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


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: Tronica

NEWS: Fair Work Australia consents to forced drug tests for building workers

poledriver

Bluelighter
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
11,543
NEWS: Fair Work Australia consents to forced drug tests for building workers

BUILDING workers will be able to be forced to take drug and alcohol tests following a Fair Work Australia decision that has been described as a "giant leap forward" for the industry.
The full bench decision follows significant tensions in the construction industry over drug and alcohol-affected workers on job sites, with employers arguing they pose a significant safety risk.
Master Builders Association of Victoria executive director Brian Welch said the ruling was a "landmark" decision.

"People who don't say anything about their (drug and alcohol) problem to their union or their employer put their colleagues at risk. We're not moving paper clips here, we're moving heavy machinery and cranes. This is a giant leap forward for the building industry," he said.

Mr Welch said he had been made aware of concerns of drug use in the building industry.
"I have heard it alleged that speed is the drug of choice on building sites because it is the least detectable," he said.
The Fair Work Australia decision in favour of Wagstaff Piling Pty Ltd and Thiess Pty Ltd came after a worker on a project to widen the road between the Tullamarine Freeway and Sydney Road refused to take a drug and alcohol test, despite the practice being in place for more than a year.

The decision found that the agreement between Wagstaff and the CFMEU did not prohibit compulsory drug and alcohol tests.
"The risks to employee safety posed by drug and alcohol use have long been recognised by this tribunal and compulsory drug and alcohol testing is, of itself, not so extraordinary that it could not be argued to be a reasonable employer instruction," the decision stated.

The CFMEU did not return calls this morning but has previously said it was concerned about drug and alcohol testing because it was against the workplace agreement on the freeway widening project.​

here
 
what I would like to know is what % of accidents are a direct cause of drugs, Id like to bet its pretty low, same as the mining industry. This is just another nail in the coffin for freedom and civil liberties.
welcome to Australia the nanny state where everything you do is watched and taxed
 
a good right step in a good direction, i have a few mates who are tradies and the shit they have gone to work on surprises me and shocks me at how dangerous their workplace is and what accident could occur.
 
So what this now says is if you take drugs you cant work, because everyone tests you now. Might have to have a career change and sit on my arse snorting coke with the rest of upper class society who laughs at the shit they help impose on us. If i smoke weed when i get home that is my choice. It shouldn't be robbed from me like this. Maybe we should have a mass suicide on the steps of parliament. Maybe then they will get it.
 
I dont work as a builder but this is bullshit, its like when they say most car accidents involved some form of drug but they dont realize that a very large population uses drugs and it mite of been in their systems but not under the influence and they still would blame it on the drugs.
 
Fucking hell, blue collar tweekers have been the back bone of the working class for decades.

I've had some hairy incidents at metal workshops here and over seas when people have been pissed or tripping while driving forklifts or cranes but I have rarely had any issues with stoners or tweekers (the group I believe will be worst effected by such laws).

Yet another step backwards for the nanny country...
 
Maybe the construction union will do what the mining one did a long time ago; force the one size fits all policy on the white collar side of the businesses as well.

I sit at a desk all day, but because my client (who's office I'm in) is a miner, I am subject to random invasion.of.what.you.did.weeks.ago urine tests.
 
The shit part is that they don't test for current intoxication, and can pick up drug use that's no longer affecting you in any way.

Turning up to work intoxicated is dangerous and stupid though, and if there was a way to test present intoxication I would fully support that. There's a time and place for drugs, and the building site is not it. Drugs like meth can make you more focused, but they can also impair you greatly - and what's more impair your ability to judge whether you're impaired or not. Lord knows I've had jobs where I've never worked one shift straight, granted I've never worked in a job like building where then consequences are more severe, but I think my behaviour was idiotic and irresponsible too.
 
This is draconian bullshit, I don't fully disagree with testing for being smashed at the time but any and all drug use is as ridiculous or more so than the fucking roadside testing.

I have personally worked a trade and almost everybody was on drugs, particularly ice/meth. Considering most of the best workers I knew were on meth it is hard for me to think it really impairs ones ability to do construction work, maybe they would of worked better off the drugs? Hard to say... All I know is that they managed to be fucking guns on drugs, if you can be that good at your job on a drug then it probably isn't impairing you a huge deal. Obviously though you need to be consistent, and while some work better on meth others would probably not work so well, so it is probably fairer and safer on the whole to say people can't be on it at work.
 
I was talking to a guy the other day who is in the same situation for you; works in the office end of a mining corporation and gets tested. He tested positive for amphetamines because he had taken pseudoephedrine cold and flu tablets, of course when the blood work came back it showed that he hadn't indulged.

Maybe the construction union will do what the mining one did a long time ago; force the one size fits all policy on the white collar side of the businesses as well.

I sit at a desk all day, but because my client (who's office I'm in) is a miner, I am subject to random invasion.of.what.you.did.weeks.ago urine tests.
 
I'm in the building industry and they day I get asked to take a drug test is the day I leave.

What I do in my spare time, providing it doesn't affect my own or others safety, is my own business.

I imagine that this will only happen the the big sites, so it won't affect me but I feel for everyone else in the industry.
 
I can't wait 'til the government realises they have lost (at a guess) atleast 25% of workers from one industry. Who needs things built or maintained any way?
 
^ I suppose I do tend to know younger people and live in a somewhat low socio economic area but in my experience the % of tradies on illicit drugs is WAY higher than 25%. WAY WAY WAY higher. The first time I ever toked ice was with a co worker on the way to a job.
 
It's amazing the number of people who honestly 100% believe meth/cannabis/alcohol doesn't effect their driving negatively,at all, ever... similar for people who work in construction I guess - a lot of them think it makes them better :P IMO being under the influence while working in a situation where you can put other peoples safety at risk = big no no. Goes against everything I believe in. Do whatever the hell you want - just don't put other people in harms way. Not every stoned roofer is going to have problems, which creates the image of drugs while working/driving not being an issue until something bad does happen.

I'm pretty sure there's not an epidemic of drug related accidents at construction sites though?? Is the drug testing really necessary?

IMO mandatory across the board drug testing is rarely a good idea. Sports people/athletes, astronauts, military might be some exceptions :)

If you're continually dropping the ball at work and putting people in danger, I think in that situation a forced drug test might be ok. Needs to be a formal system surrounding it though, like x number of incident reports over x amount of time. The problem is it could be abused so easily, if your boss simply doesn't like you and knows you use drugs recreationally, they could get you in trouble even if you were a perfect worker. It's a tricky situation...with these kind of things I can see both sides of the argument and have trouble backing one side 100%.
 
^ I think cannabis affects a non smokers driving pretty badly, but honestly if anything a daily smoker is more paranoid and careful when they get behind the wheel lit. That said I don't condone stoned driving, because its not like you can say oh well everyone who is tolerant is exempt.

In regards to meth, well the fact they give that shit to fighter pilots to boost their performance pretty much speaks for itself... Obviously you can do too much or if you have been awake for a certain period of time it starts to change the dynamic but to me it really is a joke I can lose my licence 3 days after using something that the Government has given to people operating WAY more advanced machinery in order to boost their performance.

This is a harm reduction board and the fact is, if you take the gamble to find out how good you are at driving on drugs then you are an idiot, because it is highly risky and has the chance to turn out in disaster. It just annoys me that it seems people see drugged driving as worse than drink driving when in actuality most people I know could operate machinery under the influence of the drugs they test for as well or better than on the legal limit for alcohol.
 
^ I think cannabis affects a non smokers driving pretty badly, but honestly if anything a daily smoker is more paranoid and careful when they get behind the wheel lit. That said I don't condone stoned driving, because its not like you can say oh well everyone who is tolerant is exempt.

Not saying you're wrong...I have noticed regular users to be a bit more 'slow' and prone to mood swings, but I'd have to see some studies done and I don't think any detailed ones have been. Your guess would be as good as mine.

It just annoys me that it seems people see drugged driving as worse than drink driving when in actuality most people I know could operate machinery under the influence of the drugs they test for as well or better than on the legal limit for alcohol.

I bet you're right about that. Hrm, I wonder if more advanced drug testing will help in the future (legal limit for cannabis intoxication?)

.
 
Yeah I was using 25% as a much lower number, I think it would be more likely over 50% judging from my experience.

If I were to go 12-18 hours without weed, I would not be safe to drive.
 
Most companies (employers) will not introduce the tests because they know they would lose a bunch of their workforce. Having said that, I won't be surprised if the "do-gooders" eventually get their way and most places introduce mandatory testing.
 
The International Labour Organisation (ILO) estimates
that
• 20 - 25% of all occupational injuries are a result of
drug and alcohol abuse
• 62% of harmful drug and alcohol abusers are in full
time employment which means about 300,000
workers in Australia
• 3-15% of fatal injuries in the workplace are related to
drug and alcohol abuse
• Highest rates rates of alcohol abuse in the workplace
is amongst executive and administrative staff.

http://www.minerals.org.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/7479/HCater_Drugs_Presentation.pdf

It does say estimates though
 
Top