As riveting and vibrant as the discussion has been on this post, I propose to be the Jason Akermanis of this discussion and state the bleeding-ly obvious.

If workplaces adopt random compulsory drug testing regimes most of them would lose large numbers of their most talented staff.

The Police themselves will not allow random testing in their workplace, citing such testing as an infringement on their civil rights.They're absolutely correct.

Just because a person chooses to ingest recreational illegal drugs in their own time, does not automatically mean that the same person cannot act responsibly in their workplace.

We propose with alcohol to define a safe level of use and yet we don't do this with other substances.

For example if an employee loses their job after complying with a random compulsory drug test that exposes a joint they smoked at a party 3 wks ago, the otherwise innocent employee is discriminated against and goes through an unnecessary life changing event, (compared to their workmate who had an acceptable couple of beers at lunch during negotiations with a client).

We all lose, because all we're really doing, is giving few zealots opportunity to enforce their often anal view or prejudices upon the rest of us. The real reasons for the road toll will never be understood while we fail to understand the difference between a stimulant and an inebriant for example, and the effects on driving.

Talent and conformity do not go hand in hand in my own life experience . And people seeking power over others are not among the most talented people I find.

It's just plain frightening to give anyone random powers for any reason without first understanding all the facts and frankly why create a problem where a problem doesn't currently exist.

Should employers search in the private lives of their employees, for reasons to replace them, when they are currently otherwise happy with them? . I think not

Belly, "I ask contributors to ROberts thread to think on this.
4 people on the stage to talk to us."

You missed the other 96 who act responsibly in their use of alcohol and or drugs who may not appreciate the ever tightening noose of bureaucratic control over their lives.

All,
Those who think they know what's best for others will always be able to find an excuse for their efforts to remove the rights of others.

I never drink heavily, never use illegal drugs, nor do I willingly consent to routine alcohol and drug testing in the workplace.

I don't mind the occasional breathalyzer test on the road's, I've never yet know the cop administering the test and as long as I'm within the legal limit's there is no record. There is no significant link between alcohol or drug use and safety in my workplace, at best safety whilst commuting but I'm not aware of any employee having a work cover relevant accident whilst commuting where alcohol or drugs were a factor.

I suspect that management and union's want to tick this off a list of good things to do.

R0bert

RObert in my world the other 96 want and demand a DxA free the workplace.
Constantly they tell me they are sick of putting up with users, do they have rights?
Want the truth? true storys?
antiseptic claims few deaths are related to drug use in the transport industry.
yet log books have been checked cameras tell of fast travel and we still see drivers asleep just before cameras as they let time catch up with their flight [fast driving times]
Drugs are endemic we can not ignore that.
this story about one newly introduced DaA policy was introduced into a workplace I serviced
one that has seen one needless death and 3 never to work again incidents ,one was proved to be drug affected.
A warning is given 6 weeks in advance ALL will be tested.
16 workers fail that test.
Here is the most used method two lots of numbers in separate containers one names one to be tested or not.
First name then yes or not truly random.
Management, all levels should be in the draw.
If we all of us had just heard my 4 speakers who would you give most value to? who's workplace rights are more important?
I will never ignore the 96% or the family's of victims.
I will fight a bad boss to a stand still but never take one on for trying to obey the laws involving workplace safety.

thinker2:"If workplaces adopt random compulsory drug testing regimes most of them would lose large numbers of their most talented staff."

I'm sure you're right. As I said earlier, I've seen first hand the efforts that some businesses will go to to avoid testing specific staff.

Belly:"RObert in my world the other 96 want and demand a DxA free the workplace."

They might say that to you, Belly, but they have to. With mandatory testing in place what employee is going to risk saying he disagrees? Who would be the next one to cop a test do you reckon, if he did?

That's the trouble with laws like this: they are effective gags on free speech, which means that once they're in, they're nearly impossible to do anything about, since nobody is prepared to stick their neck out for fear of getting it chopped off.

Belly:"we support prostrate and ask members to contribute just one dollar a week to fund it"

I didn't know that, good work. But since the Union has so much influence with Labor, why not ask Government to chip in just one dollar a month per taxpayer? $120 million or so would go a long way. How many female members do you have? You support "Pink Ribbon" day and "white ribbon" day, so what about a "yellow ribbon" day?

R0bert:"Those who think they know what's best for others will always be able to find an excuse for their efforts to remove the rights of others. "

And once those rights are removed, they are gone and can't be easily regained. The "thin end of the wedge" also applies: remove some rights here, then use the precedent to remove other rights "for our own good" of course...

For every million dollars we are taxed antiseptic we or the government could spent it on ten different things and still not fund every thing.
We remember are only talking about this subject because of your intention to compare men and women in every thread.
However my life's work, unsupported sadly, has been a workers welfare fund.
It would work like this, every worker puts a fixed amount, same for all, into a fund managed by other workers.
I see no reason it could not be community not just workers who contribute.
10 dollars a week from each a massive amount each year.
A real and instant donation could be made after a workplace death or injury, cancer in the family , all those days stumping around selling raffle tickets could be come a thing of the past.
The fund, by direction of its manager ordinary people could donate annual 20% to such as prostrate or breast cancer

I am attracting opposition in this thread but I will not change my view.
It is strange to say the least that a unionist has to convince any one of clean workers rights.
PC Political correctness, how I am forever against it.
I can not budge from my view it is an attempt by minority's to impose views on majority's.
Yesterday a long way from home I was breath tested by the roadside.
No reason to fear that, I drink but not at work or driving.
I live in an area that smokes enough dope to fill one of antiseptics large trucks, but judge no one.
In fact work in this area and drug use do not mix.
Having as a younger man used enough speed to keep a very large party going all week I am not a prude.
I am sick of workplace deaths injury's and lost jobs lives destroyed and even relation ships.
Testing is not new,, all have it to get a job in our biggest construction firm you must pass a test first.
I am sure most think the workplace should be as safe as we can make it, and that some who oppose this have never seen a 60 tonne machine racing up and down a fill with a driver not fully in control of himself in control.