Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Bruce Banner

Mandatory Drug Testing And The Logical Conclusion.

Recommended Posts

BBC News are doing a piece, this morning, on drug testing in the workplace and say that many firms are carrying out routine work place drug testing of their employees.

Apparently, the Met Police Commissioner has called for "mandatory drug testing in the workplace". An interesting proposal, what effect would this have on the employment figures?

Assuming that mandatory drug testing in the workplace was introduced, the government would presumably have to extend it to routine mandatory drug testing for the whole population, or many would prefer to remain on benefits rather than submit to routine testing.

If The State is carrying out routine drug testing on the population, it would probably be easy to include gene testing to identify those liable to antisocial behaviour? A step closer to Blair's dream of a "crime free" society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's introduce it for the police , judges and MP's and see how keen the powers that be are then.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once worked for a company who did work on the railways.

Health & safety is number 1 and testing was commonplace for staff who worked on live railways.

Mostly to root out people who had a heavy night or were still under the influence of something, if they started staggering about or were not alert it could be dangerous.

I worked in the office, so I drank as normal on Sunday nights, and was still allowed to operate a paper stapler!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once worked for a company who did work on the railways.

Health & safety is number 1 and testing was commonplace for staff who worked on live railways.

One of my billion or so pet hates "Health & Safety is number 1." If that's the case for your staff then keep them off the live railways, since that's the safest thing. Of course what your real number 1 is is to actually do some (hopefully) useful work. You want to do it safely, but safety isn't so absolutely the above-all priority since that's not the reason your company exists.

Mandatory anything needs to be handled very, very carefully because it's fundamentally an unacceptable thing to do, just sometimes it's possible to make a case that not having it is even more unacceptable. Treating everyone like criminals "just in case" doesn't cut it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

One of my billion or so pet hates "Health & Safety is number 1."

The motorway that I drive on on most days is having some work done on it at the moment. Under each bridge, on either side of the carriageway, is a sign saying "Danger: Overhead structure".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The motorway that I drive on on most days is having some work done on it at the moment. Under each bridge, on either side of the carriageway, is a sign saying "Danger: Overhead structure".

I saw a sign on the motorway which said "Sign not working"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's introduce it for the police , judges and MP's and see how keen the powers that be are then.......

indeed.

all public servants should be included.

and drug testing for those on benefits might not be such a bad idea...if they've got a spare £20 for a bag of weed then obviously they are either not poor enough or dealing on the side to make money.

as for those paying INTO the system, they should be left alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody who wants to take drugs will switch to the new "legal highs" that come out every few months which the drug testing will not be able to identify; and keep switching.

The old tests that the US uses and are seen in clip hows - walk along this straight line etc. - cut through all of this. But as they're not very high tech there's no money in it.

I think it's perfectly reasonable as long as it is accompanied by an allowance of "duvet days" where anybody who has overdone it is allowed to legitimately say that they're not fit for work that day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's introduce it for the police , judges and MP's and see how keen the powers that be are then.......

indeed. I've known more of the above with habits, than elsewhere...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a sign on the motorway which said "Sign not working"

That one's occasionally useful. If you get a series of warning signs then a blank one people may interpret that as the end of the hazard. If the sign loses a link to wherever it gets its information from (I assume we're talking about the large matrix signs) then best it lets you know rather than going blank.

The motorway that I drive on on most days is having some work done on it at the moment. Under each bridge, on either side of the carriageway, is a sign saying "Danger: Overhead structure".

Even that one is possibly not too silly (although I may be stretching it here), if someone is having to drive a very tall vehicle carefully along as part of the work, keeping their concentration in a certain direction (i.e. carefully watching the edge so that the don't end up tarmacing the verge).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats wrong with the occasional weekend drug usage?

Have you all gone mad? Before long it will be illegal to smoke and drink. What the hell has it got to do with the authorities?

Quite, seems to be going well beyond what's reasonable for making sure people aren't doing anything dangerous that could affect others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite, seems to be going well beyond what's reasonable for making sure people aren't doing anything dangerous that could affect others.

From what I have seen Alcohol is the drug that has the biggest affect to others. I am not saying that we should freely supply the underclasses with class A drugs, which they can easily obtain from the silk road anyhow.

This seems like a proposed backdoor criminalisation/persecution of usage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once worked for a company who did work on the railways.

Health & safety is number 1 and testing was commonplace for staff who worked on live railways.

Mostly to root out people who had a heavy night or were still under the influence of something, if they started staggering about or were not alert it could be dangerous.

I worked in the office, so I drank as normal on Sunday nights, and was still allowed to operate a paper stapler!

The railways have changed a lot! In the old days the guards would all be drinking lunchtime beer in the "railwayman's bar", before their next shift! This is now frowned upon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I have seen Alcohol is the drug that has the biggest affect to others. I am not saying that we should freely supply the underclasses with class A drugs, which they can easily obtain from the silk road anyhow.

This seems like a proposed backdoor criminalisation/persecution of usage.

I quite agree, what's the difference between someone getting drunk every weekend and someone having the odd spliff - if they are able to do their jobs without perceptible shortcomings, then why test? More worrying to me is the move to testing for "legal highs". If businesses are effectively saying that their workforce can face disciplinary action for residue of perfectly legal substances in their system, then how long before employees have to go home at night and drink only cocoa and tea for fear of losing their jobs when the bosses arbitrarily decide that a substance is no longer acceptable to them?

The next step is enforced exercise routines to ensure a healthy (and safe, don't forget safe) work force.

While he was lost in his thoughts, Winston’s body had been performing the exercises routinely. Now he is suddenly startled out of his reverie by the instructress from the telescreen addressing him directly. Shouting at him as “6079 Smith W” the woman tells him to pay more attention and recalls him to the regimented present where each man is a coded number and the telescreens spy on every activity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of places do this, disguised as a "medical". Well I'm pretty much fit enough to work Excel at a desk. So why did they want my pee. Just protecting their own arses!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once worked for a company who did work on the railways.

Health & safety is number 1 and testing was commonplace for staff who worked on live railways.

Mostly to root out people who had a heavy night or were still under the influence of something, if they started staggering about or were not alert it could be dangerous.

I worked in the office, so I drank as normal on Sunday nights, and was still allowed to operate a paper stapler!

Wasn't always so...

"A train sleeps in a siding. The driver guzzles another can of lager"

Marillion, 1985

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't always so...

"A train sleeps in a siding. The driver guzzles another can of lager"

Marillion, 1985

If you have any knowledge about " British Rail", that is exactly how it worked!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have any knowledge about " British Rail", that is exactly how it worked!

I always look to Fish for my information on all matters rail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cannabis users are the hardest hit by drug testing as it is detectable after months with a urine test if the person was a daily user but when tested using a swab test they can be clear within 24 hours or less after the last use depending on the level of the tests sensitivty.

There are a lot of construction/engineering company's using swab tests now instead of urine tests as they were loosing to many good employees from testing positive for cannabis and are struggling to recruit enough youngsters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I quite agree, what's the difference between someone getting drunk every weekend and someone having the odd spliff - if they are able to do their jobs without perceptible shortcomings, then why test? More worrying to me is the move to testing for "legal highs". If businesses are effectively saying that their workforce can face disciplinary action for residue of perfectly legal substances in their system, then how long before employees have to go home at night and drink only cocoa and tea for fear of losing their jobs when the bosses arbitrarily decide that a substance is no longer acceptable to them?

The next step is enforced exercise routines to ensure a healthy (and safe, don't forget safe) work force.

There is a even more cynical side of drug testing especially in the construction/engineering industry and that is mandatory testing if you report an injury that ocured whilst at work and just random testing at any other time it dose wonders for the accident statistic for the company

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to work for an American manufacturer in the UK. They had a policy of no alcohol at all to be drunk on the day you were at work. That meant that the back-shift and night-shift were effectively banned from alcohol during the week. What's strange is that French or German companies will happily serve their workers with beer or wine in the company canteen.

The UK definitely goes with the Yank model when it comes to these substances i.e ban them and punish severely whilst having a culture of getting completely shitfaced at any and every opportunity. I blame Oliver Cromwell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

indeed. I've known more of the above with habits, than elsewhere...

The house of commons has subsidised bars for ******s sake !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a even more cynical side of drug testing especially in the construction/engineering industry and that is mandatory testing if you report an injury that ocured whilst at work and just random testing at any other time it dose wonders for the accident statistic for the company

I didn't know that - yes, deeply cynical and no doubt very effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   223 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.