Alcohol and Drug Testing in the Workplace.

[BAJR]

This has been one of the most tricky, arguementative and though provoking topics for a while (unionisation excepting of course)

It does make you consider what is 'right' and what is acceptable, where does the intrusion of work into personal stop? does it ever?

and of course, the selectivity of drugs testing..

A driver to site and back I may consider, IF there ws some sort of reasonable cause. not just for randomness (it erodes trust)
A person who actually operates heavy machinary (and that is a tiny tiny percentage in archaeology)
but seriously... a trowel weilding (chance would be a fine thing on a site like the ones that needs drugs testing) digger who had a spliff or two at the weekend... ?? to what purpose or end does that serve?

on the other hand...


and thus I go on... seeing merit in both... strong arguements for both and no end to the cycle...

[drpeterwardle]

I really do not see what the issue is. If big engineering companies wish to introduce tough H&S regimes we should be welcoming it. Why should archaeologists be treated differently? Why do archaeologists think we know better than the H&S professionals employed by these companies.
The fact of the matter is we are not in a position to argue with these companies as an industry we need the work.
On site archaeology is a construction related activity and therefore the articles quoted at the beginning of the thread are not that relevant - they are talking about general employment rather construction industry.
Peter

[trainedchimp]

I don't like the idea of being randomly tested, but judging by the responses on here, I like it a lot more than the idea of working with people who see it as their legally enforcible right to get well and truly mashed whenever they want to. I'm really fed up with this thread and suggest that if we want to be treated as professionals we drop the posturing and think of something worth getting this angry about. God knows there's plenty of that.

:face-confused::face-crying::0

[troll]

Interesting thread..... A couple of things occurred to me...
1. A urine test I would be willing to offer if the employer (my employer) has placed the testing policy in my signed contract-i.e....MY employer and not a client. I would only be willing to take the test if MY employer can demonstrate a reasonable suspicion that I am/heve been under the influence.
2. I would require the name and contact details of the individual actually collecting my sample, would insist upon seeing the packaging and recording process throughout too.
3. I would require the name and contact details of the company contracted to carry out the analyses and would require evidence of Government and not Self-policed accreditation.
4. I would need to be informed as to the final destination/disposal policy of my samples.
5. As I neither consume alcohol nor substances controlled by British law at any time, any "false-positives" resulting from analyses of my samples would immediately find the "employer" and the "analyst" being sued for libel and defamation of character. Vigourously.
6. Any testing that would potentially divulge/screen/store genetic information-I would refuse without discussion.
7. Should any of my personal data derived from testing find itself in the hands of any third party-again, we go to court.

I have to agree that the employer has not been given the legal remit to police citizens behaviour and frankly-the private consumption of materials outside of work hours is none of their business-morally or legally. That said, I would agree in principal to the testing of those in control of vehicles or machinery as a part of their working day. I have to say that the majority of accidents and near-misses I have witnessed were undoubtedly the result of:
1. The behaviour of morons
2. The behaviour of incompetents
3. Companies and senior managers attempting to trim budgets
4. Pathetic risk-assessments
5. Lip-service paid to HSE Law.
6. A culture of cover-up and the assassination of "whistle-blowers".

As a footnote and to echo a post I made recently- I`m really heartened to see a major improvement in the HS culture on construction projects and in archaeology. I`m lucky enough to work for an employer who takes the safety of its employees seriously and, for a client that operates an open channel of communication in a strictly monitored workplace. Good stuff all round. On the subject of drug and alcohol testing at work, I expect that employers act within the law and hope that they in turn should expect an equally lawful response from employees when they cross the lines.

[RedEarth]

so...what we're saying is that as soon as we get our first job, our employers effectively have control over the whole of our lives...oh, thats ok then. for less then ?300 a week take home, and spending 40 hours actually doing work [making a profit for the company], they can dictate what we do in the rest of our time?? this attitude is appalling!

Did someone mention profits in archaeology? Hang on a minute.... hahahahahahahahahahahaah, oh dear... I'm done. Just breaking even would be good some of the time.

[GnomeKing]

RE: trainedchimp (1st post)- "drop the posturing and think of something worth getting this angry about. God knows there's plenty of that" do that then!

[GnomeKing]

It is in everybodies interest that OHS policy/procedures reflect facts (as best determined) - as Troll pionts out (and i tend to agree) drug/alcohol accidents may be more uncommon than susposed (compared to other factors, which should probaly be more urgently adressed...).

This is an issue of whether people are going to lose thier jobs because of what they do outside of work, when that activity has no OHS impact on the workplace.
This is not about "letting people get mashed-up" at work, nor about defending that behaviour when it impacts on the workplace.
It is clear that possesing traces of chemicals in ones bloodstream is somewhat differnt to being "mashed-up"....

As already stated, a responsible policy must look much closer at tiredness - the most likley 'causal' accident factor whether or not traces are detected.
Nobody benifits by having intoxicated (or overtired) colleagues working in technical tasks, never mind the OHS implications...

Selective testing provides a means for gathering evidence after suspicion. Random testing creates a threat to curb such behaviour. We are presented with a situation where the method of testing has been predtermined by constructiuon clients - as citizens and proffeionals we have every right the question the situation and aspire for what we beleive to be most benificial to society.....such a position should be regarded as legitimate, not parochial, "teenage", or the result of a "bad attitude".

Given that,
a)unless some body is still under the direct influence or 'come-down' period of strong/Class A/etc drugs they are unlikley to be detected (even if very tired and therfore a risk)
b)many people can drink moderatley heavily the day before a test and still be within the set limit (regardless of headache, tiredness ect)

it is clearly a discrepancey that a fairly regular cannibis smoker who had not smoked within several days would most certainly be picked up in teh test, and treated as if they possed risk (potential job loss).

I do not think that this situation represents real risk - since peoples jobs may be at stake i feel we should show solidarity to co-workers who pose no risk when they safley consume cannbis in thier own time.
I my experience cannabis has not been uncommon in archaeological 'communities', therefore i would suggest that fate of cannabis users should be of concern to us all, regardless of our own moral and participatory standpiont.

[kevin wooldridge]

In my experience cannabis has not been uncommon in archaeological 'communities', therefore i would suggest that fate of cannabis users should be of concern to us all, regardless of our own moral and participatory standpiont.

er.....it seems to me that the pro-dope lobby arguing in the past 10 pages of this BAJR thread are asking to be allowed to do what they want, when they want in their own time. Surely therefore the fate of cannabis users should be of 'no concern to us all' if they really want to be left alone to do their thing.....

To provide balance to the discussion this needs to be said......As far as I can make-out this whole thread is about a lifestyle decision dressed up a discussion about OHS and civil liberties. At the end of the day we are all grown-ups and part of that must mean taking responsibility for ones actions. The archaeological community as a whole can't seriously be asked to act as surrogate 'mums and dads' to toked up trustafarians. There are a whole load of archaeologists out here struggling to find enough cash to put food on the table and afford somewhere to live who dont have the 'luxury' of spare cash to spend on narcotics.

[BAJR]

At the end of the day we are all grown-ups and part of that must mean taking responsibility for ones actions

I would like to think this is very much what this thread is about. I heard a very interesting Thought for today by Indarjit Singh the Sikh commentator - I will copy it up when it goes on the BBC website.

Thought for the Day, 9 March 2010

Indarjit Singh
A hospital in East London has introduced a new initiative to limit the amount of alcohol taken by pregnant women in an effort to reduce the danger of serious birth defects caused by excess drinking. A pregnant woman will be urged to have blood alcohol levels tested to give a picture of how much she has to drink while related urine tests could show evidence of occasional binge drinking.
The logic of such testing is faultless and some midwifes have welcomed the scheme. But other voices have expressed concern that it's an unnecessary intrusion into the privacy of responsible mothers-to-be; another example, as they put it, of the nanny state curbing the freedom of the majority to tackle an irresponsible minority. They could have a point. The downside of such measures is that they generally carry some degree of encroachment on personal freedom.
In some ways the use of such control measures is a bit like some supposed treatments for chronic physical ailments. They can often appear to be quite helpful, but sometimes they can also carry side effects not always immediately apparent.
For me, the most dangerous side effect of such imposed behaviour is that it nudges us away from a sense of personal responsibility and the importance of looking beyond ourselves to the needs of others - a central teaching of our different faiths. Guru Nanak was particularly concerned about such selfishness, and criticised those who abandoned their families to live in the wilderness in search of God. He told them that God was not to be found in the wilderness but in family life and the service of others. He also criticised those who took to drink or drugs to try to get away from the stresses of everyday life. In a memorable passage, he taught that serving God through looking to the needs of others gives a much more lasting sense of wellbeing than the consumption of any amount of insipid alcohol.
Laws and regulation have their uses in setting boundaries to unacceptable behaviour, but in themselves they do little to make us more responsible people. Speaking as a Sikh and keeping to the medical analogy, we should also consider the more holistic approach found in our different religions and reset our moral satnavs to a direction of more responsible living, not only for our own health, or that of the unborn child, but also of generations to come who will be affected by the priorities in life we chose for ourselves today.
copyright 2010 BBC

Hwoever, the essence, is do we take personal responsibility for out actions or do we rely upon a state/company enforced responsibility?

I would like to think of this as a wider debate.. rather than being seen as a right to take drugs.

For myself, I would come up clean on a drugs test, however, I would still object, given that this was random rather than based on a suspicion that I was taking drugs. If however, it was in my contract - and I had signed that contract, then I would have accepted these criteria. IF I have not signed up to this, or it was not in my original contract, and had been added without my acknowledgement and consent, I would object on principal, rather than a fear of failing.

[Tired]

wow Kevin, your point seems to be that you want random testing simply because you label all cannabis users as "trustafarians" and want them to lose their jobs because you resent the fact they have some spare cash......nice. Not so much about the merits the policy, more about your personal vendetta against anyone who will smoke a joint or anyone who has a tiny bit more money than you. What a great guy you are.