Drugs!

c00lbeans

Thanks for all the replies guys, they are going to be very helpful in constructing my response.

CKhalvashi wrote: »

If you're happy to put yourself in the position where you're probably going to be tested (and IMO, raising it will put you in line for that), then I'd say it can be raised.
CK

Yup, I have pretty much resigned myself to being the first one peeing in a cup when this comes into force, thankfully thats not an issue for me.

marybelle01 wrote: »

Policies are not generally contractual conditions, so it isn't necessarily a contractual change. Policies are the "employers rule book", and as such it is broadly up to them what their rules are. Whether those rules are then "fair" usually relates to whether employees are, or should be, aware of what the rule is if it comes to a dismissal based on breaking the "rule". So even if you challenge it, it is unlikely that you could Overturn the change if this is what the employer wants to do.....

....Personally I think that it is somewhat OTT, but I don't see that the employer is doing anything illegal having such a policy.

Whilst policys are the employers rule book, the issue here is that they currently have a policy on drugs and alcohol, which we all agree is very fair and reasonable. It states that you will not be under the influence of drugs/alcohol whilst at work and details the circumstances under which you can be tested.

This policy is actually detailed in the individual contracts, so in my (non expert) opinion, wanting to change the policy into something much more draconian, would amount to a change to the contract.

That's what I am trying to ascertain before I bring this up at the next meeting.

ohreally wrote: »

Why not join a trade union and collectively benefit from consultative agreements with the employer?

The employer doesn't recognise any TU's for the purpose of collective bargaining, and personally I found my previous membership of the General workers union to be a waste, I'm currently a member of a professional body which will provide legal assistance in the event of it all going wrong, but they wont get involved in the day to day contractual stuff.

ValHaller wrote: »

In your position, I think I would be going in to argue that the policy is full of holes and poorly thought out and that it should be rewritten form the first principle Southend suggests. In particular you need to make the case that the policy should be strictly trimmed to meet the legitimate interests of the business in ensuring the capability of its employees and it should not be used to conduct a moral campaign for the whole of society.

Thanks Valhaller, I think I will start on the premise that the new policy is unnecessary as the old policy covered all the requirements under H&S law, if they really want a new one then they need to closely consult with the staff and produce one that is not so woolly and open ended.

Errata

Thanks Valhaller, I think I will start on the premise that the new policy is unnecessary as the old policy covered all the requirements under H&S law, if they really want a new one then they need to closely consult with the staff and produce one that is not so woolly and open ended.

It's not what you think, it's what the people you are representing think. You canvass their views and present them during negotiations.

c00lbeans

Errata wrote: »

It's not what you think, it's what the people you are representing think. You canvass their views and present them during negotiations.

Cheers dude, the people I am representing have asked me to challenge this policy as they think its too draconian and they are not happy with another change.

Sorry if that wasn't clear in the initial post.

ohreally

c00lbeans wrote: »

I think I will start on the premise that the new policy is unnecessary as the old policy covered all the requirements under H&S law, if they really want a new one then they need to closely consult with the staff and produce one that is not so woolly and open ended.

Whats stopping the employer simply informing the employees of unilateral changes and enforcing their will - as they now appear to be doing.
Perhaps all affected could reconsider contacting an appropriate TU and look at organising and recognition before your terms are diluted further.

LittleVoice

ohreally wrote: »

Whats stopping the employer simply informing the employees of unilateral changes and enforcing their will - as they now appear to be doing.
Perhaps all affected could reconsider contacting an appropriate TU and look at organising and recognition before your terms are diluted further.

Agreed - with enough people wanting recognition the employer has to agree to recognise.

swingaloo

I work for a big national company and they have recently introduced alcohol and drug testing at our depot.

Its not random, they have to have a reason to test and the testing is done by an outside company which attend within the hour if requested by the company.

We had no say in whether or not it was implemented but we have been given the start date and have to adhere to the terms.

Anything we are taking on a daily basis on prescription we have to inform them of in advance.

Anyone who uses recreational drugs has had a period of amnesty where they can go forward and tell the company that they have a problem and wish to receive help.

We were given 3 months notice of it coming into force and I would estimate at least 20 people have left the company with a further number desperately looking for other jobs.

ohreally

swingaloo wrote: »

Its not random, they have to have a reason to test We had no say in whether or not it was implemented but we have been given the start date and have to adhere to the terms

If testing is not random, what reasons do the company have to demonstrate before testing is conducted - does it become on a managers whim and how would exessive testing be highlighted and monitored?

Who would be responsible for auditing and ensuring fairness applies, the same people who decide which individuals get tested in the first place?

How does this policy impact individuals who don't have a drug problem but chose a lifestyle which may involve light occasional recreational use or if an individual has a medical issue they would rather not disclose to the employer for personal reasons?

Buellguy

ohreally wrote: »

If testing is not random, what reasons do the company have to demonstrate before testing is conducted - does it become on a managers whim and how would exessive testing be highlighted and monitored?

Who would be responsible for auditing and ensuring fairness applies, the same people who decide which individuals get tested in the first place?

How does this policy impact individuals who don't have a drug problem but chose a lifestyle which may involve light occasional recreational use or if an individual has a medical issue they would rather not disclose to the employer for personal reasons?[/QUOTE]

Easy, it is illegal, therefore 'bringing the company into disrepute'. How would you feel dealing with someone in a professional basis that you knew was taking drugs (in the same way that you probably wouldn't deal with someone you knew was drunk)

swingaloo

ohreally wrote: »

If testing is not random, what reasons do the company have to demonstrate before testing is conducted - does it become on a managers whim and how would exessive testing be highlighted and monitored?

Who would be responsible for auditing and ensuring fairness applies, the same people who decide which individuals get tested in the first place?

How does this policy impact individuals who don't have a drug problem but chose a lifestyle which may involve light occasional recreational use or if an individual has a medical issue they would rather not disclose to the employer for personal reasons?

The company cannot just decide to test someone, there has to be a reason or suspicion. As it was explained to us it can be the smell of alcohol or simply the way someone is observed behaving. Any employee can voice concerns about another employee but the managers have assured that they will not test someone reported by a colleague unless they also have suspicions.

Its all done and audited by an outside company who are responsible for doing the test, taking it away to check and doing the follow up. A manager cannot decide on a whim to 'get someone'.

Anyone who does use anything for 'light occasional recreational use' as you put it is at risk of being dismissed if tested. There are no grey areas. You either pass or fail and failure is dismissal.

As for the medical issues, our company is quite strict about this anyway. If you are working under medication or with a medical issue then the company should know for insurance reasons and for health and safety.
If anyone is on prescription drugs then they are supposed to inform the company anyway even before this new policy came in.

Errata

Light recreational use is built on the suffering of those in the supply chain. Perhaps the company has a conscience.