What do you think about random drug & alcohol tests at work?

[streido]

I think if your job is one that requires you to work with heavy equipment, or to carry a license such as a bus or taxi driver, construction worker, etc .... then I think the random test is apt. Outside of that I don't think it's necessary.

pot or otherwise only because several members of my own family have had serious problems with them. I've seen first hand what they can do to a person, their loved ones, and their own careers.

Totally agree with what you say Wolf 100%. I also have/had 2 friends who became addicted to smack, one died thro drugs but one got help and quit, but only after being sent to prison. Even soft drugs for some cause problems, for many tho the odd joint or line of coke is socially acceptable, i dont do this now but i admit i have in the past experimented with drink and drugs in my late teens - early 20's. I think most kids do these days tbh, at least around here.

If its causing you problems in life then i believe this would show up in your appearance, manner and attitude and generally how you conduct yourself, at work and at home. For many tho they experiment then move on with life, get married, have kids and it is not an issue or problem in their lives. Seems wrong to punish some 19 yr old apprentice just cos he went out on Fri/Sat and took an Ecstacy or smoked a doob and has reminants of it in his system come Monday or Tuesday? Least it does to me. If he is a stoner or has real trouble with drink/drugs this will show in his work so then he can be dealt with in whatever way is best.

Im basically against it purely on principle alone. I do not like the feeling the company "own" me even when im not at work. If my work suffers because of drink or drugs i would fully expect to be sanctioned for it, if not then leave me alone. Whats next? Company approved haircuts? No employees may have bad thoughts about the company or speak out against wrong-doing? Implants to track your movements outwith work? The company must approve your friend?

Its a slippery slope.

[ts1]

It is a very big difference if your company never makes a secret about compulsory abstinence from the early beginning of application for the job (written in specification and contract), or if it is a sudden excuse after many years of employment to get rid of old employees or just outsourcing etc.
An uniteral and subsequently change in the terms of contract can be discussed at the labour court. The side wanting to change something has to prove the inevitableness.

[fshfindr]

I would not want a drug user to work for me.  They are the most undependable group.  They are also more apt. to have an accident than non-users.  Many, not all are dishonest and will take whatever they can get in order to get drugs.  Pre-screening is good for the hiring company.  I am not certain that it is fair to require employees to be screened unless there is good reason such as attendance problems or other reliability questions.  Employees found to be users should be offered counseling and be offered options assistance if they agree.  Usually, the counseling is not permanently effective but it should be attempted.
And yet, in my experience I have seen users and alcoholics who were good employees.

[blitzjb]

I think it is a great idea.  It may help prevent a workplace injury or death.  If you do not drink on the job or do drugs, there is nothing to worry about.

[skippy]

I think it is a great idea.  It may help prevent a workplace injury or death.  If you do not drink on the job or do drugs, there is nothing to worry about.

i do agree with streido... no one should be drink or drugs at work. but in your own time its your choice. years ago i went camping up stanton moor with friends for weakend. we drank/ smoked weed/took mushrooms. but we did this twice a year or so.just a bit of fun. dont take anything now. but i belive that its my choice to do that, in my own time. i know druge stay in your sistem for a while but would not take anything the day befor work.
 i have nothing to fear of drug tests now but do find it an invation of privicy....but if suspitions of being at work drunk or stoned, i think then a test should be done.

[streido]

I think it is a great idea.  It may help prevent a workplace injury or death.  If you do not drink on the job or do drugs, there is nothing to worry about.

Yup i agree Blitz, no one should ever be at work drunk or drugged. Like skippy said tho some drugs can be detected weeks or months after use even tho you are not under any influence at that time. So in effect you are punishing someone for something they may well have done weeks ago and outside of work 

If you looked in the local bars around my work at lunchtime you will find them pretty full with our workers having a pint and a snack for lunch then going back to work in the afternoon. Most are not drunk but they have had a beer, to me this is worse than someone who partied after work on a Fri night and tested positive come monday for some drug or other they may have taken Fri night?

Btw, we have had ZERO accidents or injuries related to drink or drugs in the 14 yrs ive been a safety rep there. This is the 3rd time ive workedfkr this company and i can say that things are WAY better now than 15-20 years ago. We used to find beer and spirit empties in the toilets and you could smell hash/grass most days also. We dont have ANY of this now, doesnt happen any more, hasnt been like that for at least 10yrs now and this is before any testing has come in, so i cant see the need for blanket testing at all. Test suspect folk by all means but do not accuse and treat straight non-drinkers as possible users/addict, to me thats just plain wrong and all trust goes out the window. It all then goes back to "them and us" mentallity.

[08087]

It's simple, really,... check your laws... and if it's illegal and violates one's right..., then that's it! No more this and that... I've been in Human Resources for 20 years and perfectly aware of our Labor Laws and other related laws... I formulated a Drug Policy years back but guided with the law.  I made sure my company policy is perfectly fair and legal...

In the US we have constitutional rights that protect us against unreasonable searcg and seizure, however the way around it is what is unreasonable? When dealing with thousnads of lives on a daily basis it is reasonable to ask you to show you are clean (at least that is what 51% or more of public opinion is).

[streido]

In the US we have constitutional rights that protect us against unreasonable searcg and seizure, however the way around it is what is unreasonable? When dealing with thousnads of lives on a daily basis it is reasonable to ask you to show you are clean (at least that is what 51% or more of public opinion is).

Maybe in the USA 080, over here this is a new thing for us. I know is a lot more common in the states but here we dont have this type of thing unless you drive a passenger vehicle of somekind or perhaps work in highly dangerous situations or enviroments, ie oil refineries, working with explosives, working on railways, ambulance drivers/firemen etc, the average joe in an average job has never been expected to put up with this type of thing here. Guess people are following the states and opening drug testing business's to cash in ona new market here 

[jprestonian]

Guess people are following the states and opening drug testing business's to cash in ona new market here 

Exactly right. If they gave a damn about impairment, that can be readily tested for. But no. Let's test for metabolites, which do not prove impairment, but political correctness, instead.
.

[streido]

Exactly right. If they gave a damn about impairment, that can be readily tested for. But no. Let's test for metabolites, which do not prove impairment, but political correctness, instead.
.

Yup, kinda like the war on terror etc, create a bogeyman, frighten people then rake in the money when you can also provide the "solution"

[CROSSBOLT]

Been subjected to what amounted to "threats" of random testing but never done. That is the MBA's way of dealing with the problem because they don't wanna shell out for the tests. I have done hiring tests all negative and did not have a problem with that. I HAVE worked with stoners and drunks and did not like it. They are too dangerous and unpredictable or dangerous BECAUSE they are unpredictable. Gripes to the management about such co-workers usually fell on deaf ears. It is insurance companies that are responsible for some of these "requirements". It is good to be retired so I so not have to put up with this phase of life!

Karl

[ScooterWolf]

It may come down to what's the law. If being in possession of a CDS -- Controlled Dangerous Substance, or an illegal drug is illegal, then does an employer want to have someone working for them who possess such an item, or has taken one? Is taking a drug for recreation use a privacy issue/perceived entitlement, or is it a right, one protected by a country's constitution or body of laws?

Like I mentioned before, taking a joint every so often may seem like no big deal, but if it was purchased illegally than it may support organized crime -- the true target of a law enforcement crack down. If they can't get the suppliers then the focus is switched to the demand by changing the culture of small drug use.

I guess it comes down to whether or not you can live without the occasional joint, or if it's worth the risk.

-Wolf

[streido]

I guess it comes down to whether or not you can live without the occasional joint, or if it's worth the risk. 

Yup, i CAN easily do that, no probs, i just dont like being treated as some kind of junkie who needs tested. Like i said, for me its a matter of principle really.

Agree that buying drugs encourages and profits criminality too, or it can. Most grass here is now homegrown since its much easier and cheaper to set up a small grow area in an attic etc than buy it. Lots of chinese gangs have moved in here this last decade or so and normally rent a house in a normal street to grow in. To all neighbours they seem quiet and no trouble but inside they have bypassed electric meters and filled the home with plants, thrown an immigrant in there to watch it then reap the profits. Most folk now avoid this type of grass and either grow their own or buy from a friend who grows, least thats what i used to do.

It is perfectly legal here to own all growing equipment, seeds and any and all paraphernalia, just not the drugs. Tho saying that a small personal amount of ANY drug will not get you charged by police, nor will a couple of plants. Police are more concerned with dealers.

Still to get back to the point, where do we draw the line? Do you sack a worker for being charged for fighting in the street?, charged with DUI?, charged with using abusive language? None of these matter right now here but could well do in the future if it carries on like this.

I just hope this type of thing does not become widespread in the UK. If you do something in your private life which does not harm or endanger anyone else then i say it is no business of your employer. Will jus have to see how things pan out over the coming weeks andmnths, testing begins on Monday. I really hope i get chosen in the 1st batch, i have lots i want to discuss with the testers and thoseover-seeing them.

[streido]

Btw after grass, the most abused drugs in the US are prescription drugs, normally obtained legally with a prescription from a doctor or clinic. Unless you count alcohol of course........

I would guess prescription drugs may actually be more abused than grass.

[ScooterWolf]

Many prescription drugs -- addictive painkillers, are sold illegal on street corners. It's one of the main things drug dealers and gangs push as oppose to people getting them from doctors. That was the case when I served on a grand jury in Camden, NJ for about 4 months. 90% of the cases were drug related.

I can understand how you're feeling. No one wants to be treated like a criminal. Hope they reconsider the policy.

-Wolf