nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Can a company send staff for drug tests?

CinemaGuy45

Just wondering what the facts and opinions are on this.

If there are industrial relations issues in a job and a company puts up a notice that it is sending staff for drug tests would this be lawful or morally correct?
The state can't just randomly pull people in off the street for drugs tests.

I know people that use drugs would not want to submit but likewise, people who have never used illegal drugs including myself find this highly insulting and degrading.

If a person has a spotless attendance and punctuality record can a company lawfully dismiss a person for refusal to submit to such a gross violation of their privacy and rights?

Not looking for watertight legal advice here I am looking for opinions on the morality and fairness of this.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

CinemaGuy45

Well, I do appreciate the good advice offered here thanks.

I would pass any drug test my system is clean, not afraid of a test and if I was paid for the test I would have no problem with it.

My issue is being forced for the test as I know it is meant to annoy the staff.

AndyBoBandy

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

I mean what comes next?

You pass the test, and move on with your career.

Nothing to hide is nothing to fear.

AndyBoBandy

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

My issue is being forced for the test as I know it is meant to annoy the staff.

Staff representation will probably annoy the management, so the drug testing is most likely a tit for tat response to that.

I wouldn’t be surprised if those who shouted loudest for representation (the agitators) were the ones that would/could fail the drug test! And the company probably know this.

CinemaGuy45

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

Staff representation will probably annoy the management, so the drug testing is most likely a tit for tat response to that.

I wouldn’t be surprised if those who shouted loudest for representation (the agitators) were the ones that would/could fail the drug test! And the company probably know this.

It is most probably exactly like that.:D

CinemaGuy45

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

You pass the test, and move on with your career.

Nothing to hide is nothing to fear.

This is Afterhours somebody had to Goodwin the thread.:D

I might just submit if it comes to that but if it meant to annoy staff it is working.:)

wexie

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

Well, I do appreciate the good advice offered here thanks.

I would pass any drug test my system is clean, not afraid of a test and if I was paid for the test I would have no problem with it.

My issue is being forced for the test as I know it is meant to annoy the staff.

But the issue here as I see it isn't the drug test is it?

If the staff have all/mostly opted for formal representation that's happened for a reason right?

Where do you stand on those issues? Does the company perhaps have a point to be putting the foot down? (regardless of the manner they're doing it in?)

I think you should be guided by those issues rather than the drug testing itself, sounds like they are just using that to get rid of troublemakers.

AndyBoBandy

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

I might just submit if it comes to that but if it meant to annoy staff it is working.:)

Can you imagine how annoyed/scared the folks who do smoke the odd spliff are at this plan? They’ll be the most vocal/nervous about it.

CinemaGuy45

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

Can you imagine how annoyed/scared the folks who do smoke the odd spliff are at this plan? They’ll be the most vocal/nervous about it.

Yes, they can just grab a splif and chill out.:D

Maybe they want to WEED people out.

BattleCorp

Drug testing was written into the law but that section of the act was never enacted.

What that means is that if it is now expressly written into your terms and conditions, then you can't be drug tested.

The Company I work for has it written into the terms and conditions that they can drug test people involved in accidents. So, in our case, they can't do random drug tests because it isn't in the terms and conditions.

Bottom line, if it's not in your terms and conditions, tell them to go jump.

You might get a better answer in the Legal Forum.

1hnr79jr65

BattleCorp wrote: »

Drug testing was written into the law but that section of the act was never enacted.

What that means is that if it is now expressly written into your terms and conditions, then you can't be drug tested.

The Company I work for has it written into the terms and conditions that they can drug test people involved in accidents. So, in our case, they can't do random drug tests because it isn't in the terms and conditions.

Bottom line, if it's not in your terms and conditions, tell them to go jump.

You might get a better answer in the Legal Forum.

Also on top of this, i would question them on how they would manage the testing from a data regulation stand point under GDPR.

Seems the staff have 2 recourses to challenge this,

1. Not in T's & C's of contract
2. Data protection and personal privacy

Canis Lupus

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

to submit I mean what comes next?

Free prostate exam?

c.p.w.g.w

It seems to be easy to pass a drug test, as long as you avoid drugs at least 10 days before hand, and with some creative dietary supplement's.

I have helped lads do the above and nobody has failed yet.

In fairness, it's all be lads/gals just doing a bit of the whakey tobacy

mvl

- So I would assume there is a reason this is posted in AH and not in work problems.

See
https://www.hsa.ie/eng/Publications_and_Forms/Publications/Occupational_Health/Intoxicants_at_Work_Information_Sheet_.pdf

But if the company would decide to test staff after some event/complaint, I won't care if my peers would be annoyed by such test, I would just do it.

[Deleted User]

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

When a company gets to that level of petty you can understand my reluctance to submit I mean what comes next?

That's a sign it's time to work somewhere else. Don't work for someone that drug tests employees if it's something you're not comfortable with or agree with.

The Rape of Lucretia

wexie wrote: »

nothing good really.

Unless you're one of the ones they want to keep.

And its always only the good ones they seem to want to keep. They are never that keen on holding on to the wasters.

Wompa1

I live and work in the US. Drug testing is the norm here. Don't partake myself so don't really care about it. Where I work, it's mandatory to do annual TB tests and get an annual flu shot. The flu shot thing p1sses me off more. Not that I think it doesn't work, it does. I'd just rather not have to get it as a healthy 30 something year old. But meh, when in Rome, I guess.

_Brian

Most modern contracts have such stipulation that you will comply with the request.

Mrs OBumble

Morally I see it as absolutely fine: why should the people who stay clean have to work extra hard to carry the dead-heads. Get rid of the latter (with even the threat of testing) and everyonw has a better day.

Cato the Elder

Wompa1 wrote: »

But meh, when in Rome, I guess.

Yes, I agree. The world must do as the Romans do.

Furthermore, I consider that Carthage must be destroyed.

Zorya

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Morally I see it as absolutely fine: why should the people who stay clean have to work extra hard to carry the dead-heads. Get rid of the latter (with even the threat of testing) and everyonw has a better day.

That's a load of old shyte. The people smoking grass at the weekends or in the comfort of their own home at the end of a hard days work are not deadheads. How about all the regular joes and josephines apathetic and hungover on Mondays, or getting through a bottle of wine on a midweek evening or jacked up on anti-anxiety meds? They are fine because they are socially acceptable, right? Who the hell are these people who ''stay clean'' - nuns?

wexie

Zorya wrote: »

That's a load of old shyte. The people smoking grass at the weekends or in the comfort of their own home at the end of a hard days work are not deadheads. How about all the regular joes and josephines apathetic and hungover on Mondays, or getting through a bottle of wine on a midweek evening or jacked up on anti-anxiety meds? They are fine because they are socially acceptable, right? Who the hell are these people who ''stay clean'' - nuns?

While I very much agree with you regarding the hypocrisy around this there is one very important distinction to be made here and that's between legal and illegal.

(now whether or not that's right is an entirely different discussion but for the moment weed is illegal and all the others are not (provided there's a prescription for the xanax etc. etc.)

7aubzxk43m2sni

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Morally I see it as absolutely fine: why should the people who stay clean have to work extra hard to carry the dead-heads. Get rid of the latter (with even the threat of testing) and everyonw has a better day.

Because smoking a joint at the weekend doesn't affect your productivity in work, but still will result in a failed drugs test.

7aubzxk43m2sni

wexie wrote: »

While I very much agree with you regarding the hypocrisy around this there is one very important distinction to be made here and that's between legal and illegal.

(now whether or not that's right is an entirely different discussion but for the moment weed is illegal and all the others are not (provided there's a prescription for the xanax etc. etc.)

If that's the case, are you arguing that the company is firing a person who fails the drugs test because the drugs are illegal, or because it affects their productivity?

Zorya

wexie wrote: »

While I very much agree with you regarding the hypocrisy around this there is one very important distinction to be made here and that's between legal and illegal.

(now whether or not that's right is an entirely different discussion but for the moment weed is illegal and all the others are not (provided there's a prescription for the xanax etc. etc.)

Yeah but I just cannot stomach hypocrisy, and it makes me feel pissed off when people casually slander whole swathes of people as ''deadheads'' or whatnot. There is way more inhibition of neural functioning with so called legal medications that are handed out wholesale and there is way longer lasting effects physiologically from alcohol than from moderate use of weed. Plus with Canada legalising (today or something? soon anyways) and the US likely to follow suit soon at Federal level it seems compeltely anachronistic - but then again the percentage of the public who still like to diss ordinary good people as deadheads because their drug of choice is not the same as their own drug of choice probably helps keep us in this unreasonable place. And I say all this as someon who does zero drugs, not even coffee or aspirin. Just grinds my gears the silliness of it all.

wexie

Matthew Wooden Nap wrote: »

If that's the case, are you arguing that the company is firing a person who fails the drugs test because the drugs are illegal, or because it affects their productivity?

No I'm arguing that it 'may' affect productivity, perhaps no worse than someone on benzos or the likes, they just wouldn't be able to sack someone who's taking a legal medication that they have been prescribed by a medical professional.

Zorya wrote: »

Yeah but I just cannot stomach hypocrisy, and it makes me feel pissed off when people casually slander whole swathes of people as ''deadheads'' or whatnot. There is way more inhibition of neural functioning with so called legal medications that are handed out wholesale and there is way longer lasting effects physiologically from alcohol than from moderate use of weed.

I used to smoke fairly regularly as I found it to be very helpful with my anxiety, plus a psychiatrist had explained to me quite how benzos work on the brain and that it can be harder to get off benzos than heroine.

The hypocrisy surrounding it is just too bizarre, the amount of people that were shocked to find out that I smoked the waccy baccy yet wouldn't have batted an eyelid if I told them I was on high doses of Xanax (which I would have been)

[Deleted User]

The only personal experience I've had with that was guys being sent for a medical before they were hired, making sure they were up to the job if certain things like being colour blind, allergies to certain materials, etc would have a critical impact.

It's just one lad told me that he got bit of a scare when he spoke to the doctor afterwards about the results. He was terrified when the doctor said "So I see you like to smoke a little herb now and then".

He went on to say not to worry, he's only obligated to pass on the results the company specifically asked him for from the exam. Drug use was not among their questions (despite it showing up in the tests), therefore the doctor wasn't going to be volunteering the information.

Any other instances I know of where companies carry out medicals was when the employee was claiming long term illness or injury that they were a bit dubious about.

Vincent Vega

Just stick to safer drugs like the psychedelics and you should be grand.

LSD, psilocybin mushrooms, mescaline, DMT and the like are for the most part pretty much undetectable :pac:

Boom_Bap

Pro Tip: If you take all the drugs*, when your results come back they will think that the sample was compromised due to the amounts and varieties found.

*Dont do drugs.

[Deleted User]

Some excellent money making opportunities out there btw for people who prefer not to bother with drugs. Mormons, people motivated enough to embrace sobriety for cash, etc, listen and enjoy.

Philosophy Zombie

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

It seems to be easy to pass a drug test, as long as you avoid drugs at least 10 days before hand, and with some creative dietary supplement's.

I have helped lads do the above and nobody has failed yet.

In fairness, it's all be lads/gals just doing a bit of the whakey tobacy

You sound like the Michael Clayton/fixer type. The person to call when unusual problems need to get sorted out. Dark, smoke filled interview rooms with lamps on faces -- letting the lads repeat their stories until it all checks out.