Alcohol and Drug Testing in the Workplace.

[Julie]

Surely We are moving away from the point. its not whether or not people want to take drugs or drink alcohol in there private lives. Or wether or not we think people should be under the influence at work i think were all agreed this is unacceptable and few would view it otherwise. The issue for me is summed up by what destroyingangel says and this is what worries me the most,

(if you really feel the need... hey, it's what the weekend was created for... do it then).

As destroyingangel has said thats what the weekend is for, dong what you want in your private life. But random testing would take away the freedom of some people to do this, such as those who enjoyed a joint at the weekend. If it is true that weed stays in the system for a number of weeks, not only may you be threatened with your job but you are opening yourself up for comment on your private live. This also stands for prescription drugs. What about drugs such as anti-depressents, would these be found in the tests??? I think many would find this an invasion of privacy or as said before potentially lead to losing their job. So i dont think you can cast aside this subject so easily and tell people to do what they want in there private lives as the random testing may still have an impact upon you even if you are not under the influence at work.

I clearly would not want anyone under the influence on site with me. but from what ive read random drugs tests are NOT going to help tackle it in any constructive way, only make people uncomfortable and reveal things about there private live they would rather not, whether you had a joint 1.5 weeks ago or are on anti-depressants, impotance drugs or accidently took too much codiene which brought your personal life under the spotlight. the fact that these drugs tests may be carried out by a 3rd party and as some have suggested may be circulated amongst other associates is very alarming.

i hope ive understood everything ive read so far :I. Not having done my own reading into this my opinions are based on what i have read here and i realised they may not all be factually accurate!!

[brazier]

I think it's already been said that drug tests identify the compounds that are created by the chemical reactions to the drugs used, whether prescribed or not. In that case, I hope there are no false positives, but it wouldn't be impossible for there not to be. Another reason to worry, perhaps more of concern to those on medication, rather than those who are pursuing leisure interests.

Sith - Yes, 'elf and safety is not a plot to make money, granted. We all know of the dangers, too, and hopefully have been told of the occasions where things went sadly wrong. And - quite, the rules are clear and should be common sense ones. They usually are, but christ there are times when you actually are following rules which make it more dangerous to work than less so - sorry to harp on again, but the permanent wearing of safety goggles demanded on some sites is beyond reason. There are times and places to wear them, and that's worked out by common sense observation and sense, not by some mindless diktat. I could go on and mention other instances of daftness, but it's been said before, and there's very little that can be done about it. Sometimes I entertain the bizarre thought that these days there are a generation of people who are quite happy to follow rules without actually understanding what they're for, and where they might be improved, just as long as they can give orders - but as I said it's a bizarre thought.

[destroyingangel]

My lawyer mate has just told me that "... forcing someone to take a drugs test can be considered assault!". Thankfully, I'm no longer in the position to have to try that one... but it would have been a laugh in the past.

"... if faced with random testing, make sure that it is random. That they are not singling out anyone or a group of people in particular (for example targetiing younger staff can be seen as age discrimmination). Make sure that the top management also get a test." If in house (i.e. within an archaeological organisation), I wonder how many upper tier staff would get through the test unscathed :0
Furthermore, it depends on the circumstances... there are some places where you can take stuff and might just get away with it (troweling a spoil-tip... the best place for the heavily hungover) and others where you just won't (in charge of a 360 digger while on coke... yep, I've seen that one). If you put yourself at risk, thats bad... but to put others (and dare I say the archaeology) at risk is criminal.

As for there being a 'blacklist' of the positively tested being passed around... there are some serious Data Protection Issues regarding that (ie a test result is private medical information).

I'm no puritan regarding alcohol or even drugs (did a fair bit of both... way in the past mind). Now its just beer and spirits... but in my own time.

Julie... I'm sorry if I worried you!

[Geli]

I think the point has started to drift as Julie says. No one is saying Health and safety isn't important, and agreed we don't want idiots running around sites off their heads! It's not safe for them or anyone else and as has been noted does us no good service as a profession. However, all indications are that random testing is not effective (see above information on how different drugs are metabolised ). The only people seemingly who would test positive would be cannabis smokers as the drug stays in the system longer than more potent and harmful drugs. This would be targeting and marginalizing a small group within the work force which are probably not the biggest threat to safety. Independent inquiries indicate that alcohol is probably the biggest threat to safety in the workplace. Unfortunately testing for alcohol i.e the breathalyzer test is set only at the drink drive limit so would not give any indication of the impairment a banging hangover could cause, such as tiredness and thus lack of concentration (we will most of us have suffered at one time or another so you know what I mean?). So again testing will not have any real value! It strikes me that the reason why firms adopt this even though they are not legally obliged to do so is because it makes it look like they are doing something. Also people can and possibly will test positive for prescribed drugs. On the job i'm working an alternative of medication for people to take has been suggested, but presumably the doctor who prescribes a drug for an individual knew what they were doing in the first instance. As what goes on between a patient and their doctor is confidential why should an employer be privy to that information if the said individual is not willing to disclose that voluntarily? obviously drugs in some circumstances may cause drowsiness, but again advice is already given in regard to the operation of machinery and driving etc in such circumstances! The surest way of avoiding accidents in the work place regarding Alcohol and drugs is surely to pursue an enlightened policy with regard to this rather than by threats, menace and intimidation. All other aspects of H&S on site are handle in such a manner via induction and tool box talks so why should this issue of safety be dealt with in a different manner?

[GnomeKing]

Julie, Brazier & Geli have all talked a lot of sense on this issue - i comend them.

Additional points about cannabis:

Rare vs Reapeted Consumers - because it resides in the fat cells, the detectable compounds are slow to build up as well as slow to leach. This means that a non-cannabis smoker (or very very rarely) who has smoked e.g. over a weekend before a random test, is extreemly unlikley to picked up.
Detectable traces occur through reapeated use eg a person who smokes 'some' cannabis on a weekly bassis. [ NB these traces are not active compounds - believeable experiements (what no refrence you scoundrel!) suggest that after 3/4 hours there is very little measurable physcological/physiological impact - and undetectable 24 hours after consumption (ie actual 'effects' not traces). ] -

Cannabis Long Term - very important for a serious consideration is getting past media and politically motivated partial information...however there is so much stuff out there that one must believe in what feels intuitively right AND is bourne out by informed experience.........IMO, cannabis can be considered on a par with alcohol, and, on balance, probaly presenting smaller and fewer risks (excepting cancers associated with ingestion via combustion and inhalation). There an be addiction and dependecey problems, some with severe socialy abnormal behavious - there are also degrees of nuerofunction alteration with very heavy, prolonged use ------ however this still remains on a par with alcohol and alcholosim, and again is arguabley overall less harmfull initself
> THC is not a particuarly toxic substance, whereas alcohol instigates major metabolic alteration and has a toxic effect (potentially) on every bodily organ.

Pyschological studies that have used population bassed studies, rather than target group case-studies, are quite clear in showing that
a) a very significant propration of the british population consumes cannabis occasionally or reguarlly with no significant consequences,
b)cannabis is no more causative of mental health problems than alcohol, when (subjectively) similar quanties are consumed by populations (also increases in numbers of cannabis consuming parts of populations is not directly associated with overall incedence of mental health problems in that population),
c)cannabis is far less addictive than alcohol, and even less when comapred with nicotine. The effects of dependencey/deprivation (physcological and metabolic) are generally far
less than with nicotine, and much less than the mental and bodily devastation that alcohol can cause.

The government was adivsied, bassed on these conclusions, to look again at downgradeing/decriminalising cannabis - several key government science advisors resigned last year over the fall out from this issue, precisely beacuse they felt that honest and objective facts had been willfully ignored, and respected colleagues treated awfully. That seems significant to me....

[It is also worth noting that the previous upgrading of cannabis from class C to B (again rejected at the time by science advisors) occurs around the same time as US style/imported drug tests become much more common in the british workplace (they have been common in some States for a long time) - as i understand it (and please correct me) the UK does not yet have specific policy and legislation on this issue, but has derived both the tests and the 'philosphey' from mega-industries bassed in the states....therfore cannabis can not be 'C class', since this does not mesh with the US approach....?]



It is not the only point i want to make, but TO PUT IT SIMPLY we need to ask:
-------- "are we happy to see skilled/trusted/safe colleages prevented from working, or even lossing thier jobs because they smoke cannabis in thier own time?" --------------------------------------

-- is that demonstrabley benificial?
- has that fullfilled an OHS objective?
- should we make special efforts to protect these colleagues?
- should we aspire to a system that is more cogniscant of 'real risk', rather than relying on current designations in the Misuse of Drugs Act, or attitudes imported from the US?


Julie is right to point out that some colleagues may be unjustifiabley (and badly) damaged by the current governments policy (or lack thereof), and by the testing mechanisms as currently stand.

Some may choose to see this disscusion as part of more nebulous (but potentialy real) liberty agendas - others may take this as part of (very) long running campaings to 'rehabilitate' cannbis in particular. And some may consider that, when honsetly aquainted with the available information, this is about the protection and welfare of colleagues who have consumed a very mild narcotic in thier personal/social lives, but otherwise have done nothing morally wrong and pose no risk...

[grindlecat]

c'mon.....lets get over ourselves....its not about health and safety and its not about whether drugs are ok or not [whats a 'drug' anyway...coffee. tea, sugar, dope, smak and so on...]...its about status and money....a digger driver gets between ?10 and ?20 an hour, depending on the company...even the toilet truck guy gets more than us...and arguably does a more 'socially useful' job....whilst OUR OWN 'upper echelons' treat us [and pay us ] like shxxx, then of course the engineers will treat us with contempt as well....they actually NEED digger drivers and such...nobody NEEDS an archaeologist, really, do they??
if we were on proper professional wages [after 3 to 5 years at college etc], we would get some respect...we are seen as worse than cowboys and treated accordingly....its bad enough working for these crap wages and conditions without having to be sober or 'straight' as well....you never hear of architects or designers getting drug tested or whatever [which is kind of on a par with where we SHOULD be] and i have worked with some companies where i know for a fact that the PO or boss is 'off his chump' on something or other.....
this 'moral' attitude in some of these posts is really irritating and patronising...as i say...get over yourselves....say no and fxxx 'em.....pay me a ?10 an hour and i'll straighten up a bit....alcohol is THE WORST on site...drunk colleagues are a menace to everybody, but if we were really needed, they would leave us alone anyway....
its about money and status.....thats all....Health and Safety is the Red Herring and we're all going to be further screwed....if you dont think im right....then wait and see how much your wages go up in the next 2 years.......we're more fxxxxx now than we were 5 years ago and it WILL get worse....
thats better...back to me old form.....

[Misty]

A relation of mine works for a major transport network - in IT - he gets about ?60,000 a year and has regular drugs tests. Effectively this means he can't drink for 24 hours before going to work (which normally leaves him Friday and Saturday only for socialising). One Christmas he could not drink anything as he was working on Boxing Day. He says it goes with the territory. I'm no longer in archaeology and am currently working in the "health sector". We had an email today reminding us that they operate an "instant dismissal" policy in the event of anyone having been found to be drunk/taken drugs during working hours. Oh! And I'm not allowed to have a mobile phone at work. I think it's a case of "render unto Caesar...." We're paid in exchange for our time and labour and are expected to turn up in a fit state.

[vulpes]

Misty - you seem to associate sociaiising with drinking - the 2 aren't exclusive. I'm guessing that your relative does leave the house other than to work between Monday-Friday :face-thinks:

Grindlecat - you straighten up and someone just might!!
Oh and for clarity - 'drug' in this context should probably be taken to refer to substances on the shedule of the misuse of drugs act - I think that rules out Tea and Coffee.

[grindlecat]

so...what we're saying is that as soon as we get our first job, our employers effectively have control over the whole of our lives...oh, thats ok then. for less then ?300 a week take home, and spending 40 hours actually doing work [making a profit for the company], they can dictate what we do in the rest of our time?? this attitude is appalling!
in other countries in Europe, where i've worked, it would be laughed at.
do we live , only to work...like worker ants and drone bees...belonging to our employers...and with this attitiude, whats next?
drug test students, because of course whats the point of letting people go to college if they are going to smoke dope and drink instead of LEARN stuff...and then, test school kids, of course, for their own safety...God Grief people...where is the spirit of freedom. dissent, liberty??
if we dont resist this nonsense we dont deserve freedom.
i dont live to work....i work to get money so i can enjoy my life [actually, not centred around drugs anyway, despite earlier postings..they were attempts at levity, ok...], but around surfing and trying to fiind my next job...as for the pay issue, i was on nearly 3 times the cash i get here, in Ireland, and the attitudes of employers much more relaxed about these things and the whole 'little minded work head types' were treated with the contempt they deserved...especially the english ones who just dont seem to 'get it', at all....Jaysus....i pity you!
and before somebody says 'well, go back to ireland then'...i damn well will as soon as the recession is over....[pause for hollow laughter...]

[grindlecat]

and Misty, if i was on ?60 K a year then i could afford the numerous drug test busting kits that are freely available on the internet...i have mates who use them and regularly get away with company drug tests, despite whatver they have been up to, at weekends in THEIR OWN TIME...the best ones cost about ?75 a pop...so you need to be earning well to afford them....see...its about money, again...if you can afford it, there a away around anything....