8th March 2010, 05:29 PM
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.
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.