Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2009
hey stripey...your concern for my well being touches my jaded old heart....:-)
there are 3 points i want to make...
1. codiene...its a tricky one for companies and drug testing companies...here's why...its Science, kids, so pay attention:
dihydrocodiene [the from used in SOME brands-Paramol and some Solpadiene] metabolizez to diamorphine in the human body, which is essentially, more or less, what street heroin is [barring the impurities etc in that product...]....this means that a positive test for 'codiene' can be read as a positive for heroin....as far as i know , there has NEVER been a succesful case brought against an employee for this positive result, because of this ambiguity...
2. it is freely available, without prescription, so again, its tricky for an employer to make a case against you for this....they may well be mis-informed by testing companies about a result...some companies are aware of this ambiguity, others are not...
3.its not about Health and Safety...iits about insurance...companies with 'vigorous' drug testing policies will pay a lower premium than those seen to be more relaxed.
there is an issue with machinery and driving, but as most of us dont operate machinery at work, its largely irrelevant...with driving, unless you're being paid by the company to drive people, then its up to the person driving and anybody getting a lift with them....that passenger may have a case against a driver who crashes and injures them, if that is caused by substances....thats a private matter though, as such.
lastly....its the paracetamol in the pills that does the most damage [liver function], so the ones with ibuprofen are 'safer', as it were. if you do use drugs, you really really should get the Release info [excellent site, with info on your rights with regard to the police and the law]....
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2009
and kevin...you appear to have forgotton to acknowledge my apology...manners cost nothing, as my dear white haired old granny would have said....
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2006
It appears quite obvious that some people seem reluctant to look at the problem of random testing beyond their personal disapproval of illicit drug use. As the point of this thread was to canvass opinion on the subject amongst archaeologists these opinions have been noted and stand as part of the debate. Personally I'm not a drug induced zombie as appears to be the underlying accusation against anyone who does not approve of these tests, which also coincidentally test for alcohol so I should also point out that I'm not an alcoholic.
I remember similar attitudes in abundance when the Criminal Justice Bill was first proposed (now the Criminal Justice Act). People simply had the blinkered view that it was basically to combat illegal raves and prevent dirty Hippies from partying in muddy fields. As has been seen with with the criminal justice act, it is in fact a law that can now be employed beyond these parameters and has been employed in the policing of democratic protests. In much the same manner these test will be used to gather information about individuals which is in no way relevant to their working life and leading to unfair discrimination of certain individuals. Beyond this, the acceptance of these test will undoubtedly lead to even more rigorous testing of staff and other as yet unknown incursions into the private lives of employees.
Companies do not have a law enforcement role within society nor legal requirement to carry out testing. Under the 1974 Health and safety act at work employers are only obliged not to allow the consumption of alcohol or drugs within the workplace or allow them to be intoxicated. As independent inquiries have indicated, and employers have admitted that testing does not act as a deterrent there is little point in pursuing this approach, unless employers are wanting to discriminate against certain groups of people? Despite being told that all information will be destroyed resulting from these test, which also can disclose what prescribed medication an individual is taking, we have to remember that we are dealing with the same companies who have all been recently exposed for holding illegal databases on known union activists!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2009
How about a new tv show? Celebrities get to work on construction sites and get tested and get out of there. Stella Street meets Big Brother? Yes, I'd like to know what happens to all those files, rather worrying the number that get lost on late night trains after a few too many earlier on...., maybe you're right that it's the thin end of the wedge but since it's not exactly state controlled then companies messing about with blacklists can be brought to book. If it was wholly state controlled think how much tougher that would be.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2006
2nd March 2010, 11:26 PM
(This post was last modified: 2nd March 2010, 11:29 PM by Geli.)
I think this issue effects everyone Mr Drudge. And I am not the person who has made this issue about drugs. Please feel free to bury your head in the aforementioned bucket of sand.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2009
er....has everybody calmed down a bit now? its usually me that goes off on one on this site...makes a change its not me, for once. now, if you'll excuse me, i have to find a vien.... }
Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
Could we stopp the personal prodding...
I think it is to be discussed... however... imagine you were sitting at a table in a pub (in you own time of course, and having a single pint/orange juice)
you are looking into the face of the others... remember this is an internet forum, and it can be easy to lose the nuance.
I think the simple answer is
a) personal responsibility
b) company policy.
c) reasonable is reasonable
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2009
and
d) dont get caught
e)know your rights
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2010
BAJR Wrote:I think this is indeed the nub of it... The company should have a drugs policy
its not hard.... here is a template
http://stepchangeinsafety.net/ResourceFi...cument.doc
So if you are a company and you don't have one... jsut download and find and replace.
If you are subject to testing, then ask the company for a copy of their policy...
But the issue for me is that the company may well have such a drugs and alcohol policy in place, but in the case of the template policy here the kind of testing carried out on site is not covered by it . . . it is not random testing carried out by an archaeological unit of all its staff, but is usually done by the main contractor running the site. The template doesn't include an agreement to be tested by a third party. Does anyone know of an archaeological unit that has carried out its own random testing of staff (no names of course)?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Stripey has a point and having read some more of the comments I can see both sides of the problem. What I would ask, on a similar note to Stripey, is if a company did have a policy on this would it actually allow them to opt out of the random testing without problem given that the main contractor is likely to be running the show and we are generally considered quite insignificant in the grand scheme of things. After all, all units will have some form of health and safety policy, but it doesn't mean you can opt out of having a CSCS card. Are they different in some way? I consider them a complete scam - a total waste of money, of no benefit in imrproving the safety of archaeologists (questions on scaffolding and fuel bunds!?), and someone is making a fortune off the back of it running the tests. Sounds a bit like the random drug/alcohol testing, only a CSCS test is a lot easier to pass by the sound of it...
