20 minutes, so most of us could take it as we leave the house and be OK by the time we get to work. Cocaine has a longer half life, but still only an hour, so take it the night before and it is long gone by morning. You may be less fit for work if you sat up until late watching box sets of Game of Thrones.

Now, if the person is taking prescription drugs such as benzos, other psychoactive substances, painkillers, etc etc, the effects may be much more durable. If you are driving a crane, the crane doesn't know whether you are taking legal or illegal substances.

 

[Ethan]

Is it possible for them to know if someone had one spliff the night before or smoked 2 ounces of it the previous week? I assume the level in the body drops over time so wondered if the distinction could be made.

Yes. Marijuana is detectable in urine for up to a week (depending how heavy a user you are) and in hair for about 3 months.

By the way, it is useful to separate legality and effects. Some dangerous substances are legal, some illegal substances are not very dangerous, so if the objective is performance, then it must focus on effects. If it is detection of crime outside the workplace, then that really isn't any business of your employer. Workplace illegal actions are certainly a matter for the employer, but that isn't what we have been discussing.

Second by the way, this is a pleasantly civil and interesting debate so far.

 

[Hacker Khan]

Well in the military if you have an issue and been found not to have had breakfast then you could be charged

But thats digressing a little - if someone is sleep deprived then yes it will effect his performance - so yes the companies should know about it

Why should they pay people who cant give 100% to their job ?

What about those who post on this board whilst at work? Should they be sacked as they are not giving 100%?

 

[gripitripit]

What about those who post on this board whilst at work? Should they be sacked as they are not giving 100%?

Guilty as charged ma' lord

 

[NWJocko]

There should have been a breathalyser on the first tee at North Hants that stopped me from golfing the way I played after an afternoon on the sauce :rofl:

The company I work for has a policy on Alcohol and drug abuse but I've no idea if they do random testing but then we are not operating machinery etc or what the ramifications are if positive (instant dismissal etc).

 

[Deleted member 15344]

But the only valid argument is built on unfitness to do the job, so you have to take that in the broadest sense. You can't bar someone from work because they took marijuana a week ago, but OK someone which is near the legal limit of alcohol.

The effect of these different illegals drugs are all very different. The half life of heroin is very short, in the order of a few minutes, so it is more or less gone in about 20 minutes, so most of us could take it as we leave the house and be OK by the time we get to work. Cocaine has a longer half life, but still only an hour, so take it the night before and it is long gone by morning. You may be less fit for work if you sat up until late watching box sets of Game of Thrones.

Now, if the person is taking prescription drugs such as benzos, other psychoactive substances, painkillers, etc etc, the effects may be much more durable. If you are driving a crane, the crane doesn't know whether you are taking legal or illegal substances.

So is it more about employers being worried about their employers being involved in illegal activities ?

Or employers worried about employees becoming addicted etc

Or insurance as been mentioned. ?

 

[Foxholer]

....

By the way, it is useful to separate legality and effects. Some dangerous substances are legal, some illegal substances are not very dangerous, so if the objective is performance, then it must focus on effects. If it is detection of crime outside the workplace, then that really isn't any business of your employer. Workplace illegal actions are certainly a matter for the employer, but that isn't what we have been discussing.

This is the crux of the matter as far as I am concerned.

Employers should only be concerned about what affects performance/safety or happens at the workplace/during work hours. They should not be acting as pimps for law enforcement.

I'm certain that there have been times when my performance has been more affected by the remedies for a cold than would be from a lunch time beer!

I don't believe the 'right to indulge in criminal activities' is on the list of fundamental human rights though! So it's a question of finding a mid-point balance that is right and reasonable for each employer/job/substance.

 

[bluewolf]

Hey Phil, if you are advocating disciplinary procedures against anyone who doesn't give 100% every day at work then I guess the dole queue would be about to get a whole lot longer.

Oh, and I'm not at work at the moment.

 

[AlexDarling]

what about the caffeine junkies who then top up with redbull and coke............normal functions are definitly impaired whereas a habitual marijuana user could operate in a consistent calm state fully aware of his/her faculties. Just a thought and taken from first hand experience

 

[ColchesterFC]

The effect of these different illegals drugs are all very different. The half life of heroin is very short, in the order of a few minutes, so it is more or less gone in about 20 minutes, so most of us could take it as we leave the house and be OK by the time we get to work. Cocaine has a longer half life, but still only an hour, so take it the night before and it is long gone by morning.

Not quite sure where you are getting those figures from you are wrong. These are taken from the Talk to Frank website and are for urine tests...... Cocaine (12 hours - 3 days) Heroin (2-5 days) Cannabis (2-3 days for one off use, up to 2 months for chronic use).

http://www.talktofrank.com/faq/how-long-will-drug-remain-detectable-my-system

 

[Ethan]

Not quite sure where you are getting those figures from you are wrong. These are taken from the Talk to Frank website and are for urine tests...... Cocaine (12 hours - 3 days) Heroin (2-5 days) Cannabis (2-3 days for one off use, up to 2 months for chronic use).

http://www.talktofrank.com/faq/how-long-will-drug-remain-detectable-my-system

You need to read stuff more carefully before accusing someone of being wrong. I was talking about something different - the half life of the active drug in the system. The half life of the active ingredient of heroin (diamorphine) is very short (2 or 3 minutes), hence it is very fast acting but and the effect is also short, although if you take a lot, the body will store some in fat and release it more slowly. Exposure to heroin can still be detected for a few days though, but that is a different question.

Hair sampling can reveal prior exposure of some drugs for months.

 

[ColchesterFC]

You need to read stuff more carefully before accusing someone of being wrong. I was talking about something different - the half life of the active drug in the system. The half life of the active ingredient of heroin (diamorphine) is very short (2 or 3 minutes), hence it is very fast acting but and the effect is also short, although if you take a lot, the body will store some in fat and release it more slowly. Exposure to heroin can still be detected for a few days though, but that is a different question.

Fair enough, but I would still take issue with your suggestion that you could take cocaine as you leave the house and be OK by the time you get to work based on a half life of an hour. In that hour the drug level in your body will only have dropped to half the strength of the original dose which means that you will still be under the influence, just not as under the influence as you were an hour before.

 

[Ethan]

Fair enough, but I would still take issue with your suggestion that you could take cocaine as you leave the house and be OK by the time you get to work based on a half life of an hour. In that hour the drug level in your body will only have dropped to half the strength of the original dose which means that you will still be under the influence, just not as under the influence as you were an hour before.

I didn't say that.

I said that you could do that with heroin, as long as you had a 20 - 30 minute commute, because the drug is more or less from the bloodstream in 5 half lives. Coke has a longer half life, of the order of an hour, so overnight would comfortably clear it. Both can still be detected for a day or two, though, but are no longer active.

Obviously, it isn't a good idea to take heroin as you set off for work. It was more an illustration of the shortness of time needed for pharmacological clearance.

 

[srixon 1]

Doesn't the actual job being performed make a difference. So if you are a driver, fly planes, operate machinery or say perform surgery on people to save their lives then having drugs in your system is probably not a good thing.

But if you have a boring office job surrounded by process monkeys and stare at a computer screen all day having to follow processes and mountains of admin to do seemingly even the most basic of tasks, which in the good old days used to be executed by using your competence and common sense, then you probably need some charlie to get you through the drudgery and boredom.

I work in an office and stare at a computer all day, boring as hell writing manuals to tell people how to repair/service aircraft and their components but you have to be full on concentrating. Write down the wrong instruction because you have just had your fix of charlie and there is a chance that the aircraft could fall out of the sky. Still want to sit on that aeroplane to go on your holidays?

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I work in an NHS trust and we've a very clear policy regarding drugs and alcohol as you'd imagine as any abuse could impact patient safety. I suppose the difficulty is deciding where that line is and whether coming in after a couple of drinks or partaking in recreational drugs the day before a shift poses a threat. The policy itself seems reasonably robust and in the rare occassion a manager has suspicions, there's suppose to be a one to one discussion and then a blood/urine test taken before a decision taken.

Does it impose on human rights? Possibly but there again our contract and their registration is dependant on a duty of care so how do you decide when one is traded off against another? All I would hope is that whoever is looking after me or my loved ones would be wise enough to make sane and professional choices about what is right to be able for them to look after us while still being able to enjoy themselves as they see fit

 

[Ethan]

I work in an NHS trust and we've a very clear policy regarding drugs and alcohol as you'd imagine as any abuse could impact patient safety. I suppose the difficulty is deciding where that line is and whether coming in after a couple of drinks or partaking in recreational drugs the day before a shift poses a threat. The policy itself seems reasonably robust and in the rare occassion a manager has suspicions, there's suppose to be a one to one discussion and then a blood/urine test taken before a decision taken.

Does it impose on human rights? Possibly but there again our contract and their registration is dependant on a duty of care so how do you decide when one is traded off against another? All I would hope is that whoever is looking after me or my loved ones would be wise enough to make sane and professional choices about what is right to be able for them to look after us while still being able to enjoy themselves as they see fit

It would seem that most of the NHS executives who negotiated or signed PFI contracts were under the influence of something, perhaps illicit.

 

[c1973]

What about those who post on this board whilst at work? Should they be sacked as they are not giving 100%?

A very good post imho. I suspect this has put quite a lot of 'gas at a peep'.

 

[c1973]

Yes. Marijuana is detectable in urine for up to a week (depending how heavy a user you are) and in hair for about 3 months.

By the way, it is useful to separate legality and effects. Some dangerous substances are legal, some illegal substances are not very dangerous, so if the objective is performance, then it must focus on effects. If it is detection of crime outside the workplace, then that really isn't any business of your employer. Workplace illegal actions are certainly a matter for the employer, but that isn't what we have been discussing.

Second by the way, this is a pleasantly civil and interesting debate so far.

Another very good post imho.

Who's the biggest danger on a building site, the joiner who had a wee smoke last night or the machine operative who isn't sleeping and has been taken prescription temazapam?

I tend to view compulsory testing (in general, accept specific instances may call for testing) as a breach of your human rights/ civil liberties. That said, if it stops a raging alky/druggie clattering about on a JCB on a busy site (for example) It's kind of hard to argue against.

 

[triple_bogey]

What about those who post on this board whilst at work? Should they be sacked as they are not giving 100%?

.......and that was that.