Random drug testing at work

tight_scotsman

thanx for all the replies. I dont think our company has a problem with drugs its just another policy being implemented to tick another box.

From what i read online they need about 80/120 hair strands which will tell them someones drug habit over the past 90 or so days.

I personally dont have a problem being tested i have worked there about 14 yrs.

I wont be getting my back sack and crack done either lol

amyloofoo

80 - 120 hair strands? :eek:

Tiddlywinks

Are they really likely to be asking for hair samples though? It's usually just a urine sample for random testing.

hartcjhart

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

Are they really likely to be asking for hair samples though? It's usually just a urine sample for random testing.

we have random testing for D/A and yep swab/urine,

I should imagine that they only take hair to test for long term use, perhaps after failing swab/pee

tight_scotsman

We were told 3 methods will be used urine saliva and hair. I think if you fail the urine or swab test then they will ask for a hair sample.

There have been a lot of changes at our place recently.

more cctv in the yard , trackers fitted to all the coaches ,clamping down on smoking in the yard.

I get a feeling they are trying to off load some dead wood.

Finding any trace of ileagle substances in a coach/bus drivers system is very serious ,enough to warrant summery dismissal

which i find unfair to be dismissed because you smoked a joint or took a chemical high at a music festival 3 months ago.

but that is only my opinion personnaly i dont take drugs but each to there own.

I think its right to make sure no one is un fit to drive wether its drink ,ileagle drugs ,or prescription drugs also driving whilst tired is a big danger too

But to pry into what someone done whilst on holiday or thier days of is not quite right.

Th1984

Just to add to your last comment there about 'prying into what someone does on their days off'

We have had this debate a length at my workplace and the bottom line is that if you wish to indulge in illegal activities on your days off you are completely free to do so. However it is reasonable for the company to decide that they do not wish to trust someone who has a blatant disregard for the law with other people's lives (I also work in the transport industry)

In short you are free to decide to do what you want, but part of that decision is not to work in such a responsible job.

brutus1983

before the test ensure you tell them if your on any prescribed drugs i had one after a few months after an op and was on strong pain killers the drugs test showed up i was on heroin when the pain killers was opium based

they calledin drugs squad took a urine sample and took a week to come back with the results in the mean time i wasnt allowed to work for a week

tight_scotsman

Th1984 wrote: »

Just to add to your last comment there about 'prying into what someone does on their days off'

We have had this debate a length at my workplace and the bottom line is that if you wish to indulge in illegal activities on your days off you are completely free to do so. However it is reasonable for the company to decide that they do not wish to trust someone who has a blatant disregard for the law with other people's lives (I also work in the transport industry)

In short you are free to decide to do what you want, but part of that decision is not to work in such a responsible job.

Like i stated i dont do drugs couldnt afford them anyway.

So would you say someone who was completly bladdered on a friday night should not be working 3 months later there are also legal highs you can buy so

tight_scotsman

Do the leal highs come into the same category?

Th1984

It's not to do with the fact that someone likes to alter their mental state to relax. There are plenty of ways to do that (alcohol/sex/vigorous excercise/extreme sports) which are socially and legally acceptable.

What is of a greater concern is that someone in a responsible position would wilfully and knowingly contravene the law. For that reason alone their suitability to operate a PSV would be in question.