trowelfodder
Unregistered
Where does the bajr stand on blanket compulsory drugs testing on archaeological sites?
Does a company have the right to sack you if you refuse?
Surely if not under the influence on site your outside interests should be your own
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2006
trowelfodder,
I was under the impression that only the police could undertake compulsory drug testing (ie, you can't refuse). Never come across drugs problems on an archaeological site though.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
Blimey Gilraen where have you been digging. I would say that I have been digging proffessionally for 10 years and most of the big sites I have worked on there has been someone puffing away on a joint or has got a serious alcohol or drugs problem. Lets be honest here most big sites see the smoking of canabis as the norm for archaeologists. Its the drug of choice and is smoked by feild staff, PM`s PO`s included, before, after and during work. I have seen many archaeologists with terrible canabis problems.
Whilst working for a county unit in Norfolk BP insisted (quite rightly) that all those working with or close to machinery had to take a drugs and alchol test. The directors of the company had to admit that they would fail themselves and so everyone on site was asked if they smoked canabis and if not off to the watching brief you went.
In Ireland the site of Blue smoke coming from site vans, pits and trenches was as common place as it is here. Hands on hearts here guys how many would be arrested on site if the cops did a raid.
I reckon as much as 50% if not higher of archaeologists smoke weed on a regular basis. And dont give me that "non additive better than smoking or alchol shpeel"
Keep drugs off site anyone caught with puff on site should be sacked on the spot.
It makes people lazy, unmotivated, psycotic in the end and a damn right danger to those on site.
Close enough for a country job!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
Blanket compulsory drugs testing on archaeological sites is usually only at the insistence of the client where archaeology is one component of a much bigger scheme.
If a unit deploys a team to a site where compulsory testing is undertaken and someone refuses to take the test, then the unit would probably be within their rights to dismiss the individual as they have rendered themselves unemployable.
I would be surprised if most of the major units did not have a clearly defined Drugs and Alcohol Policy stating that anyone found to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol at work, or failing or refusing a drugs test where required, leaves themself open to disciplinary proceedings. How often and how rigorously the policy is applied is a different matter.
Beamo
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2005
Jeez quite strong feelings there!!
I do agree with you that there is no place for drugs in a working environment but am talking about use outside of work
How much is it acceptable for a job to control our social life
Legalities aside drug use is down to a personal choice and if it does not affect our ability in work should the remnants left in our system be held against us?
Tests can detect drugs weeks after consumption:face-huh:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
I think canabis is different matter. The user generally has a dependance on the drug. This dependance will extend to the work place. The work place should have no place for a dependant drug taker and that includes booze. We are all employed in a dangerous environment i.e the site. Any chemical that would have the effect on a persons judgement is inherantly unsafe within this environment. I think it would be a good idea to test archaeologists employed within this environment on a regular basis for drugs. Once that is established the environment will be a lot safer for us all. JAR FAR RASTAFARI BABALON AN TING!
Close enough for a country job!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
Quote:quote:I think canabis is different matter. The user generally has a dependance on the drug.
Its an ilegal drug...
Well this doesn't show archeology in such a good light does it???
I would have thought that ALL archaeologists would stand up and wipe this out of their midst. Were do you draw the line into what drug is able to be used? Does it take someone with a JCB high on Pot to kill someone. I'm sure Bajr supports the right to be drug tested in such cases???
I know this may sound harsh.... but please don't get the moral high ground with me regarding heritage and then the next minute your lighting up a spliff.
Gary
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording
OUR heritage for future generations.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
I can't say I recognise 'trowelheads' assessment of the situation at all. I can only recall three instances of canabis use on site and all were in the nineties. It certainly isn't something you'd get away with on an urban site, or in other high risk areas (railways etc.). A colleague tells me that the H&S people have stopped him from wearing shorts at a quarry site. I doubt they'd turn a blind eye to someone under the influence of anything. However, I imagine that the opportunity would be greater on big sprawling rural sites, and there are a few tales of high times in the good old, bad old days.
I am reasonably sure that companies do not have the right to sack you if you are inelligable to work on any given project. After all, they have other projects, or can give people office work. On the other hand they wouldn't like it very much.
As a general point, I take the liberal view that it is none of your employer's business what you all get up to outside work, even if it is illegal. Compulsory testing is just another symptom of the surveillance society that is developing.
Turning up to work stoned is another matter, but people also roll in still drunk from a heavy night. It's the behaveour, not the drug that's the problem.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
Quote:quote:I do agree with you that there is no place for drugs in a working environment but am talking about use outside of work
How much is it acceptable for a job to control our social life
Legalities aside drug use is down to a personal choice and if it does not affect our ability in work should the remnants left in our system be held against us?
Tests can detect drugs weeks after consumption
But most of us hope to work 5 days most weeks. Anyone who is a regular recreational drug user is therefore unlikely to leave weeks between consumption and work; 0-2 days gap is much more likely, and there is therefore a good chance that they are still to some extent affected. They are therefore endangering themselves and others.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
If anyone needs a clean sample for testing, I am willing to provide them for a reasonable fee. I am clean of all drugs, including alcohol but excluding caffeine, so I can guarantee a safe sample.
Cheers,
Eggbasket
Gentleman Adventurer and Antique
"A stitch in time saves precious bodily fluids."
