I read a proposed drug and alcohol policy today which raised concerns and questions. Before I go further let me clarify that I'm an unusually light drinker and don't use illicit drugs so I'd consider myself to be in the nothing to hide category.

The policy as I understand it proposes twice yearly breathalyzer tests and the possibility of random of saliva swabs for employee's and visitors who happen to be on the premises at the time. A refusal to take part or sign associated paperwork is treated as a positive test.

Some action eg change of duties (although supposedly no disadvantage to the employee) can be taken for any alcohol reading between 0.00% and 0.05% at the discretion of supervisors and disciplinary action for readings above that. Any traces of illicit drugs can lead to disciplinary action. There are a number of safeguards around the above such that in normal circumstances it should be low risk for employee's (and visitors).

Everything I saw in the policy can be justified in one way or another yet in the whole it left me with the impression of an intrusive extension of the nanny state into the workplace.

Unless the use of alcohol or illicit drugs is occurring during work hours or is impacting on an employee's performance (to a greater degree than other issues) it really is none of the employers business.

It also occurred to me that there are plenty of other issues which routinely impact on peoples ability to perform their jobs such as their domestic situation or their children's behavior (and worekplace restructuring and open plan offices would be way up there).

I'm interested in knowing what others think about employers imposing mandatory testing on employee's where there is not reason to consider that the employee's performance may be adversely impacted by drugs or alcohol.

R0bert

I would be interested to know more about the circumstances, R0bert.

The part that jumped out at me was:

"...random of saliva swabs for employee's and visitors who happen to be on the premises at the time."

The presence of visitors on the list would indicate a high probability of Health 'n' Safety being a key factor. I can't see any outsider accepting disciplinary action from a third party, except where that simply says "you're not welcome here, you're a danger to yourself and us, go away".

More information, please.

Pericles, correct visitors who either return a positive result or refuse to cooperate can be asked to leave.

R0bert

I don't know what work you do, but drug and alcohol testing has become a widespread practise. I despise it as draconian and intrusive, especially since there is little evidence of either need or efficacy in reducing workplace accidents.

It seems to be mostly driven by HR departments lookimg to both justify their existence and to create another "reason" which can be used to bypass unfair dismissal laws, as well as by insurers who are looking to reduce actuarial risk, especially since the cost is borne by others. One large workplace which I know well has estimated that such a program would cost them in excess of $200k PA and has decided that the game isn't worth the candle.

Speaking for myself, I often have a joint after lunch, but since I'm self-employed, I make the rules. In over 10 years of running my own business, there has never been a lost-time accident, so either I'm exceptional or the concept is flawed.

True story not invented.
Yesterday was my RDO
But I Filled in for another.
At 6 pm sat opposite a bad boss, working on an agreement/award.
The only item we agreed on?
D and A testing in the workplace.
He as stunned that both my workmate and I agree,,, testing should take place.
RObert with true honest respect,, nanny state my bottom.
It is in my view unionism that will not let such testing take place that defames the movement.
Every shift start in mining see workers must test them selfs, so they should.
Safe work places, returning home fingers and toes with you is a good unionists wish.
Some unions,, blindly talk of rights but ignore the pain of work place deaths.
If RObert you and I lead a workplace tour with one aim, finding DXA offenders you would be afraid to think how lucky we are deaths are not much worse.
I get tested , union officials do, often.
continued.

Last week I left home twice pre 4am.
Nothing new in that but what was new I turned my ham radio off and CB on should have known better.
I know the road transport industry, maybe thats why I do not often hear that radio.
The drug fueled conversation was much as it was in the 1970, and 80s talk of slabs palettes and such, the way drugs come packed gives them the name.
Walk in any road side rest area eyes to the ground, in time you will start to find pill bottles.
You will see urine filled drink containers, any test would be interesting.
Drug use in the transport industry is killing every week.
High income workers use high cost drugs others lessor one but the workplace is no place to be affected by them, ever.
nanny state? the victim may not always be the one affected by drugs, no some times we must obey the rules.
Want to share a night mare? borrow a CB radio, forget the tough cowboy view of truckers[ some are good blokes all of that and more]
Hear grown men talk about running cars off the road or over cops, men who would cry if their kids took the same pills.