Belly:"How would you know the rate of accidents in the road transport industry?"

The data is freely available, Belly. Trucks travel overall about 10% of the distance that cars do and they are involved in about 15% of all fatal crashes. Now, before you run around saying "see, I was right", there's a big "but" coming: but, the actual number of accidents they're involved in is much smaller, since a truck is about 4 times as likely as a car to cause a fatality if an accident occurs. IOW, that 15% of fatalities reflects a truck accident rate of about 1/3 that of cars.

IOW, truck drivers are on the whole, very safe, but when something goes wrong, it's bad.

The risk is small, but the hazard is potentially high. Anybody making safety or population health policies has to bear this in mind.

A classic example is the argument about funding of breast cancer programs against prostate cancer programs. Breast cancer and prostate cancer have approximately equal infection rates in their target populations, so the risk is approximately the same. However, breast cancer presents a greater hazard, because it can kill quite quickly and it is usually the primary cause of death when it does. Prostate cncer rarely kills quickly and it is often beaten to the punch by other diseases of age. therefore, public health policy-makers target the one more than the other.

Anybody who has had to do a JSA should understand the diference between risk and hazard. You should too. Do you get just as upset about an unmopped spill in the lunchroom as you do about a leaking drum of petrol sitting outside it?

Personally, I feel much safer knowing the truckie coming toward me is on the whizzer, since at least he's awake. By all means, check logbooks, pull trucks over to check miles and times, put monitoring cameras about to ensure they can't cheat and do back-to-back Sydney/Perth runs or something. IOW attack the problem, not an easy politically-palatable target.

Just to clarify the breast cancer/prostate cancer example. The relative hazards presented by the two cancers have shifted significantly in recent years due to the focus on breast cancer. Prostate cancer now presents a significantly higher hazard than breast cancer. It also presents both a greater risk and greater hazard than truck accidents.

If you were serious about "protecting your members" Belly, you'd be campaigning for funding to go toward researching, detecting and treating prostate cancer.

Hi RObert, yes I've only recently started posting again after having a long break. I felt that I didn't really have the time and motivation to consistently post.

Anyway, I find this drug testing in the work place a highly controversial issue.
In my opinion, tests can only show use and as Antiseptic mentioned, there is a big difference between use and abuse.

Drug tests do not show the impact on performance either; they merely show whether someone has been using a drug. But so what, if they have, in their own time, used a drug? It says nothing about performance or safety at work.
I'm not talking about drugs and driving, drugs and heavy machinery, as RObert is specifically talking about drug tests in office environments.

If this is about performance, then performance tests would be much more valuable, let alone less unethical than drug tests.

And how reliable are drug tests anyway? From what I know, they are not 100% reliable and can give false positives.

It is much easier to find out whether someone has used cannabis than 'harder' drugs like cocaine or speed, or alcohol, because cannabis leaves traces in the body for a long period. Therefore, test results would not give the whole picture, and unfairly targets those that use cannabis.

Do you know what the purpose of this drug testing is in your work place, RObert? Have they told you whether it has to do with work safety, performance....
Have they outlined the reasons clearly?
I would like to see some kind of statement that shows that drug testing would benefit your workplace, and why.

Marijuana use can in some, affect the brain's ability to misjudge speed and distance. Obviously being drunk or over the limit carries the same risk. There was a program about the rise in the use of Xanax (overtaking sales of heroin on the streets) which radically alters the minds ability to make good judgements.

What people do after work in their own homes is one thing, but in the workplace I can see in some cases where it might warrant drug testing, even if it is just a manager noticing someone is off his head and can request he/she undergo a test.

This sort of regime has to have a purpose, not just for the sake of it, I can't see a mining or trucking company spending money on drug testing if it has no benefit at profit end. There may be other pressures from insurance companies and payout issues should drugs be involved. Which from an insurance company POV you can see why they would not want to incur losses due to poor workplace practices.

It is a complex issue - workplace safety is both an employer and employee responsibility.

Pelican:"I can't see a mining or trucking company spending money on drug testing if it has no benefit at profit end"

Pressure from regulating authorities driven by politicians and insurers eager to have another actuarial risk under control, however small; HR departments wanting an excuse to get rid of employees without running into unfair dismissal laws; unions wanting to look after their members. All give plenty of incentive for the introduction of these sorts of regimes.

The issue is not as simple as productivity vs cost.

Granted Antiseptic. But it is still driven by business motivations even if it is insurance companies putting on those additional economic pressures.

It is not only happening within workplaces but for charity events and fairs. One project I was privy to involved a street fair with stalls, games and the like, but was at risk of being cancelled due to the high insurance premium for personal liability. You know the sort of thing, in case a member of the public trips over a tree root and breaks a leg etc.