There are many issues floating around in this discussion, many factoids, many myths.
Firstly if someone is too intoxicated, too tired, or too distracted by say family problems to work safely they should absolutely be sent home until they are safe to work - as per the spirit of HSE guidelines and not sacked on the spot, no right to appeal.
Secondly you can't lawfully sack someone for no good reason. For instance, you can't screen your workforce for left-handedness then sack them because left-handed people have more accidents (whether the evidence is true or not).
Thirdly, there is no evidence that testing positive on the tests used automatically makes you a safety risk. There are however many cases of people testing positive that were not an increased safety risk. The equipment does produce 'false positives' - no matter what the companies doing the tests say.
Think very carefully what this could mean if unchallenged...........(bear in mind neither of these cases are based on real events, only facts on the equipment/policies of some companies)
Case 1: someone (a sub-contractor) has a pub meal, a posh salad then straight after attends a safety induction. They have a sore throat so use a well-known throat spray. They are told they must do a drugs test or they can't work on site. They say fine (they are not a drug-user, never have been). The test comes back positive for low levels of cannabis and opiates and high levels of alcohol. They are questioned, they have no explanation, they are not on any medication and haven't had a drink and suggest the test was wrong. The test is sent off to the testing company who confirm low levels of opiates and cannabis and high levels of alcohol. The construction site has a zero tolerance policy on drug use so the person is excluded from site, no right to appeal because someone put poppy and hemp seeds on their salad and throat sprays produce overly high results for alcohol.
Case 2: someone (a sub-contractor) goes out to a club at the weekend. They leave their drink with a friend while they have a dance. The friend needs the loo, so leaves the drink unattended for a moment. The person returns to the drink, they are a bit drunk so don't think to check the drink - ah, it'll be fine. Later they start feeling a bit funny, fuzzy-headed but really happy. Their friend takes them home as they seem to be acting a bit weird. The next day the person feels fine so doesn't think anything of it. On monday they turn up for an induction and are told they must take a drugs test or be excluded from site. The person is a bit concerned as they drank heavily over the weekend, the site manager says they shouldn't worry, they'll be ok as they shouldn't be 'over the limit'. They take the test and are 'below the limit' for alcohol but test positive for ecstasy. The site has a zero tollerance on drug use so the person is excluded from site because they had a drink spiked.
Fourthly, breaking the law is breaking the law. It is not against the law to have cannabis, speed, cocaine etc etc etc in your system (see the cases above for why it is not against the law). It is against the law with respect to employing/not employing people, to discriminate. It is against the law to breach peoples Human rights.
The law is the law. If you break it (construction companies) you should pay the price.
Its not the testing per se I am against, its the way it is implemented and the resulting summary sacking. If the tests were being used to prove impairment it would be fine to exclude the worker from site and implement appropriate but fair disciplinary procedures. They are not.
There are a variety of testing equipment available, some will tell you if the person used drugs/alcohol that day, a few days before....up to several weeks (I think). Also the police have a simple set of observation-based criteria to tell is someone is considered to be 'under the influence' i.e. impaired, through drugs or alcohol. Why aren't these used? Why do the companies use the tests that can detect drug use weeks ago? How do they get out of their obligations for the employees rights??
Its all well and good to say in the old days safety was bad, people were drunk on site, people died, but now its safer.
However saying this is due to drugs testing is unsubstantiated twoddle.
The threat of testing does make most people think twice about drinking/using on site - but doesn't automatically equate to the leaps and bounds made in occupational safety.
I know the testing companies claim its all their doing, but they would say that as they are selling the testing. The actual evidence is otherwise according to the DrugScope survey.
The real reason that safety is working better than before (in construction companies) can be traced to the work of the HSE (who don't condone drugs screening) who have diligently re-educated a whole industry, prosecuted lots of companies and company CEO's (after the law changed) making it financially important to keep your workers safe.
Firstly if someone is too intoxicated, too tired, or too distracted by say family problems to work safely they should absolutely be sent home until they are safe to work - as per the spirit of HSE guidelines and not sacked on the spot, no right to appeal.
Secondly you can't lawfully sack someone for no good reason. For instance, you can't screen your workforce for left-handedness then sack them because left-handed people have more accidents (whether the evidence is true or not).
Thirdly, there is no evidence that testing positive on the tests used automatically makes you a safety risk. There are however many cases of people testing positive that were not an increased safety risk. The equipment does produce 'false positives' - no matter what the companies doing the tests say.
Think very carefully what this could mean if unchallenged...........(bear in mind neither of these cases are based on real events, only facts on the equipment/policies of some companies)
Case 1: someone (a sub-contractor) has a pub meal, a posh salad then straight after attends a safety induction. They have a sore throat so use a well-known throat spray. They are told they must do a drugs test or they can't work on site. They say fine (they are not a drug-user, never have been). The test comes back positive for low levels of cannabis and opiates and high levels of alcohol. They are questioned, they have no explanation, they are not on any medication and haven't had a drink and suggest the test was wrong. The test is sent off to the testing company who confirm low levels of opiates and cannabis and high levels of alcohol. The construction site has a zero tolerance policy on drug use so the person is excluded from site, no right to appeal because someone put poppy and hemp seeds on their salad and throat sprays produce overly high results for alcohol.
Case 2: someone (a sub-contractor) goes out to a club at the weekend. They leave their drink with a friend while they have a dance. The friend needs the loo, so leaves the drink unattended for a moment. The person returns to the drink, they are a bit drunk so don't think to check the drink - ah, it'll be fine. Later they start feeling a bit funny, fuzzy-headed but really happy. Their friend takes them home as they seem to be acting a bit weird. The next day the person feels fine so doesn't think anything of it. On monday they turn up for an induction and are told they must take a drugs test or be excluded from site. The person is a bit concerned as they drank heavily over the weekend, the site manager says they shouldn't worry, they'll be ok as they shouldn't be 'over the limit'. They take the test and are 'below the limit' for alcohol but test positive for ecstasy. The site has a zero tollerance on drug use so the person is excluded from site because they had a drink spiked.
Fourthly, breaking the law is breaking the law. It is not against the law to have cannabis, speed, cocaine etc etc etc in your system (see the cases above for why it is not against the law). It is against the law with respect to employing/not employing people, to discriminate. It is against the law to breach peoples Human rights.
The law is the law. If you break it (construction companies) you should pay the price.
Its not the testing per se I am against, its the way it is implemented and the resulting summary sacking. If the tests were being used to prove impairment it would be fine to exclude the worker from site and implement appropriate but fair disciplinary procedures. They are not.
There are a variety of testing equipment available, some will tell you if the person used drugs/alcohol that day, a few days before....up to several weeks (I think). Also the police have a simple set of observation-based criteria to tell is someone is considered to be 'under the influence' i.e. impaired, through drugs or alcohol. Why aren't these used? Why do the companies use the tests that can detect drug use weeks ago? How do they get out of their obligations for the employees rights??
Its all well and good to say in the old days safety was bad, people were drunk on site, people died, but now its safer.
However saying this is due to drugs testing is unsubstantiated twoddle.
The threat of testing does make most people think twice about drinking/using on site - but doesn't automatically equate to the leaps and bounds made in occupational safety.
I know the testing companies claim its all their doing, but they would say that as they are selling the testing. The actual evidence is otherwise according to the DrugScope survey.
The real reason that safety is working better than before (in construction companies) can be traced to the work of the HSE (who don't condone drugs screening) who have diligently re-educated a whole industry, prosecuted lots of companies and company CEO's (after the law changed) making it financially important to keep your workers safe.