In the newspaper this morning, it said that one in four companies are considering random drug testing at work!

I can see the point of this for drivers and operators of heavy machinery but office workers?

it didn't say what type of drugs they would be testing for and what action would be taken as a result.....


any thoughts?

I think random drug testing is an invasion of human rights, but if there is suspicion of drug abuse, which may not only endanger the user but also other people in the workplace, them perhaps there could be a place for it.
Quite a contentious issue methinks.

Surely it can affect your performance whatever you do - like alchohol? Most people already have a clause in their contract about being intoxicated at work.

'spose it also depends on the drug in question. I mean, tobacco is a drug and there must be more 'drugs' that could fall into this catagory.

I remember some years ago reading a comment by the management 'guru' Tom Peters about random drugs testing in the office - along the liens that a company makes all teh suual noises about trusting it's work force, respecting them, people are our best asset...oh, and by the way, can you take a whizz in to this bottle and give a lock of hair?

I'm quite 'hard line' on drugs but until we start testing for hangovers and such, provided the worker is delivering the goods and isn't stoned, high or incapacitated on the job whether or not they've take an E on Saturday night and smoked a joint along with the Sunday papers isn't the concern of a most company HR departments.

HOWEVER, I would say that certain jobs - air traffic control, pilot, emergency services, etc. should be etsted for alcohol, illeal and presecription drugs that are capable of affecting judgement and reactions on a regular basis.

Joe

what kind of tests?

blood?
urine?
hair?
tissue?

what drugs are to be tested for?

we have a lot to choose from.

3 espresso coffees contain enough caffeine to satisfy the cravings of a speed addict. So which drug should be tested for, caffeine or amphetamine? The effects are nearly identical so if you are going to test for one you should test for the other.

The biggest danger from drug testing (beyond a nebulous threat to human rights) is a false sense of security.

Entrusting the "fitness for duty evaluation" of our most vital workers to drug testing kits, rather than the experienced judgement and wisdom of the workers and their peers is a mistake.

These kits, made by 3rd party companies will never be perfect and you will always get false negatives.

So test certain jobs for certain drugs, but also bear in mind that drugs can assist you in your work as well as hamper you in it, it all depends on the drug in question (as always).

(mods - check thread title...)

As with all polls, the question you ask is vital!

"Yes, drugs at work are dangerous"... what has that got to do with it? My understanding is that drug testing picks up consumption of narcotics within x period - x depending on the drug. In most cases, I understand that this ranges between a few hours and a few months!

Yes, drug testing should be in place for safety critical roles... but anything else is none of your employer's business.

...we're going from nanny state to nanny employer here...

Its just another example of the steady erosion of all of our civil liberties. The plain truth is that we are manipulated and its called "marketing" were exploited and its called "buisness" were "brainwashed" and its called "cool". "Cool" is whatever "they" say it is. Even the presidencey of the united states has a price tag, old quaint ideas such as Liberty are being replaced by a bunch of populist mass market conformity measures designed to manipulate us into obediance, its not so much are you paranoid, its are you paranoid enough. Whatever Bull**it excuses they peddle us about "safety" at work, come on its just so obviousley a device and another Blairite anal retentive control measure!!. I dont know about you lot but democracey to me means Freedom, and when 85% of the worlds wealth is owned by 5% of the worlds population then whatever they do is designed to justify something which is ethicly abhorent. We dont need more laws we need more equity more power in more hands. Order is maintained by(heres a word you hav'nt heard for a while) Fairness!!.

I don't know what you are all worried about, unless of course you have something to hide.

It may give some indication to the drug problem in this country.

Originally posted by Tony
Surely it can affect your performance whatever you do - like alchohol? Most people already have a clause in their contract about being intoxicated at work.
Tony, they might have a clause in their contract, but they aren't 'breathalised' at work! (same as a random drugs test...):o

I've voted Yes. I don't see why people would be worried about it unless they were coming into work under the influence of illegal substances! It seems similar to the argument put forward against speed cameras... ie people want to break the law, but they don't want to get caught out!

I can only echo what has been said. Unless there is a problem, why try and fix it. If someone is under performing at work or is starting to cause problems, fair enough. why test what they've been doing in their free time? people's free time has nothing to do with their work. unless we accept that we have no free time; we are slaves to where we work.
as has already been mentioned, what do they want to test for? Caffeine, speed, co-codamol, heroin, etc...
All have their affects on us, but i'm sure a drug test wouldn't see it that way. Someone smashed on co-codamol would be seen as fine, where as, someone that smoked dope 2 weeks ago, would be seen as a liability.
God help us all!

Originally posted by Patchy
I've voted Yes. I don't see why people would be worried about it unless they were coming into work under the influence of illegal substances! It seems similar to the argument put forward against speed cameras... ie people want to break the law, but they don't want to get caught out!

Most drug tests reflect what people have been doing over the last few weeks. So if someone smoked a joint on a Friday night, it will show. This would obviously not cause any problems on a Monday morning. In the same way, having a few pints on a Friday, will not cause any problems on a Monday morning. The problem is that drug tests don't test for alcohol, caffeine etc.. which also cause problems, like any other drug. if there is a suspected problem with an employee, then look into it. DOn't start looking at everyone when there isn't a problem. We should be free to do what we want if it isn't causing problems at work.

Strangely enough this was debated last year. You may be interested in the results of the poll held then:

Drugs at work poll (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2100)

I think that drug/drink testing at work depends on the type of job you do i.e. I agree with drug testing, for the Police, Fire Service, Ambulance, or if you have to use heavy machinery, or a lorry driver etc. But other than that, random drug tests on anyone anytime, is an infringement of human rights.

I was reading in Bill Bryson's 'Notes from Big Country' that 91% of large companies in America have random drug testing. Some other large percentage of them require you to sign documents saying that you won't smoke, drink or take drugs. This means at all times, so even if you have one beer on your own time on a Saturday night, and the company finds out about it, you're out on your ear.

he even reported cases of spies being employed by companies to sniff out the illicit drinkers, and people who knew where to get weed.

Deeply scary stuff, when you think about it...

"It seems similar to the argument put forward against speed cameras... ie people want to break the law, but they don't want to get caught out!"

Not similar at all. With speed cameras most people DON'T actually want to break the law. The majority are fined for inadvertently going over the limit, and there's no one who drives who hasn't.
With drugs, you either take them or you don't - the choice is yours.

Originally posted by Tony
Surely it can affect your performance whatever you do - like alchohol? Most people already have a clause in their contract about being intoxicated at work.

Yes, I believe it is mandatary for bus drivers to be intoxicated at work. I think there is a clause in their contract which says they must drink at least 5 pints of beer before starting work.

Unless, (oh god no, it is just too horrible to contemplate) they are actually sober and that is how they are BEFORE they have a drink.

The other issue, tentatively raised earlier is:

What if a certain drug actually improves performance at work? What then?
The only way you could prove it without firing employees would be to enforce drug-testing, and then see overall performance drop over time.
And if it did, would the company rescind the policy or accept lower profits, feeling that to be on the moral high-ground was better?
That doesn't sound like any business I know.

And what about cigarettes? If a company has a no-smoking policy, that only means within the building, it doesn't mean employees MAY NOT smoke.
If smokers don't smoke regularly, their perfomance will suffer dramatically. The company hired a drug addict, and yet doesn't want to accept the small compromise required. Yet they arguably reap the benefit of employees self-stimulating at their own cost, and working faster as a result. I do.
I know I'm being picky, but I also buy my own coffee for work, as the company coffee is foul and appears not to contain any caffeine, which in my book is a contradiction in terms...:)

Originally posted by pwhole
The other issue, tentatively raised earlier is:

What if a certain drug actually improves performance at work? What then?
The only way you could prove it without firing employees would be to enforce drug-testing, and then see overall performance drop over time.
And if it did, would the company rescind the policy or accept lower profits, feeling that to be on the moral high-ground was better?
That doesn't sound like any business I know.

And what about cigarettes? If a company has a no-smoking policy, that only means within the building, it doesn't mean employees MAY NOT smoke.
If smokers don't smoke regularly, their perfomance will suffer dramatically. The company hired a drug addict, and yet doesn't want to accept the small compromise required. Yet they arguably reap the benefit of employees self-stimulating at their own cost, and working faster as a result. I do.
I know I'm being picky, but I also buy my own coffee for work, as the company coffee is foul and appears not to contain any caffeine, which in my book is a contradiction in terms...:)

Are you seriously suggesting that people be allowed to smoke at work as some sort of efficiency improvment? What about the non-smokers, do they just have to put up with it?

All I'm saying is that efficiency is degraded when smokers can't do it, as withdrawal will affect performance.
Non-smokers are not really the issue here. Put up with what? I'm not suggesting we re-introduce smoking at the workplace.
I'm quite happy to stand in the street and breathe in exhaust fumes already. Which would be called 'passive smoking', if you could SEE exhaust fumes...:)

Its all a case of context. If someone is stoned/drunk while at work i can see the point of testing them, but to dictate what people can do in their free time is not on at all.

Chris.

Originally posted by Chris_Sleeps
Its all a case of context. If someone is stoned/drunk while at work i can see the point of testing them, but to dictate what people can do in their free time is not on at all.

Chris.

If someone is visibly stoned or drunk at work they wouldn't need testing. You could discipline them under existing procedures. If you can't tell from their performance whether they're drunk and/or stoned what's the problem?

Originally posted by max
If you can't tell from their performance whether they're drunk and/or stoned what's the problem?
Because they're not paid to be drunk and/or stoned.

Chris.

Originally posted by Chris_Sleeps
Because they're not paid to be drunk and/or stoned.

Chris.

No, they're paid to do a job. If they're doing that job what's the problem?

Originally posted by max
No
So they are paid to turn up at work p-issed up? Want to go around any more circles?
I'm quite liberal on drugs, people should be allowed to do what they want, just not on other peoples time. Its quite simple really.

Chris.

I'm still not sure what the moral objection is, as this seems to be the context of the issue, rather than any technical 'viability' for work.
Why is it wrong if it's on someone else's time? Does it matter? If the job is done to the standard required, on time and as expected, how exactly CAN anyone know? Granted, if you're drunk, it would be obvious, but not most other things.
If you pass your job interview stoned, and then do your job stoned, and then get promoted while stoned, and no-one bats an eyelid, then basically you're saying someone shouldn't get paid just because some people find it morally objectionable for others to BE stoned when they're getting paid.

If there is a health & safety risk involved them I am in favour of it.

Several of you have raised the idea that if you still can do the job, then its OK. I remember a few years ago some bloke who had won a gold medal for snowboarding had his medla taken off him, because he failed a drugs test. He had tested positive for cannabis, and got his medal back when he pointed out that he had picked it up from being around mates smoking. Anyway, smoking weed would have inhibited his performance as a snowboarder, so he effectively had a handicap, and still took the gold. Fair play to him. I don't reckon it should be up to companies to test you.
Next thing they will be giving psychological tests in the workplace, and requiring everyone to have counselling. Then they will be giving you genetic tests, and firing everyone who looks like they are going to develop a disease soon. And what if they found prescription drugs in your drugs test? Time to pass you over for promotion, you sick weakling.
Coke was practically compulsory if you were in advertising in the '80's, and look at all the work they got done. All nonsense, but plenty of it. I therefore conclude that drugs are good.