...If someone is under the influence at work then it's the companies problem not yours, and they deal with it, not you.
How they decide to go about it is the debate.
I assume they are looking to fix "their problem"....by bring in drink/drug testing. We're just debating whether we are OK with it or not. Some are; some are not. Some may have to change their habits. Some work for this company but despise it so much that anything that involves personal testing is too much of an indignity to go along quietly.
I don't think we and the company can agree on what the "problem" is though. Is it safety or is it a method to bounce "problem" employees out the door? Honestly, if you are far removed from being the manager's pet AND you are hungover in the morning then maybe you have been skating on thin ice and the result of a test is (perhaps more) ammo for that manager.
Of course the debate on the manager's favourites then gets mixed in to the debate in this thread (an many threads on here). That raises what it is to be a favourite. Are they more a slave than the rest? Are they an intolerable brown-noser? Are the non-favourites insufferable contrarians who revel in doing the exact opposite of whatever management request? I don't think being a favourite or not is binary - it's not zero or one, but a sliding scale and we all sit somewhere on that scale (and shift about from time to time). Overall there is probably a lot of psychology and egos to unpack as to why people doing the same job, working for the same employer, feel so very different.
Nope, no idea, but that doesn't mean it's wrong, irrelevant or some grand plan by these mythical "overlords" who seem to worry you so much.
As others have previously mentioned, it's RM playing catch-up with other industries. Hardly Earth-shattering in it's intent.
Some on here like to give it the Big Boy stance because they're anonymous key-board warriors, but things would/will be different when it's their go to give that sample. I suspect you'll be in that group.
As I say, I won’t be, but you can believe what you like. With the upcoming rise in the minimum wage, it has never been a better time to stick to my principles. I won’t be pissing in a bottle for any employer, when I could be earning only £15 a week less doing an easy job in the warm Monday to Friday.
I feel a bit sorry for you actually. This employer you are bending over for does not give a s**t about you, yet you continue to be a serf for them. It is wild.
Might get £15 a less but what if any employer asks for one of these tests.suddenly you become unemployable.
True, but if it is part of the contract of employment I sign up for, I would have no issue. I would know what I am signing up for.
Nope, no idea, but that doesn't mean it's wrong, irrelevant or some grand plan by these mythical "overlords" who seem to worry you so much.
As others have previously mentioned, it's RM playing catch-up with other industries. Hardly Earth-shattering in it's intent.
Some on here like to give it the Big Boy stance because they're anonymous key-board warriors, but things would/will be different when it's their go to give that sample. I suspect you'll be in that group.
As I say, I won’t be, but you can believe what you like. With the upcoming rise in the minimum wage, it has never been a better time to stick to my principles. I won’t be pissing in a bottle for any employer, when I could be earning only £15 a week less doing an easy job in the warm Monday to Friday.
I feel a bit sorry for you actually. This employer you are bending over for does not give a s**t about you, yet you continue to be a serf for them. It is wild.
Might get £15 a less but what if any employer asks for one of these tests.suddenly you become unemployable.
True, but if it is part of the contract of employment I sign up for, I would have no issue. I would know what I am signing up for.
This is actually the point at issue. Currently, it is not mentioned in existing contracts. However, it doesn’t need to be specifically mentioned. Your existing contract has 3 paragraphs which give RM the ability to add this as a necessity if you are a driver or operate the sorting machines or work in the yard etc.
So really, it’s how RM goes about gaining consent for it to become part of accepted practice and making refusal a dismissal issue. These are the things we don’t know but given that they’ve creeped it in rather than discussing it first, gives a clue as to what their approach is going to be like.
’You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new.’
I assume they are looking to fix "their problem"....by bring in drink/drug testing. We're just debating whether we are OK with it or not. Some are; some are not. Some may have to change their habits. Some work for this company but despise it so much that anything that involves personal testing is too much of an indignity to go along quietly.
I don't think we and the company can agree on what the "problem" is though. Is it safety or is it a method to bounce "problem" employees out the door? Honestly, if you are far removed from being the manager's pet AND you are hungover in the morning then maybe you have been skating on thin ice and the result of a test is (perhaps more) ammo for that manager.
The debate goes on though!
This echoes my thoughts. Why bring it in now? RM will obviously use health and safety grounds to push testing in but if someone is clearly intoxicated then why not just simply take them off driving for the day? If it becomes a "problem" then that's when they might have grounds to test the employee especially if they are employed to drive, and if they continually refuse the test, go through the counselling and conduct procedure.
It doesn't seem right for managers to just random test several individuals at a time as this obviously raises the overall effectiveness of what the company are trying to do. All it needs is for the business to use a bit of common sense in their application of this rather than use it as another stick to beat us with. The fact that the CWU don't agree with it speaks volumes though.
On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world.
I think it'll end up with EVERYONE on shift being tested
No it won't.
Didn't you read the actual UK law on this matter someone has posted?
Workplace drug and alcohol testing
Permission to drug or alcohol screen at work guidance for employers
In UK employment law an employer can ask an employee to volunteer a sample for drug and alcohol screening. If this request forms an existing part of the employment contract the employee has agreed to consent. If not the employee may decline.
What to do if the employee refuses to do a test?
In the UK an employee can refuse a voluntary request to produce a sample for drug and alcohol screening, even where the employment contract includes pre-agreed terms for drug and alcohol testing as part of their terms and conditions of employment.
It is normal practice for employers to manage such refusals in the same way they would action a non-negative on-site test. The justification for this is given in the following paragraph.
The employer has a duty of care to ensure a drug and alcohol-free, safe working environment.
Requests for drug and alcohol testing must be seen as fair and reasonable.
Random drug and alcohol testing should be just that.
Targeted drug and alcohol tests must be justifiable.
Keep good records.
Confirm all non-negative alcohol test results using an accredited method which will stand tribunal examination.
There's bound to be clauses in our contracts that they'll use. Frankly anyone who thinks that it won't be EVERYONE getting tested is deluded.
No one is testing me.
End of.
They can test me everyday. I don't have a problem. People who have a problem may wish to seek help. It's not easy to admit to yourself and family you have a problem. I've worked with a bloke who drank himself to death , another who was killed by a drunk driver. Hopefully rather being all macho and aggressive some people will get the help they need by admitting their problem. There's no shame in it at all.
I think it'll end up with EVERYONE on shift being tested
No it won't.
Didn't you read the actual UK law on this matter someone has posted?
Workplace drug and alcohol testing
Permission to drug or alcohol screen at work guidance for employers
In UK employment law an employer can ask an employee to volunteer a sample for drug and alcohol screening. If this request forms an existing part of the employment contract the employee has agreed to consent. If not the employee may decline.
What to do if the employee refuses to do a test?
In the UK an employee can refuse a voluntary request to produce a sample for drug and alcohol screening, even where the employment contract includes pre-agreed terms for drug and alcohol testing as part of their terms and conditions of employment.
It is normal practice for employers to manage such refusals in the same way they would action a non-negative on-site test. The justification for this is given in the following paragraph.
The employer has a duty of care to ensure a drug and alcohol-free, safe working environment.
Requests for drug and alcohol testing must be seen as fair and reasonable.
Random drug and alcohol testing should be just that.
Targeted drug and alcohol tests must be justifiable.
Keep good records.
Confirm all non-negative alcohol test results using an accredited method which will stand tribunal examination.
There's bound to be clauses in our contracts that they'll use. Frankly anyone who thinks that it won't be EVERYONE getting tested is deluded.
No one is testing me.
End of.
They can test me everyday. I don't have a problem. People who have a problem may wish to seek help. It's not easy to admit to yourself and family you have a problem. I've worked with a bloke who drank himself to death , another who was killed by a drunk driver. Hopefully rather being all macho and aggressive some people will get the help they need by admitting their problem. There's no shame in it at all.
I think there is shame in it though thats why alot of people try to hide it.
Most of our shared van duties have 2 drivers on them who can take turns if and when they want to do the driving.
Are people really saying that you could 'get away' with not having to do a test by simply saying 'oh I'm not driving today'. Somehow I doubt it.
Add it to the many excuses some on here naively think they're going to trot out to avoid being tested...
It kind of negates the random testing part of the exercise.
If say a medium sized office of 50 people, 25 are part time and don't start until later, 5 don't ever drive for Royal Mail, and 10 don't regularly perform driving duties. 5 people also refuse to be tested. That leaves 5 people in the building at say, 8am when the tester arrives, that are 'eligible' to be randomly selected for testing. Hardly random, is it.
Add it to the many excuses some on here naively think they're going to trot out to avoid being tested...
It kind of negates the random testing part of the exercise.
If say a medium sized office of 50 people, 25 are part time and don't start until later, 5 don't ever drive for Royal Mail, and 10 don't regularly perform driving duties. 5 people also refuse to be tested. That leaves 5 people in the building at say, 8am when the tester arrives, that are 'eligible' to be randomly selected for testing. Hardly random, is it.
It has to be random to be legal and this random testing has been done in other sectors for years so I am sure there is a process for people who make themselves unavailable.
’You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new.’
Add it to the many excuses some on here naively think they're going to trot out to avoid being tested...
It kind of negates the random testing part of the exercise.
If say a medium sized office of 50 people, 25 are part time and don't start until later, 5 don't ever drive for Royal Mail, and 10 don't regularly perform driving duties. 5 people also refuse to be tested. That leaves 5 people in the building at say, 8am when the tester arrives, that are 'eligible' to be randomly selected for testing. Hardly random, is it.
It has to be random to be legal and this random testing has been done in other sectors for years so I am sure there is a process for people who make themselves unavailable.
It also has to be random enough to not target a certain subset of employees i.e drivers/machine ops etc
Add it to the many excuses some on here naively think they're going to trot out to avoid being tested...
It kind of negates the random testing part of the exercise.
If say a medium sized office of 50 people, 25 are part time and don't start until later, 5 don't ever drive for Royal Mail, and 10 don't regularly perform driving duties. 5 people also refuse to be tested. That leaves 5 people in the building at say, 8am when the tester arrives, that are 'eligible' to be randomly selected for testing. Hardly random, is it.
It has to be random to be legal and this random testing has been done in other sectors for years so I am sure there is a process for people who make themselves unavailable.
It also has to be random enough to not target a certain subset of employees i.e drivers/machine ops etc
Yes. So those saying they won’t be tested because they don’t drive or operate a sorting machine etc. would have to expect to be tested just the same.
If it turns out not to be random, the union will have grounds for cases of discrimination and will draw a halt.
However, by the sounds of it, it would be out of the hands of managers, so it should be random.
’You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new.’
Surely if we are an important part of the country's infrastructure, handling important contracts on behalf of NHS, HMRC etc then those contracts can't be seen to fail because Postman Pat has had a skinful the night before and delivered 24 Acacia Avenue to 24 Acacia Close.
Everyone needs to be sober at work to fulfil the commitments of the USO not just drivers.
The societies of consumption and squandering of material resources are incompatible with the idea of economic growth and a clean planet.
Add it to the many excuses some on here naively think they're going to trot out to avoid being tested...
It kind of negates the random testing part of the exercise.
If say a medium sized office of 50 people, 25 are part time and don't start until later, 5 don't ever drive for Royal Mail, and 10 don't regularly perform driving duties. 5 people also refuse to be tested. That leaves 5 people in the building at say, 8am when the tester arrives, that are 'eligible' to be randomly selected for testing. Hardly random, is it.
I can't see how any staff can refuse to be tested without facing disciplinary, otherwise anybody called for a random test who had a skin full etc the night before could just refuse to be tested and so no employees are ever likely to fail a test, thereby making the whole process pointless.
