Alcohol and Drug Testing in the Workplace.

[ken_whittaker]

Gelli

Perhaps we should reconsider restriction on smoking in coal mines, or are there cultural mores associated with other forms of drug that makes compromising safety acceptable? If so I'd be interested to hear more, otherwise will continue to accept that on the matter of drug and alcohol testing playing the 'health and safety card' is more rational than playing the civil liberties card.

[Geli]

From what I can gather from the responses this thread is generating the crux of the argument is that on the basis of health and safety and basically to prevent the prosecution of employers most people would be willing to compromise their civil liberties? This despite any real evidence to suggest that it either improves safety or productivity. It seems to me that large contractors are merely using Alcohol and Drug testing to exonerate themselves from any blame and brush over genuine shortcomings in the workplace, such as bad working conditions and excessive workloads.

I do really wonder if given an actual free choice (without fear of recrimination or persecution) in this how many people would willing submit to testing comprising of a urine sample, breathalyzer and mouth swab (and coming to a job near you soon compulsory regular blanket testing of your blood!)? And before any one says it we don't have a free choice to whether we are tested or not, because being told by contractors that you have to sign up to their voluntary testing or not be employed is a debasement to any freedom of choice.

I guess I'll be taking the moral high ground on this one Kevin.

[ken_whittaker]

Geli

basically to prevent the prosecution of employers most people would be willing to compromise their civil liberties?

This is a slightly perverse perspective on the issue, as my motive is simply to avoid harm that could arise as a result of impeded capability due to intoxication. But if the issue was employer culpability, I would have thought the operation of an effective zero tolerance policy restricts that line of defence in the event of an accident, ie a record of testing protects both employer and employee. A prosecution could then focus more firmly on attributes related to percieved shortcomings in the workplace.

[Geli]

As I thought I'd already outlined there's no basis to suggest that random or any other testing positively contributes to safety or productivity at work, whereas improved management and safety and awareness does!

It's not an issue not wanting to be safe at work it's a matter of whether it is necessary to go down the road of testing. As this has negative implications in respect to personal privacy and as I have already said there is no clear indication that testing is of any noticeable value, why compromise your civil liberties. Its pretty much like saying CCTV stops crime. In reality it doesn't it just records it. In the same manner employers conceded in the Rowntree inquiry that testing does nothing to deter drug or alcohol use - probably because there isn't a wide scale problem. It seems to me that much of this is employers passing the buck on health and safety.

Hypothetically if screening for Alcohol and drugs was 100% successful and all those nasty alkies and druggies were either cured and turned into decent upstanding people or marginalised on benefits in some sink estate in a inner city area and removed from the workforce; do you think there still may be accidents at work? Perhaps IQ tests could be introduced to prove you are mentally competent to work?

[Geli]

In answer to your query Red Earth drink driving or driving under the influence of drugs is a offence under the law. There are no legal requirements for submitting or carrying out such tests at work! Hope that clarifies my position.

[Windbag]

Whether you're in favour of drug testing (I'm not) or not is largely irrelevant to us as individual archaeologists. I'm more interested in the implications for how we do our jobs and organise our careers. I'd be in favour of supporting a broad-based (non-archaeological) campaign against drug and alcohol-testing at work.

[Geli]

Your point is well taken Windbag. I can see that matters relating to career development (the certain lack of one at present) as well as pay and conditions may seem more pressing. Indeed drug and alcohol tests effect many different occupations and trades so a broader based campaign would be appropriate, but they should still be of concern to us as they directly impact on our working life and environment.

A separate thread is currently looking at and promoting the unionisation of archaeology. It is a point of interest that many unions have reservations about random drug and alcohol testing. We should I believe all be searching for ways for bettering our work environment and should be willing to stand up and be counted. Joining a union may be one way of combatting the imposition of these tests as well as addressing other issues perhaps more particular to archaeology?

[Tired]

I must say I find it very surprising so many people are on here defending a practice of employers snooping into employees private lives. I wonder if in part its because the workforce who are most likely to be subjected to such invasive policies are the ones not able to post comments on bajr during the day - perhaps those defending the policies are those in office-based positions who are willing to sell field staff's liberites in exchange for a contract.

Nobody here is advocating the swinging of a mattock while pissed or high, but wanting a safe working environment doesnt mean you should automatically accept a situation where all staff are treated as suspected substance-abusers in the workplace, or a policy that basically hopes to stamp out certain behaviour through fear of getting caught rather than education on the risks and consequences of what can happen.

I'm sure we've all seen the graphic images of how a body can be torn asunder should a worker forget to wear their all-important plastic glasses or vis-vest, so why can't similar images be used to deter drinking or drug use at work? The police rarely perform random sobriety checks on drivers - they generally do it when there is a reason to suspect that specific driver of being under the influence.

When you get developers like Balfour Beatty insisting that every worker on a project submit to a urine test during induction, and the policy that anyone testing positive for any drug or alcohol is not only off that project, but blacklisted from all future Balfour projects, it seems less about safety and more about controlling the lives of workers, even when they're not at work.

[RedEarth]

In answer to your query Red Earth drink driving or driving under the influence of drugs is a offence under the law. There are no legal requirements for submitting or carrying such tests at work! Hope that clarifies my position.

Indeed, but killing someone accidentally whilst driving and not under the influence might not land you in prison (assumuing you weren't driving dangerously etc). Similarly, I would imagine that if someone died while at work as a result of your actions and you were found to be under the influence you might be looking at manslaughter rather than accidental death.

I'd agree that random testing might have its limitations - what are the criteria for someone being removed from a site? Do they have to be over a certain limit etc? but what do you otherwise do, wait till someone gets killed?

Tired - as for snooping into people's private lives, if you turned up late on site because you'd been partying all night and were hungover and were fired for your tardiness would that not in some way be an infrigement of your civil liberties?

As for people in the office commenting on these issues rather than the ones most likely to be affected, I'm off my face right now!!! Lucky me!!!

[Geli]

You are perfectly right in what you say Redearth that should someone cause serious injury or death due to them being under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance then they would be rightfully charged with a criminal offence such as manslaughter. However, to reiterate a earlier point employers have already admitted that random tests do not act as a deterrent. I think if someone does arrive in an unfit state to work then it is beholden of the supervisor etc to send that person home. Obviously repeat offences may be looked upon dimly, but as most health and safety policies outline that a process of help and support should be offered to individuals who have a drink or drug problems there is no immediate need for severe disciplinary action such as the sack. Education and careful management of these matters seem a more positive and enlightened recourse and one which the Rowntree inquiry found ultimately more favourable than the invasive testing.

Another factor as you say is what is the cut off point. Well from what I know the drink limit is the same as the drink driving limit (regardless if your job involves driving or not) so potentially anything over 2 pints the night before could put you over the limit (people do metabolise alcohol at different rates). The drug criteria is somewhat different with employers taking different stances on the matter. Some have a zero tolerance policy others won't punish the employee "who had a spliff while in Goa on his holidays". The latter although not disqualifying the individual from the current project/job, may leave the same open to discrimination in future (i.e. they may not be employed again).

Many other substances can also apparently produce false positives so in many cases you will have to tell employers in advance if you are prescribed any restricted drugs for medical conditions (these are generally opiate based drugs used for pain relief). In certain cases your employer may insist that you start using alternative medication. However, over the counter drugs can also produce false positives. Amongst these Ibuprofen may test as cannabis and cold remedies such as Night Nurse may show up as cocaine. You can argue for a retest on the basis of this if you do test positive.

I again encourage people to look at the links I published above. I've made my decision as to where I stand on this issue and if you feel differently then that's your choice, but I do feel that people should perhaps explore the whole issue. This is about a bit more than health and safety issues. The imposition of these test will not eliminate accidents at work, but it will be a further erosion of your civil liberties. Once this is fully accepted and implemented you can bet your employer will introduce new test and initiatives that will direct and control you life outside of work.