Employer introducing a random drug and alcohol test

Undervalued

oh_really said:

I cant believe folks aren't throwing a hissy fit that there is no regulatory framework for care staff similar to other staff professions, that there is no minimum qualification requirement, that there is no requirement for individuals to be registered with the CQC and on and on and on.

That is true of counselling and psychotherapy too. Quite literally anybody can set up as one, or run an organisation offering such services without being qualified or registered in any way.

There are two large competing "professional" bodies and most of the more reputable practitioners at least belong to one or other. However they have no statutory powers to regulate the "profession" and their maximum sanction is to (very occasionally) terminate somebody's membership. Which doesn't of course stop them from practicing!

There are many other similar examples too.

General_Grant

oh_really said:

I cant believe folks aren't throwing a hissy fit that there is no regulatory framework for care staff similar to other staff professions, that there is no minimum qualification requirement, that there is no requirement for individuals to be registered with the CQC and on and on and on.

As far as I know, the only individual people registered with the CQC for a service are the registered manager and "nominated individual".   An inspected service would then have its HR records audited and that does include having carried out reference and qualification checks.

The value of the CQC is another question.

[Deleted User]

I think the road to go down is as some have said.I will ask my manager who will request on how the tests will be carried out and by whom. The company frequently comes up with new legislation and ideas, of which most never materializes. 

oh_really

The workforce need unionised.
What do you mean by the company comes up with new legislation?

oh_really

Found a petition covering this very issue...Petition · Make the registration of adult social care workers compulsory in England · Change.org

[Deleted User]

oh_really said:

The workforce need unionised.
What do you mean by the company comes up with new legislation?

It comes up with all sorts of ways to support service users and 'improve' the workplace....of which most are introduced by HR and top top managers that haven't a clue on how certain workplaces actually work or what makes some service users tick. It's a complex job (those of you in the know with experience) but made even more difficult sometimes by the top brass.

TELLIT01

Deleted_User said:

oh_really said:

The workforce need unionised.
What do you mean by the company comes up with new legislation?

It comes up with all sorts of ways to support service users and 'improve' the workplace....of which most are introduced by HR and top top managers that haven't a clue on how certain workplaces actually work or what makes some service users tick. It's a complex job (those of you in the know with experience) but made even more difficult sometimes by the top brass.

Not actually new legislation then as that is something imposed by Government.  These are changes simply introduced by the company.

Undervalued

oh_really said:

Found a petition covering this very issue...Petition · Make the registration of adult social care workers compulsory in England · Change.org

I don't disagree with the sentiment but do you honestly believe that these sort of petitions achieve anything?

Also, is this Change.org not just a commercial business? All I can find is.....

Change.org, PBCCertified B Corporation

Whatever that means?

Or maybe I am wrong?

Silvertabby

MalMonroe said:

I DO think it's an invasion because how are they going to test for drugs and alcohol? Urine? If so will someone be waiting outside the loo to make sure that you don't swap samples? Blood? And WHO exactly is going to be testing? A medic? 

You've certainly led a sheltered life, Mal !

Random drug testing was introduced in the Armed Forces during my time, over 20 years ago.

No chance of swapping samples - those selected for testing were physically observed during the sample collection process, after which the drugs test administrator would decant the urine into 2 separate specimen jars.  Both the person being tested and the administrator would then bring both jars to the registration desk, where the jars would be sealed and  labelled.  One jar was then handed to its 'owner', so they could have it independantly tested in the event of a dispute, and the other jar was sent to an outside (MOD approved) lab for testing.

I was never selected for actual testing (not a problem if I had been!) but I did the final registration/label and seal the specimen jars more than once.

I've never been able to drink apple juice since.

TBagpuss

I think how reasonable it is depends on what the parameters are for testing.

I don't think anyone would argue that it would be acceptable for someone to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol at work, but  I think it's reasonable to be clear about the way the tests work - for instance, a urine test would presumably show where someone had taken/used several hours ago, for there to be time for it to have been processed by the body and in urine - and as I understand it, saliva tests can detect drugs taken within the last 48 hours.

While I have never taken any kind of illegal drug, and I'm not in favour of people doing so, but I am not sure that I would consider it reasonable for an employer to be administering  tests which might result in someone being penalised for something they did/took (say) on a Saturday night, when they were not in work until the Monday and no longer impaired/affected by the drug. 

I think if OP is in a union then it would make sense to speak to them, and if not, perhaps speak to ACAS to see whether they have any advice.

I certainly think it would be entirely reasonable to ask for further information, in particular about the levels at which they plan to test and the steps which would be taken in the event of a fail