laings had a randon drugs and alcohol test recently on a big job in manchester and i know 2 fellas who clocked off as they got there. fair enough it was well known on the job they were coming like any site meeting. i think anyone on site has gone in the worse for ware at least once wether drink or drugs, me included , do you think this will hinder the building industry or is it a good thing, and what would your legal position be if you had a spliff a few days earlier at the weekend?
drug testing on site
- Thread starter jbonding
- Start date
Sponsored Links
breathalized and **** tested at random, i know friends who worked for british steel who made the wheels for trains after one of their train drivers were caught smoking weed whilste driving a train anyone who was connected with the rail industry was randomly drug tested. i didnt think theyde do it on site or theyde be empty.
My company use this Random Testing for Alcohol and Drugs policy for the last 10 yrs!!kendor said:
The use of alcohol or drugs can impair workplace performance, with potential safety implications. It is therefore in all our interests to ensure that we are not exposed to increased risk from the actions of those whose performance is impaired by alcohol or drugs
If anyone refusal to supply a sample for testing or to agree to the sample being analysed will lead to dismissal from site, and in the case of an employee may lead to summary dismissal.
You must also agreed to the programmes of education and counselling will be provided to support these objectives otherwise you're sacked!
I'm on strong painkillers so I have to reported to our Occupational Health to discuss the use to ensure that my performance is not impaired.
Sponsored Links
B
Big_Spark
My employer could insist all they like, I'd simply tell myself to urinate off 
Seriosly, I have mixed feelings about it, it there is a genuine concern on a particular site, then the there should be the ability to do such a test, even if on an individual, however I am not in favour of randomly testing everyone, as the MCG would introduce it as a norm and then everyone would be tested all the time, a clear breach of everyones civil liberties and done simply to keep the HSE off the back of the hypocritical MCG members.
Seriosly, I have mixed feelings about it, it there is a genuine concern on a particular site, then the there should be the ability to do such a test, even if on an individual, however I am not in favour of randomly testing everyone, as the MCG would introduce it as a norm and then everyone would be tested all the time, a clear breach of everyones civil liberties and done simply to keep the HSE off the back of the hypocritical MCG members.
my employer has a no alchohol or drugs policy if using machinery understandably but i've not heard of compulsory drug tests at work before and wonder how it could be enforced as without legal precedence it could be seen as an infringement of your human rights, what can they do if you refuse, sack you?masona said:
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,281
- Reaction score
- 1,997
- Country
Kendor, why are you blathering about human rights? Have you ever read what human rights you have? Didn't think so. You just love the latest buzz words like 'Racism', Human rights' etc - yet you know nothing about either of them.
If an employer offers employment that is conditional on random testing then if you don't agree with it you don't apply for the job. Nothing at all to do with human rights.
How many more innocents must die because people like you want to waffle and wring their hands instead of acting on a problem? Join the real world for a few minutes.
joe
If an employer offers employment that is conditional on random testing then if you don't agree with it you don't apply for the job. Nothing at all to do with human rights.
How many more innocents must die because people like you want to waffle and wring their hands instead of acting on a problem? Join the real world for a few minutes.
joe
IIRC marijuana can be detected in your bloodstream up to 2 weeks after taking it, therefore if you had a spliff at the weekend it would still show up on Monday.
I can see the Health and Safety reasons behind it: if your actions can cause harm to others in the workplace then you should be clear-headed at work. What if you dropped a few tonnes on someone from a crane because you had the shakes? What if you had a foggy head and absent-mindedly switched on a wood-chipper whilst a colleague had his hand in it?
But then, surely it is only fair to test everyone? I work in an office and know people who have several pints at lunchtime. That isn't intrinsically dangerous to others, but it does affect their performance and thus the profitability of the company. Although, if they are using a laser pointer in a presentation they could accidentally shine it in someone's eye (that really can cause damage, by pointer is a Class III and has warnings about blink reflex etc. on it)
There was a demonstration of those machines that look at your eyes and figure out if you are intoxicated, where did they go?
EDIT: Employment is an exchange, a give-and-take. The employer gives you money and a decent working environment, in return you give them your time and effort. If your employer said "We will pay you slightly less for the work you do next Thursday", you would quite rightfully be miffed. Yet many people find it quite acceptable to show up and do less than their ability allows, because they decided to get pi**ed the night before and are now trying to rest their aching head instead of getting on with their work.
So to summarise, I think that where health and safety issues are likely (crane driver, sledge hammer swinger etc.) this is a VERY good idea. Where personal H&S is concerned (using a Stanley knife, hammering in nails) it is probably a good idea, if nothing else to reduce employee absence through injury. But where there are no H&S issues it should be up to the company to include this in the terms of employment.
I can see the Health and Safety reasons behind it: if your actions can cause harm to others in the workplace then you should be clear-headed at work. What if you dropped a few tonnes on someone from a crane because you had the shakes? What if you had a foggy head and absent-mindedly switched on a wood-chipper whilst a colleague had his hand in it?
But then, surely it is only fair to test everyone? I work in an office and know people who have several pints at lunchtime. That isn't intrinsically dangerous to others, but it does affect their performance and thus the profitability of the company. Although, if they are using a laser pointer in a presentation they could accidentally shine it in someone's eye
(that really can cause damage, by pointer is a Class III and has warnings about blink reflex etc. on it)There was a demonstration of those machines that look at your eyes and figure out if you are intoxicated, where did they go?
EDIT: Employment is an exchange, a give-and-take. The employer gives you money and a decent working environment, in return you give them your time and effort. If your employer said "We will pay you slightly less for the work you do next Thursday", you would quite rightfully be miffed. Yet many people find it quite acceptable to show up and do less than their ability allows, because they decided to get pi**ed the night before and are now trying to rest their aching head instead of getting on with their work.
So to summarise, I think that where health and safety issues are likely (crane driver, sledge hammer swinger etc.) this is a VERY good idea. Where personal H&S is concerned (using a Stanley knife, hammering in nails) it is probably a good idea, if nothing else to reduce employee absence through injury. But where there are no H&S issues it should be up to the company to include this in the terms of employment.
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2005
- Messages
- 6,345
- Reaction score
- 269
- Country
As an aside .. I was reading somewhere, companies may have to start charging employees for heating ... such that Gordo can then have half the take for his 'warlocker' ... And the company car parking tax is raising it's head again ..
Talk about ' 'Til the pips squeak' ... be no pips left at this rate.
Talk about ' 'Til the pips squeak' ... be no pips left at this rate.
When I was doing some work on contract for the railways, i was told before starting that not only was i not allowed to be the worse for drink on site, I was not allowed to go to a pub at lunchtime, or even straight from work.
It was explained to me that the public was not to know if I was an office worker, a signalman or a driver; or if I was drinking ginger ale or whisky, or if I had just finished a shift, or was about to start. i understand that uniformed rail staff are not allowed in a pub in their uniform.
Fair enough, if I hadn't liked it I could have got another job somewhere else. One rule for all OK. If the office workers were getting away with drink and drugs, their colleagues on machines would think it was unfair.
It was explained to me that the public was not to know if I was an office worker, a signalman or a driver; or if I was drinking ginger ale or whisky, or if I had just finished a shift, or was about to start. i understand that uniformed rail staff are not allowed in a pub in their uniform.
Fair enough, if I hadn't liked it I could have got another job somewhere else. One rule for all OK. If the office workers were getting away with drink and drugs, their colleagues on machines would think it was unfair.
B
Big_Spark
joe-90 said:
Are you on the dole Joe..cos you seem to be always on something so with this post I assume you don't apply for Jobs......
Sponsored Links
