• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

Bosses want Drug Tests

M

mayday

Bluelighter
Joined
May 29, 2002
Messages
285
from http://news.ninemsn.com.au/National/story_43043.asp
Bosses want compulsory drug tests
Most Australian employers favoured compulsory drug and alcohol testing at work, a survey has found.
The Health Works survey found 66 per cent of employers were in favour of drug testing and 68 per cent were in favour of alcohol testing.
About half of those surveyed thought the testing should be random and 80 per cent believed drug and alcohol testing should be compulsory after a workplace accident.
Health Works, a health promotion organisation, surveyed more than 220 human resource and occupational health and safety professionals to test the attitude of employers about drug and alcohol testing.
But Health Works chief executive officer Ken Buckley said testing was not always the best way to deal with drug and alcohol problems in the workplace.
"Drug and alcohol abuse in the workplace endangers your life and that of your workmates," Mr Buckley said.
"And while testing by the employer is one way to address the issue, employees too play an important role in reducing the dangers."
Mr Buckley said employees, as well as bosses, had a responsibility to tackle drug and alcohol problems in the workplace.
He said workers should not cover for drug and alcohol-affected colleagues.
Dobbing them in could be the best way to help them, he said, as the threat of the sack could force them to deal with their problem.
Mr Buckley said people who take drugs and alcohol heavily were 10 times more likely to miss work.
When they are present they have a 33 per cent lower productivity when under the influence, he said.
"Drug and alcohol abuse has a domino effect in the workplace - low productivity and higher absenteeism from those under the influence results in an increased workload on others, leading to additional stress of co-workers and so it goes on," he said.
"Both the employee and employer have a role to play in reducing drug and alcohol abuse in the workplace but it all starts with education, not with testing."
©AAP 2002
I think testing at work is a good idea... If youre on drugs/pissed at work then you SHOULD be fired... But what you do on weekends is your own business, providing it does not affect your work performance, ie you look after kids and on Tuesday you tell all the parents where to go etc
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, well I happen to be a boss and I reckon that all workers should be tested.....so they're getting good stuff and they can share with me...
 
the prob here is that the people who are only enjoying their weekends may test positive to somthing and they could be really good workers but one weekend could get them fired. i agree that if your doing drugs at work you should be fired but if your not then you should be left alone to do your job.
 
Also you get the situation where if your boss doesn't like you then rather then sack you for no reason and risk a law suit they single you out and make you take drug tests every single day till you get so pissed off that you want to leave.
In Victoria it is impossible to order an alcohol or drug test on a union site because they scream harrasment. Which is a load of crap because half the time these guys turn up still pissed from the night before or rolling joints at lunch time.
 
Well that's it... MacDonalds is going to be severly understaffed when this comes through. I'd speculate they're all on drugs to put up with that shit workplace.
I'm not a particularly big fan of random drug testing at work. If an employee is obviously under the influence of something and not tending to his job effectively, then fine, the employer has every right to test and sack. But as mentioned earlier, the random tests will have the capacity to bust those that are able to enjoy drugs, enjoy work and keep the two seperate. Employee's aren't obliged to tell their boss about every facet of their non-work related life. First and foremost, job performance is the issue, if an employee is consistently not doing their allocated task the employer has ever right to sack them, whether the employee is on drugs or not. Drug tests do not lead to a particularly friendly, motivational or healthy workplace either. Employees become suspicious of their bosses, some may feel harrassed, patronised, offended or guilty. All in all, more time spent worried about peeing in a bottle, rather than productivity. Beyond that, i'd imagine the money lost on drug-fucked and alcoholic employee's would be relatively low in comparison to monies lost on false sick leave, misuse and exploitation of company resources and poor financial management. It looks like a waste of time which will jsut open up a can of worms.
I'm only doing a pee test when the boss' drug results are posted up in the mensroom!
 
I do not support random drug tests at work.
I do, however, support them for any event that requires an incident report to be filed. This does raise an ugly point that if someone had a big weekend, and a few days later cause an accident, and know they would be forced into a drug test chances are they will not report the event if they can get away with it. This leads to a whole wealth of problems.
--
MDMA-4-ALL (And a HR diploma for me soon ;) )
 
Originally posted by porn*:
Well that's it... MacDonalds is going to be severly understaffed when this comes through. I'd speculate they're all on drugs to put up with that shit workplace.!!!
!
Yes, as it seems they would be, would see the end of my employment at maccas if they did drug testing.
What should bosses care, and what would they if if one of their most respected workers who always worked well, was on time, and worked to a high standard tested positive to drugs ?
I beleive there are a plenty people like this in the workforce.
I strongly dislike this idea, its the biggest invasion of privacy ever.
-funk-
Click to expand...
 
Urine tests show metabolites after a few days of partying..
Why not oral fluid tests? Theres no way they would show up on a monsay unless you were still under the influence...
 
Drug testing in a work place is wrong.
I do not believe an employer has the right to conduct that sort of investigation into your personal life.
They claim in the report that drug use can lead to tardiness and low productivity. These are bad things, and certainly affect the business. So these are the things that should be tested for. Not for drugs.
If, for instance, an employee is unable to conduct themselves is a reasonable manner in keeping with the requirements of their position, then they should be fired for that - and not for the fact that they used drugs (or anything else) to get into that state.
However, I fully support drug education in the work place. If drugs can cause a "problem" then it makes sense for employees to be shown this and persuaded not to let it happen. But employers must realise that the "problem" is what they should be concerned about, not the drug use.
 
Drug testing in certain fields is not a bad thing. If your handling heavy equipment or responsible for peoples saftey its your boss's ass if you break something or someone and found to be under the influence of drugs. Your boss does have the right to invade your privacy if he's responsible for your actions. It gets silly however when their testing call centre workers though but I feel drug testing in some instances should not be frowned apon.
It creates problems though when the drug tests don't differentiate between recreational drug use on the weekend which isn't interfering with work and showing you being under the influence of drugs while working. But when testing for drugs its always positive or negative and the when never comes into play. If you ever used drugs you are in the wrong in a lot of employers eyes.
[ 28 November 2002: Message edited by: Fry-d- ]
 
Well I was one of the porject managers on a union building site earlier this year. Often the shop steward (union rep) and his union buddies would go down to the pub at lunch for a few beers. If we tried to breathalize them then they would cry harasment and close down the site. Why, because they can, and because it means they can still get paid for not having to work, not that they did much work anyway.
And when they are smoking joints at work then this is way over the line. but because we never caught them we can do anything about it since we have no proof, and if we were to try catch them, again they would cry harrasment and close the site. We knew they were smoking joints because you can't hide a joint from a stoner such as myself.
So imagine your incharge of 70 men and a few turn up still pissed from the night before day after day. What do you do? You can't turn a blind eye because a) where does it end b) progress is hindered.
Remember at the end of the day drugs are illegal, regardless of if your use has any impact of your work or not. So if you choose to indulge in illegal substances on the weekend, then you have to weight up the risk of getting caught and losing your job. Nobody is telling you to take the drugs, and they're not being forced down your throat, even though at times we want them to be.
 
Hi highly agree with testing after a workplace accident however the jury is still out on general testing.
The method used though should be oral swabs.
 
I agree to drug testing for the workers. But testing alone is not what is required. There also needs to be a scientific tests done to determine what are safe levels in the workplace. Also and most importantly, the tests should be done by a legit 3rd party organisation. The employer has a right to know whether someone is unfit for work, but they don't need to know information down to the nth detail.
 
The only problem is when someone kid gets squashed by a lump of concrete how do you tell the parents that drug tests after the accident show that the crane operator was pissed and stoned at work. They will want to know why was he at work in the first place.
The problem is unions are fucking it up for everyone. We need to get back to common sense. If a supervisor sees someone who is unfit for work they should be reprimanded and sent home for the day. The worker should cop it on the chin and not use the union muscle to fuck thing up for the majority who have a brain.
 
"Alcohol & drug testing" - I love the way alcohol is seen as separate from other drugs simply due to it's legality.
If, for instance, an employee is unable to conduct themselves is a reasonable manner in keeping with the requirements of their position, then they should be fired for that - and not for the fact that they used drugs (or anything else) to get into that state. - nice work Mort. One very crucial point in the argument against this.
I think it's important we look at why bosses want drug testing. They don't want it simply to bust drug users - they just want to look after their business. They aren't gonna fire a productive worker who tests positive, are they? It can be very difficult to fire someone for low productivity/tardiness unless they're really a fuckin shocking worker. You have to discuss it with them & other people on your level, you have to warn them in writing and there's a lot of room for them to fight back legally, which could cost you money. They also have time to lift their game for a while... Then slack off again in the future.
If they test positive for drugs, you can kick 'em right on out the second they get tardy, instead of going through all the usual bullshit. Saves you time and money.
When used like that it could be compared to use of work email for personal matters/material. It's a sackable offence in some workplaces (especially sending around dorky flash animations, Mastercard advertisment rip offs, porn and tasteless sexist jokes) however everyone does it. In many cases, it's overlooked till an employer wants to be rid of an employee, at which point they bring it up.
Hardly fair and easily misused. :(
Fry-d- - good point about those in positions involving machinery or heavy equipment... Anyone in a position where they can effect the safety of others, workmates or the public, should be subject to drug testing. I think crane drivers, bus drivers and construction workers are good examples.
Your boss does have the right to invade your privacy if he's responsible for your actions. and that about says it...
Despite the way some of this might come across, I personally am strongly against drug testing. But I think it's important that people understand why employers want this ability.
:)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Most people here are against drug testing at work because they know they are doing "wrong" (in the eyes of the law OR their employer) and they will get caught..
Plain and simple...
 
I have a great many misgivings about drug testing in the workplace. While a few of the drugs that the majority of weekenders consume have a half life of 72 hours, there are a huge number that do not, meaning that one could test positive to marijuana, or opiates, having used them even a MONTH beforehand.
I believe that if you are under the influence of drugs (and yes, this does mean scattered too) at the workplace, you deserve to be fired, because you are not taking your job seriously, you are possibly endangering the reputation of your employer, and making the workplace less safe etc. In these circumstances I have no objection to drug testing. Its just that the potential for people who would test positive, but who are NOT UNDER THE INFLUENCE to be harmed. It would be a virtual wipeout of your career if you have a "fired due to positive drug test" on your resume.
If there is a drugtest that only finds a drug which is present in your system in an amount required to be psychoactive, then I would approve. However, given that to my knowledge there is not, and it is unlikely that such a one would be used anyway instead of a closer examination, drug testing in the workplace should not be allowed.
I'll leave you with a quote I got from erowid.org.
"If I instituted drug testing at Cypress, I would get a brick through my windshield, and I would deserve it."
--T.J. Rogers, President, Cypress Semiconductor
-plaz out-
 
If, for instance, an employee is unable to conduct themselves is a reasonable manner in keeping with the requirements of their position, then they should be fired for that - and not for the fact that they used drugs (or anything else) to get into that state.
I agree totally... sobriety testing should be what is implemented, not metabolite testing.
BigTrancer :)
Click to expand...
 
Unfortunatly I don't have time to read everyone's responses, so I apologise if someone has already said something similar to this:
Random drug tests assume that everyone is guilty, and requires people to prove that they are not guilty. This is just fucked as far as I'm concerned. Not to mention the number of drug tests that have returned false positives, which has ruined plenty of people's careers unfairly. I do not support random drug tests in the workplace.
 
Sillip......WELL DONE SON. You are soooo right.
Good to see someone else understands OH&S and Union sites.
Good Good Good
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top