Alcohol and Drug Testing in the Workplace.

[Unitof1]

geliberti dont work for them, the last time I worked for anybody in archaeology they tried to get me for everything they could think off and it was very nasty, I took it to the ifa and it turned out pointless, after they had never agreed a contract withme and milked me for everting they could... but I picked my self up and now I have a realy thick skin, I am now stroner for it and self-employed. I dont give a monkeys about .....name it

[Kajemby]

Obviously, this has been a priblem for the construction industry, hence why there is the need for random drug and alcohol testing in the work place within this environment, and say not for solicitors, doctors, currys electronic suppliers, or infact, practically any one else in the uk. Perhaps a little general, but never the less, it is true. There are two main points to this arguement. 1) the assumption that some one whom is under the influence is easily identifiable by the supervisor. They are not - this is what happens with chemical addiction (extreme, but it hppens, even with caffeine) - your body stops producing the chemical which a drug will give you over time, and so people need it to feel normal. Any body who has lost some one to drug or alcohol addiction could tell you the same. The identifiers are not always there! 2) civil liberties do not come into this. We are not plucked from the streets, and forced into this. It is total choice. As above there are three options - you can accept this as an industry standard and carry on working, run the risk of being caught, or quit. I have not worked on a site in the last three years where there has not been random drug and alcohol screening and am surprised to hear that it has only just caught to certain parts of the country. It is now practically an industry standard, and as long as archaeologist act professionally then there should be no problem.

[RedEarth]

exactly..........what folk do outside the workplace is their own business..........and it depends on what is classed as a drug ................... are we talking class A stuff or a joint ??? what exactly do they test for ??

[INDENT]Red Earth - I really don't see how someone getting fired for turning up late is the same as someone getting fired for what they do outside work. Employers have no business monitoring peoples behaviour outside of the workplace. Turning up to work late is a work issue - what you do on your own time is not. [/INDENT]there is a lot to be said here but i am near incoherent with a vicous stomach bug - the effects of which are similar to hangover ect ~(but fully legal!) - i could have gone to work killed someone and nobody would blame it on the virus.

If you regularly turned up late because of massive roadworks on your way to site your employer might say, 'fair enough not a lot you could do about that'. If it was because you were such a dope fiend you couldn't physically get up in the morning they might not be so impressed. The difference? You would have been responsible for the latter, even if it took place outside of work. Of the other hand if you were so ill it made you unfit for work you shouldn't really be there, but it wouldn't be your fault. How many cases have you come across where people have lost jobs (in other areas) because of something they did outside work? Posting something offensive on Facebook for example? Getting involved in some sort of criminality? If you keyed your boss's car on the weekend and were found out I suspect there would be a P45 on your desk on Monday morning. But how dare they say what you can or cannot do in your spare time, eh?

What you do in your own time is only an issue if it then affects your ability to work - just calling people Fascists for trying to check is a bit childish. I think some people are protesting a bit too much and need to understand the concept of responsibility.

Oh, and as for being able to tell if someone is under the influence - is that before or after they've driven into you with a dumper druck? I certainly don't think I would be able to tell just by looking at someone.

[BAJR]

The bottom line is responsibility.

The company should have a clear policy on drugs and alcohol - written into contract. Stating clearly the actions taken . The construction company can ask for drug testing on sites, however, it is the responsibility of the archaeological company to carry it out, if they have a drugs / alcohol policy.

Seriously, having a spliff on a Saturday night is different from having a session every day... If you have got bladdered the night before, got to bed at 2 and are up at 6am then I would really not like to have you drive me to site as a driver, neither would I like to see you trying to hold your hangover while trying to watch a JCB etc.... risk management starts with responsibility, with responsibility comes a maturity of action.

A clear Policy and a bit of common sense...

[brazier]

Less an an Orwellian nightmare, more of a farce at time! I've been on sites where there is a startling over the top attitude to the paraphernalia of h and s while all around glaring examples of h and s transgressions are occurring. I think that's what is most irritating about it all, I don't believe there's any intent to erode ones civil liberties however. Strikes me there are far too many overwrought and exhausted people working on big city construction sites, and that issue is not being dealt with firmly. Send home the exhausted and overwrought, they are a danger to themselves and everyone around them. Lessen working hours, lessen workloads, and employ more to cover them. And if the reason why they're exhausted is because they've been pepping themselves up to defer their state of knackeredness then that's their problem - they'll lose their day's pay, that's sufficient disincentive. As for the prescribed medication problem of false positives, I'm slightly puzzled by the solution to being asked for alternatives to those medications, why would they be any different chemically....where do people think drugs, illegal or not, derive from, and why would you think that the active chemical would not be traced by a lab test if it were an "alternative"? I'm interested to know more about the types of lab test undertaken, what government body oversees and vets this process, is it a government body that does the testing, and should it be, would that be an Orwellian nightmare, or is contracted-out lab work less of a one, even if you might not be sure of their accountability and the test result reliability? Also, should it be a "zero tolerance" or "three strikes" or should it be "on your bike" or "I'll let you off this time"? Incidentally, safety glasses are great for your eyes but intensely irritating once you're sweating away and can't see a damned thing - bit of an h and s paradox that one.

[GnomeKing]

DRUDGE SAID

"hmm, i think i'm getting the hang of this judicious editing lark.
you sound just like a small child who's been chastised by Teacher for chewing gum in class. or rather, a stroppy teenager..."awww, it's so unfaair!".
accept that, at times, the job you've chosen will require you to do things you don't see the point of.""

**** *** *** **** ***** ** ****** **** !!!

I FAIL TO SEE EITHER THE PURPOSE OR THE PIONT IN YOUR POST...ACTUALLY, I ASKED FOR SOME RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC FACTS... BUT YOU SEEM CONTENT TO MAKE A PERSONAL ATTACK...HOW ADULT...WELL DONE

to anyone else who is more interested in an informed and fact bassed approach - which that i think more becoming of a academic discipline - it is worth noting that the UK has no specific policies on this issue. Instead they have been imported wholesale from the US (along with some of the testing companies). The context in which these mechanisms developed in the US is of interest, that is if one is interested in the facts of social control (for good or ill).

I concede that many of us may have insufficient empathy to spot 'normal'/'abnormal' emotional states, never mind specific physcological states potentially asociated with intoxication...however, with reasonabley close and posative working relationships, empathy does become easier.

Perhapes...in many situations this may be impractical...some level of testing/monitoring may be justified, particuarly in some specific situations (eg operating high risk machinery). But are we to be guided by facts or misconceptions?

Answer this: why allow certain levels of blood alcohol ?- perhapes because culturally we 'know' that there is grey area surrounding the loss of responsibility associated with increasing levels.
We might pass the individual with levels just below the minima, but how do we detect the raging head ache or tiredness that actually cause the accident?
Some industries have zero tolerance on alcohol i beleive.

But the simple fact remains that for the majority of archaeolgical work risk are not huge - probaly less than an average drive on a busy motorway, where non of the machine operators have been specifically (or even recently) tested in regard of intoxicant consumption. (Perhapes we should upgrade the risks of driving, but that is a different issue...)

Cannabis is a specific issue in its self - the tests do NOT pick active compounds, but metabolised byproducts that persist for some time after any measurable 'effect'
Furthermore, Cannabis intoxication is, i sumbimt, likley no more 'dangerous' than some alcohol equivalent, and probaly less so - generally we trust most people, most of the time, to controll and regulate thier alcohol intake responsibley.

Personally i believe, and think the evidence supports me, that cannabis should be socialy tolerated in the same fashion as alcohol - legalise, decriminalise, downgrade, whatever.
There is a big diffrence between regular cannabis consumption and frequent use of plethora of much stronger and biochemically significant substances.

Childish though it may seem to some to question attitudes to intoxication that may fail to acknowledge what anthropology has to tell us about this very human activity, i do not condone intoxication at work. Equally, it is irresponsible to indulge in a fashion that might impact work in the near future. This is a unproblematic stance to take.

The issue is whether these tests are nessescary or sufficent. They are not nessescary for many archaeologists in many situations. They are also insufficent to adequatley predict potential risk - some actual test of competence might be minimally sufficent.

I know a LOT of archaeologists are fond of at least occasional heavy drinking, and PLENTY are not adverse to cannabis. This is also true in the construction industry - and in fact there have been occasions where discrection has been applied in the case of posative tests for cannabis traces.

Archaeologis thave every right to take an informed approach to OHS and intoixication - i do not think that drug testing, as stands, is the solution.

[GnomeKing]

Good post brazier - somehow missed it at first!

glad you mention tierdness as a key factor in accidents..."lessen hours...lessen workload"

my understanding is that the drug testing is not regulated and basicaly farmed out to private companies (who will overall be regualted for standards and accuracey)..happy to be corrcted on this....

you are right about the saftey glasses - have had to argue this piont myself to site H&S people (with some succse)...key is discrection and responsible attitude. not blanket decrees...

[grindlecat]

you cannot be sacked for refusing a drug test. you may open yourself up to disciplinary action and a warning, but you cannot, legally, be sacked. the tests may well show a positive, but the bosses have to proove you were using 'at work', and not the night before [or whatever...]
anyway...have you seen the price of weed lately! i cant afford it on the poxy wages....just the cheap beer from aldis and my usal 8 codiene a day....all perfectly legal....and half the time you can never find a dealer near a site anyway....anybody recall a PO at a unit who would sell some blow, if he liked you....if he didnt like you, life was made hell for you and you left...as did i....ah...ther good old days....anyway, im off to live with [travelling folk] and do scrapping...the pay is better and nobody cares if you're hammered....

[grindlecat]

incidentally...on the related matter of civil liberties....i was on a site recently, where a supervisor asked me if i used the bajr site...i said yes....he wanted to know my username here...i declined to tell him and i got The Company Lecture no:3....about confidentiality and that to write anything anywhere about the unit i was working for was a sackable offence and would "follow me around, if he found out"....charming....so, users, dont use your site nickname as your work nickname...'they' WILL check you out....its getting worse and even George couldnt have dreamt up some of this stuff nowadays....ooops...i am late for me codiene....:-) gibber shake tremble...it hurts man, it hurts....

[kevin wooldridge]

you cannot be sacked for refusing a drug test. you may open yourself up to disciplinary action and a warning, but you cannot, legally, be sacked. the tests may well show a positive, but the bosses have to proove you were using 'at work', and not the night before [or whatever...]

Sorry Grindlecat, patently not true. If an employer follows an established disciplinary procedure you could be legally dismissed for any offence which breaks the terms and conditions of your contract. This might include random drug testing. A number of recent cases involving airline pilots, train drivers, and members of the armed forces ave demonstrated such procedures in action. Whether the inebriation or intoxication occurs inside or outside of work is irrelevant (otherwise you could argue that getting pissed during lunch break is fair as it is your own and not employment time), it is whether you are deemed to be capable of undertaking your duties that matters. In reality most employers faced with such situations would be wise to issue due warning and instigate a period of probation and review to enable the employee to seek treatment for their 'problem'.

Oh and by the way your final sentence is out of order and offensive as far as I am concerned.......