Drug Testing in the Workplace

[Deleted member 15344]

In the news this morning they were are reporting that there has been an increase of 40% of the amount of companies now requesting employees provide samples for a company to do drug testing on.

Obviously the random complusory drug testing has been around for nearly two decades in some public services areas but is it now the time to start encouraging more companies to bring in random drug tests ?

Should companies have policy in regards their employees and drug use ?

Or is it as someone said on radio this morning - a violation of human rights ?

 

[Slab]

I think its a shame its required but in the same way as driving a car under influence of drugs, turning up for work (whatever it may be) and taking pay when your ability is impaired is obviously a no no

And this is where its tricky, drug testing being used to find out if you've had drugs in the last <<xx time period>> but not actually under the influence while at work... well there's a whole host of questions employers would like to ask about employees and aren't permitted to ask because they have no relevance to the job and its deciding where the drug one fits it I guess


Simpler way is to check out the employees facebook page, there's usually enough info to 'profile' staff to see if they take drugs

 

[MadAdey]

I don't see a problem with it. Wether your under the influence at work or not, you are breaking the law by taking them. The only people that will object are the ones taking drugs and to be honest I do not care for their opinion on this matter.

 

[Hacker Khan]

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.

 

[chrisd]

I would have thought that any work situation where someone is, in any way, affecting their ability to do their job properly or safely, whether it be because of drink or drugs, then a company is entitled to ask that employee to prove their fitness to work. After all, it is the health and safety of their workforce, that they are obliged by law to protect, that is possibly being compromised and a potentially huge compensation bill to be paid if they err on their obligation as well as the impact that the extreme result of a drunk or drugged employee could have on another persons family life

 

[gripitripit]

My company have done it for years. We have a random test maybe twice a year. Place is locked down until 15 or so names are drawn at random. It is a mixture of operatives and office based staff. We have had a few non-negitive tests over the years and a refusal which lead to dismissal. I work in the construction industry where more and more high profile projects are pretty much doing D&A testing on a weekly basis.

Does it violate human rights? HELL NO.

 

[Ethan]

My company have done it for years. We have a random test maybe twice a year. Place is locked down until 15 or so names are drawn at random. It is a mixture of operatives and office based staff. We have had a few non-negitive tests over the years and a refusal which lead to dismissal. I work in the construction industry where more and more high profile projects are pretty much doing D&A testing on a weekly basis.

Does it violate human rights? HELL NO.

Is that an opinion, or a statement of fact? What line of work are you in, and what do they test for?

I say that it does potentially violate human rights. There is a difference between being intoxicated and having detectable drugs in your system. If the former, and you work in a job where there is a safety risk to being even slightly intoxicated, then perhaps it is OK, but if not then I say the company has no right.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Is that an opinion, or a statement of fact? What line of work are you in, and what do they test for?

I say that it does potentially violate human rights. There is a difference between being intoxicated and having detectable drugs in your system. If the former, and you work in a job where there is a safety risk to being even slightly intoxicated, then perhaps it is OK, but if not then I say the company has no right.

So you dont believe a company has a right to ensure its employee are fully capable of doing the job that they pay the employee to do ?

And checking that their employees are not partaking in any taking of any illegal substances that could effect the company and their reputation ?

 

[Ethan]

So you dont believe a company has a right to ensure its employee are fully capable of doing the job that they pay the employee to do ?

And checking that their employees are not partaking in any taking of any illegal substances that could effect the company and their reputation ?

I think you are missing the point. It is not the company's concern if you are doing something illegal on your own time, so they should only be concerned when there is a safety concern. A lot of drugs are detectable long after they cease to have any effect on performance. If I choose to partake in illegal substances in my own time and that does not affect my work, it is none of my employer's business and if they ask me for a sample, they can takeot of drugs are detectable long after they cease to have any effect on performance. And alcohol is probably a much greater problem than all the illegal drugs put together.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I think you are missing the point. It is not the company's concern if you are doing something illegal on your own time, so they should only be concerned when there is a safety concern. A lot of drugs are detectable long after they cease to have any effect on performance. If I choose to partake in illegal substances in my own time and that does not affect my work, it is none of my employer's business and if they ask me for a sample, they can takeot of drugs are detectable long after they cease to have any effect on performance. And alcohol is probably a much greater problem than all the illegal drugs put together.

If that drug is in your system still is there not a possibilty of it effecting your performance ?

Even if the drugs were taken the night before for example

And maybe it is the company's concern if someone is taking illegal drugs in their own time ? Maybe they should be concerned to the possibilty that the habit or addiction gets worse and effects the company ?

And yes alcohol is also a concern

I had to send an engineer home because he stank of booze after a night out - there were obvious signs , but it's not obvious when IT comes to drugs

 

[Hacker Khan]

I think I could take a elephant tranqualiser and still perform better then some of the managers I've come across....

 

[gripitripit]

Is that an opinion, or a statement of fact? What line of work are you in, and what do they test for?

I say that it does potentially violate human rights. There is a difference between being intoxicated and having detectable drugs in your system. If the former, and you work in a job where there is a safety risk to being even slightly intoxicated, then perhaps it is OK, but if not then I say the company has no right.

It's my opinion and I have mentioned in my post that I work in the construction industry where we operate all sorts of plant and tower cranes. So in my envrionment it is very much welcome and needed. Alcohol and all illegal drugs are tested for. The procedue is as follows.
You are tested for alcohol using a breathalyser.
You give a urine sample for the drug test which is tested there and then. If the test is non-negative then 2 samples are sent away for further testing to a UKAS approved lab. You are suspended on full pay until the results come back. If you get the all clear then you are free to return to work. If you tested posative for banned substances then you are gonna be dismissed.

 

[Fyldewhite]

Three stories this morning are intrinsically linked. First the drugs testing, second the privacy/stalking issues with mobile apps and thirdly the Tory waffle about the Human Rights act.

It's easy to go down the "well, if you've got nothing to hide......" route in issues like this but in this day and age with technology that was science fiction only a few years ago readily available it's not hard to see how we could quickly end up in a nightmare 1984 type society. Like it or not, we need to have protection from Big Brother. The issue is where to pitch that. I think to limit compulsory testing to areas where safety is a concern is about right. My employer doesn't need to know how I spend my time away from work and I guess for most people that's the same story. Imagine going out on a school night, having a skinful and turning up a little hungover. Random breath test shows excessive alcohol. Individual branded a "problem drinker". Information used is subsequent promotion exercise. Fair enough? I don't think so.

 

[Ethan]

If that drug is in your system still is there not a possibilty of it effecting your performance ?

Even if the drugs were taken the night before for example

And maybe it is the company's concern if someone is taking illegal drugs in their own time ? Maybe they should be concerned to the possibilty that the habit or addiction gets worse and effects the company ?

And yes alcohol is also a concern

I had to send an engineer home because he stank of booze after a night out - there were obvious signs , but it's not obvious when IT comes to drugs

I guarantee you that obvious signs do not exist in many people with alcohol levels above the driving limit. But is that even the correct limit for an air traffic controller or a surgeon? Some people are measurably impaired well below that limit. It is somewhat arbitrary and alcohol has different effects in different people. Best just to adopt a zero limit and then test everyone as they come in to work, and anyone with even a hint of alcohol gets sent home without pay. So no alcohol any afternoon or evening before a working day. Does that impair human rights to take a legal substance?

Marijuana ia detectable in urine for up to a week or so, and in hair for several months, long after any effect has passed (usually several hours).

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Three stories this morning are intrinsically linked. First the drugs testing, second the privacy/stalking issues with mobile apps and thirdly the Tory waffle about the Human Rights act.

It's easy to go down the "well, if you've got nothing to hide......" route in issues like this but in this day and age with technology that was science fiction only a few years ago readily available it's not hard to see how we could quickly end up in a nightmare 1984 type society. Like it or not, we need to have protection from Big Brother. The issue is where to pitch that. I think to limit compulsory testing to areas where safety is a concern is about right. My employer doesn't need to know how I spend my time away from work and I guess for most people that's the same story. Imagine going out on a school night, having a skinful and turning up a little hungover. Random breath test shows excessive alcohol. Individual branded a "problem drinker". Information used is subsequent promotion exercise. Fair enough? I don't think so.

But shouldnt companies be able to ensure that doesnt happen to allow them to make sure their employees are fully capable for work ?

The companies pay you the wages - they expect you to earn those wages fully - if you are little hungover still then your work its possible wont be given 100% of your effort - that then effects the company ?

And unless the individual is consistently arriving at work a little hungover then yes you could say drink problem but after one episode ?

 

[Ethan]

But shouldnt companies be able to ensure that doesnt happen to allow them to make sure their employees are fully capable for work ?

The companies pay you the wages - they expect you to earn those wages fully - if you are little hungover still then your work its possible wont be given 100% of your effort - that then effects the company ?

And unless the individual is consistently arriving at work a little hungover then yes you could say drink problem but after one episode ?

Should the company also ensure you have had a good nights sleep, eaten a healthy breakfast, brushed your teeth and washed your hands after going to the toilet?

 

[ColchesterFC]

In the offshore industry we can be tested at any time. I have no problem with this as it is what I signed up to when I started doing the job. The biggest argument against would be that someone could take cocaine and work on deck yet two days later could be tested and all clear. Whereas someone that had a spliff three weeks ago and is in no way affected when they get on the boat could still give a positive test.

Also not sure how it works with regards to someone that has been to Amsterdam for a holiday. If they have a smoke there it is not an illegal drug that they have taken but if they come home and get tested 2 or 3 weeks later they could still fail the test.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I guarantee you that obvious signs do not exist in many people with alcohol levels above the driving limit. But is that even the correct limit for an air traffic controller or a surgeon? Some people are measurably impaired well below that limit. It is somewhat arbitrary and alcohol has different effects in different people. Best just to adopt a zero limit and then test everyone as they come in to work, and anyone with even a hint of alcohol gets sent home without pay. So no alcohol any afternoon or evening before a working day. Does that impair human rights to take a legal substance?

Marijuana ia detectable in urine for up to a week or so, and in hair for several months, long after any effect has passed (usually several hours).

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.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Should the company also ensure you have had a good nights sleep, eaten a healthy breakfast, brushed your teeth and washed your hands after going to the toilet?

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 ?

 

[ColchesterFC]

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.

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.