Royal Mail to start drug and alcohol testing?

[GRS]

As so many employees drive RM vehicles it's amazing that it's taken this long to implement this policy.
The office lawyer may say you don't have to do it, written consent, etc etc but the reality is if they wish to test you, they will, and there'll be no back up from the CWU if you get stroppy and refuse.

When this story “broke” in our office we had Mr Gobby McShouty mouthing off telling everyone that “RM can’t do this it’s illegal etc etc” to which I answered “I’m pretty much sure they can if it’s implemented properly - for one thing you’re in charge of a vehicle & driving it on their insurance”.

[ihatedogs]

Already fitted to the new lorries they are buying how it’s going to work with multiple drivers and mouth pieces I don’t know will be interesting
[/quote

As the driver of a brand new lorry the polite thing to say is show me your source. The impolite thing to say is bullshit. I'm currently leaning towards the second option.

[manboss]

I wonder why there introducing it now, i mean, i wonder if there are alot of drivers suspected by managers of being under the influence but no way to prove the fact.

[Barnacle]

I wonder why there introducing it now, i mean, i wonder if there are alot of drivers suspected by managers of being under the influence but no way to prove the fact.

It could be that there have been a few incidences of driver’s being done for drunk/drug driving and they want to avoid any further.

Or, they’ve hit on a way to filter out a few from each office who are on legacy contracts.

[Perseus]

Will be interesting to see what, if any, threshold they used for this. Zero tolerance like they have in some industries, or as long as below a certain level, like others. Test a whole office on a Monday morning after a big football match and there could be some interesting results.

[scoobydo79]

We would lose at least 5 staff at a time when we are thin on the ground

Including a few managers

[GRS]

I wonder why there introducing it now, i mean, i wonder if there are alot of drivers suspected by managers of being under the influence but no way to prove the fact.

It could be that there have been a few incidences of driver’s being done for drunk/drug driving and they want to avoid any further.

Or, they’ve hit on a way to filter out a few from each office who are on legacy contracts.

I heard the same thing in my office……this is a way to get rid of staff on legacy contracts. But thinking about it logically how can RM be so sure that it’s only staff on these contracts that are gonna fail the test. They could test everyone and find they’re gonna have to fire mostly staff they’ve taken on in the last year ie: people on new cheap contracts and be left with a workforce of legacy staff. In probability it would be a mixture of people but just shows how illogical that argument is. The only way around it for them would be to only test staff on legacy contracts but that would be obvious discrimination.

[Barnacle]

I wonder why there introducing it now, i mean, i wonder if there are alot of drivers suspected by managers of being under the influence but no way to prove the fact.

It could be that there have been a few incidences of driver’s being done for drunk/drug driving and they want to avoid any further.

Or, they’ve hit on a way to filter out a few from each office who are on legacy contracts.

I heard the same thing in my office……this is a way to get rid of staff on legacy contracts. But thinking about it logically how can RM be so sure that it’s only staff on these contracts that are gonna fail the test. They could test everyone and find they’re gonna have to fire mostly staff they’ve taken on in the last year ie: people on new cheap contracts and be left with a workforce of legacy staff. In probability it would be a mixture of people but just shows how illogical that argument is. The only way around it for them would be to only test staff on legacy contracts but that would be obvious discrimination.

It will be interesting to see how they play it because they are usually subtle as a brick. Union reps have to be on the ball to make sure it’s balanced.

An awful lot of people empty a bottle of wine a night and then merrily drive into work in the morning, still over the limit so the people caught out could be wide ranging.

[Tman]

I heard the same thing in my office……this is a way to get rid of staff on legacy contracts. But thinking about it logically how can RM be so sure that it’s only staff on these contracts that are gonna fail the test. They could test everyone and find they’re gonna have to fire mostly staff they’ve taken on in the last year ie: people on new cheap contracts and be left with a workforce of legacy staff. In probability it would be a mixture of people but just shows how illogical that argument is. The only way around it for them would be to only test staff on legacy contracts but that would be obvious discrimination.

So you post that it's a way of getting rid of legacy contracts, then post all the things wrong with that statement?

[funkflex55]

I heard the same thing in my office……this is a way to get rid of staff on legacy contracts. But thinking about it logically how can RM be so sure that it’s only staff on these contracts that are gonna fail the test. They could test everyone and find they’re gonna have to fire mostly staff they’ve taken on in the last year ie: people on new cheap contracts and be left with a workforce of legacy staff. In probability it would be a mixture of people but just shows how illogical that argument is. The only way around it for them would be to only test staff on legacy contracts but that would be obvious discrimination.

So you post that it's a way of getting rid of legacy contracts, then post all the things wrong with that statement?

They were saying that's what others were saying in their delivery office. The explaining how it is not a logical process.

[2chorizon]

How it works in most industries is if you are a drug scummer you are gone, end of.
With alcohol they cant have a zero limit, the limit has to be whatever UK law is on alcohol limit for driving etc.
So you can have a lunchtime pint or turn up with a pint in you.

[SpacePhoenix]

Think they'll bring it in for at least any duty that involves any sort of driving

[funkflex55]

https://www.ukdrugtesting.co.uk/pages/a ... UmW8kLtD_c

The limit can be set as low as 0.02 so not a zero tolerance but pretty much that.
They also would have to test drivers and non drivers as it would be discrimination to not do so.

[2chorizon]

https://www.ukdrugtesting.co.uk/pages/a ... UmW8kLtD_c

The limit can be set as low as 0.02 so not a zero tolerance but pretty much that.
They also would have to test drivers and non drivers as it would be discrimination to not do so.

The alcohol limit is usually set at the UK law for driving limit.
If they want to set it at "zero tolerance" then there WILL BE NO MORE CORPORATE ENTERTAINING OF CLIENTS which usually involves food & alcohol etc
It cuts both ways and all corporate client entertaining will cease.

This is why large companies usually set the alcohol limit to the UK driving limit.
Otherwise they become a "DRY" workplace and that means "EVERYONE" at "ALL" levels inc visiting clients.

[Acca Dacca]

I wonder why there introducing it now, i mean, i wonder if there are alot of drivers suspected by managers of being under the influence but no way to prove the fact.

It could be that there have been a few incidences of driver’s being done for drunk/drug driving and they want to avoid any further.

Or, they’ve hit on a way to filter out a few from each office who are on legacy contracts.

I heard the same thing in my office……this is a way to get rid of staff on legacy contracts. But thinking about it logically how can RM be so sure that it’s only staff on these contracts that are gonna fail the test. They could test everyone and find they’re gonna have to fire mostly staff they’ve taken on in the last year ie: people on new cheap contracts and be left with a workforce of legacy staff. In probability it would be a mixture of people but just shows how illogical that argument is. The only way around it for them would be to only test staff on legacy contracts but that would be obvious discrimination.

The logic would be that legacy contracts are replaced with entrants on the new contract.

New contracted workers getting the bullet would just be replaced by another new contract.

New contract entrants are a revolving door anyway now.

It doesnt really matter to the business if a few new contracted workers are caught in the cross fire. They will be replaced like for like. Replacing the legacy contracts with new contracts is the agenda we all know.