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.
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.