21st January 2014, 02:30 PM
Mike.T. Wrote:But if someone indulged in something illicit days before the D + A test then they're not actually under any influence by the time of it but could still fail. That's the point.
I don't take anything illegal myself but I believe that what people do in their own time outside work is entirely their own business.
Nail on the head Mike. Hence testing positive (depending on the type of test) does not automatically equate to 'under the influence'.
I absolutely agree that anyone on site taking drugs or having alcohol should be sent home until they are fit for work. Equally anyone still steaming from the night before shouldn't be allowed to work as they are under the influence and probably not safe to work.
However, someone who took something two or three days ago, or even a week or so ago should not.....and employers have no right to pry into whether they did so.
This is not a safety issue. Current evidence points towards short-term effects on safety for narcotics/alcohol....
http://www.talktofrank.com/drug/cocaine
http://www.talktofrank.com/drug/cannabis
http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/resea...cocain.htm
http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/resea...nnabis.htm
Unless your talking about addiction.........then its a different kettle of fish.
But I feel you can't sack someone for being an alcoholic..........they need steering towards professional help.
Equally, to bring the discussion back to safety, tiredness has been comprehensively proved to caused accidents. Why don't construction companies screen their workforce for tiredness? It should be fairly easy to monitor workers evening/ night-time activities to weed out those who regularly don't get enough sleep and sack them accordingly. Seems fair enough to me using the arguments presented.
It is after all illegal to carry out a task if you think you are not safe to do so. Getting enough sleep is a choice so it can be monitored. Sacking people who are tired will improve safety.