1st March 2010, 02:37 PM
From what I can gather from the responses this thread is generating the crux of the argument is that on the basis of health and safety and basically to prevent the prosecution of employers most people would be willing to compromise their civil liberties? This despite any real evidence to suggest that it either improves safety or productivity. It seems to me that large contractors are merely using Alcohol and Drug testing to exonerate themselves from any blame and brush over genuine shortcomings in the workplace, such as bad working conditions and excessive workloads.
I do really wonder if given an actual free choice (without fear of recrimination or persecution) in this how many people would willing submit to testing comprising of a urine sample, breathalyzer and mouth swab (and coming to a job near you soon compulsory regular blanket testing of your blood!)? And before any one says it we don't have a free choice to whether we are tested or not, because being told by contractors that you have to sign up to their voluntary testing or not be employed is a debasement to any freedom of choice.
I guess I'll be taking the moral high ground on this one Kevin.
I do really wonder if given an actual free choice (without fear of recrimination or persecution) in this how many people would willing submit to testing comprising of a urine sample, breathalyzer and mouth swab (and coming to a job near you soon compulsory regular blanket testing of your blood!)? And before any one says it we don't have a free choice to whether we are tested or not, because being told by contractors that you have to sign up to their voluntary testing or not be employed is a debasement to any freedom of choice.
I guess I'll be taking the moral high ground on this one Kevin.