Royal Mail to start drug and alcohol testing?

[TopperGas]

Why would you do that?

Because not everybody is a corporate shrill bootlicker like you are. Clearly. I don’t do drugs, never smoked and rarely drink but I won’t be consenting to testing as I don’t believe I should bend over and conform to my capitalist overlords like you seem to be implying I should. If it results in my employment being compromised, then fair enough. Some of us have lines we refuse to cross and providing samples to be tested by my employer is one of mine.

So what happens if they decide to test your DO tomorrow and anybody who is a drug user decides to follow your lead and refuse to take a drugs test, wouldn't it make the whole process pointless as the only employees then being tested are those who are confident they aren't under the influence of drugs?

If RM simply include mandatory drug & alcohol testing in the employees handbook before they commence the testing I doubt anybody can decline being tested without risking disciplinary action being brought.

[reddevils]

but last time I checked these are not new substances so how have we ever coped before now without pissing in a cup for testing?

Things change. Vehicles never had safety glass fitted, seat belts weren't fitted or compulsory, motorbike riders never had to wear helmets etc etc but they do now. You think rules and regulations applicable to employee safety can stay the same merely because "we never used to do it like that"?
More nonsense. I await your usual pejorative reply.

Your the person that's talking nonsense unfortunately. Your examples are all things that people apply using technology that are external materialistic objects. It does not include peoples own body fluid, hair etc being handed over to a private company who are in breach throughout the world of exploiting this material and data plus its an invasion of privacy and liberty. Some people are like lambs to the slaughter.

I'm sure people have a childish mentality of I can't wait to be drug/alcohol tested to prove I am morally superior. We should make stickers. The lack of intellectual foresight is unbelievable. Its no wonder this business walks all over us. I am starting to lose faith. Like I say lambs to the slaughter.

[LouBarlow]

but last time I checked these are not new substances so how have we ever coped before now without pissing in a cup for testing?

Things change. Vehicles never had safety glass fitted, seat belts weren't fitted or compulsory, motorbike riders never had to wear helmets etc etc but they do now. You think rules and regulations applicable to employee safety can stay the same merely because "we never used to do it like that"?
More nonsense. I await your usual pejorative reply.

So it’s change for change’s sake then? All of the instances you mention directly improve safety for those concerned. I’m sure you will have the statistics to hand on how incidents of drunk and drug driving have lead to this new policy being brought in to protect us and the general public to the same degree as the introduction of the seatbelt.

And you accuse me of nonsense…

Keep suckling on that corporate teat Tman. I’m sure your overlords will reward you with a few more crumbs for your sycophancy.

[SpacePhoenix]

I suspect that there's going to be a good few staff suspended for refusing a test

[reddevils]

.

[sindba]

I suspect that there's going to be a good few staff suspended for refusing a test

I'll be one of them.

I'll give a sample to my doctor or the police. Anyone else can get to fck.

[Basildon Bond]

Dunno if this has been posted in the thread before but this is from .gov.uk:

Drug testing

Employers have to have consent if they want to test for drugs. Usually this is when they have a full contractual health and safety policy, which should be in the contract or staff handbook.

Employers should:

limit testing to employees that need to be tested

ensure the tests are random

not single out particular employees for testing unless this is justified by the nature of their jobs

Workers can’t be made to take a drugs test but if they refuse when the employer has good grounds for testing, they may face disciplinary action.

So if this is to be the policy, the key thing to note is that the testing has to be random. And combine that with the fact that the purpose of the testing is to improve safety. Then I suggest it is doomed to do really nothing to help.

The reason being that if, let's say, five guy walk through the door of a DO one morning and three are picked for testing that day. Say one is clearly hungover on that particular day. However, the random testing for that day hasn't picked him. He gets to pass by and carry on with the morning's work. However the guys picked - who are not showing any signs of impairment - are asked to take a quick breath test or something?

So the policy is to be to shoot randomly in the dark, at a national level, and disrupt the morning prep etc. in the hope that someone is found to fail a test and then what? Word will get round and everyone else stops drinking and drug taking on the off chance they are caught? Sounds stupid.

A better policy would be that if some walks through the door and "looks" like they would fail a sobriety test, then they are asks to do a quick test. However, the vast majority of us are never bothered. I'd be OK with that. Because the standard would be: do what you like in your own life, but if you look drunk or high when you arrive for work that's not OK and you'll be pulled up about it.

[LouBarlow]

Dunno if this has been posted in the thread before but this is from .gov.uk:

Drug testing

Employers have to have consent if they want to test for drugs. Usually this is when they have a full contractual health and safety policy, which should be in the contract or staff handbook.

Employers should:

limit testing to employees that need to be tested

ensure the tests are random

not single out particular employees for testing unless this is justified by the nature of their jobs

Workers can’t be made to take a drugs test but if they refuse when the employer has good grounds for testing, they may face disciplinary action.

So if this is to be the policy, the key thing to note is that the testing has to be random. And combine that with the fact that the purpose of the testing is to improve safety. Then I suggest it is doomed to do really nothing to help.

The reason being that if, let's say, five guy walk through the door of a DO one morning and three are picked for testing that day. Say one is clearly hungover on that particular day. However, the random testing for that day hasn't picked him. He gets to pass by and carry on with the morning's work. However the guys picked - who are not showing any signs of impairment - are asked to take a quick breath test or something?

So the policy is to be to shoot randomly in the dark, at a national level, and disrupt the morning prep etc. in the hope that someone is found to fail a test and then what? Word will get round and everyone else stops drinking and drug taking on the off chance they are caught? Sounds stupid.

A better policy would be that if some walks through the door and "looks" like they would fail a sobriety test, then they are asks to do a quick test. However, the vast majority of us are never bothered. I'd be OK with that. Because the standard would be: do what you like in your own life, but if you look drunk or high when you arrive for work that's not OK and you'll be pulled up about it.

Finally some common sense. This is exactly how it should work and has done in my office for god knows how many years (bar the breathalyser obviously). If people come in drunk or high, you can observe this pretty much instantly from their behaviour and quite rightly they should be sent home. Random testing and a reliance on numbers, to determine sobriety, means people who turn up wasted, can continue to work if they aren’t targeted on that specific day. It is yet another Royal Mail grand plan doomed to fail. Yet more wasted money.

[2chorizon]

Dunno if this has been posted in the thread before but this is from .gov.uk:

Drug testing

Employers have to have consent if they want to test for drugs. Usually this is when they have a full contractual health and safety policy, which should be in the contract or staff handbook.

Employers should:

limit testing to employees that need to be tested

ensure the tests are random

not single out particular employees for testing unless this is justified by the nature of their jobs

Workers can’t be made to take a drugs test but if they refuse when the employer has good grounds for testing, they may face disciplinary action.

So if this is to be the policy, the key thing to note is that the testing has to be random. And combine that with the fact that the purpose of the testing is to improve safety. Then I suggest it is doomed to do really nothing to help.

The reason being that if, let's say, five guy walk through the door of a DO one morning and three are picked for testing that day. Say one is clearly hungover on that particular day. However, the random testing for that day hasn't picked him. He gets to pass by and carry on with the morning's work. However the guys picked - who are not showing any signs of impairment - are asked to take a quick breath test or something?

So the policy is to be to shoot randomly in the dark, at a national level, and disrupt the morning prep etc. in the hope that someone is found to fail a test and then what? Word will get round and everyone else stops drinking and drug taking on the off chance they are caught? Sounds stupid.

A better policy would be that if some walks through the door and "looks" like they would fail a sobriety test, then they are asks to do a quick test. However, the vast majority of us are never bothered. I'd be OK with that. Because the standard would be: do what you like in your own life, but if you look drunk or high when you arrive for work that's not OK and you'll be pulled up about it.

Finally some common sense. This is exactly how it should work and has done in my office for god knows how many years (bar the breathalyser obviously). If people come in drunk or high, you can observe this pretty much instantly from their behaviour and quite rightly they should be sent home. Random testing and a reliance on numbers, to determine sobriety, means people who turn up wasted, can continue to work if they aren’t targeted on that specific day. It is yet another Royal Mail grand plan doomed to fail. Yet more wasted money.

It is in most industries these days, it is not “Royal Mail’s grand plan” in fact they are lagging far behind and playing catch up.

[2chorizon]

So the policy is to be to shoot randomly in the dark, at a national level, and disrupt the morning prep etc. in the hope that someone is found to fail a test and then what? Word will get round and everyone else stops drinking and drug taking on the off chance they are caught? Sounds stupid.

That ^ is exactly how it works.

Many will go in the first 6 months to a year, mainly the hardcore types and then the rest will be shocked into toe’ing the line.

The computer will select your clock number eventually, many tried to roll the dice and carry on with their substance abuse in the hope their number wouldn’t get pulled, generally we didn’t have to wait long until the “big hitter’s” were taken down.

Everyone knew who it was going to be, it was just a matter of time.

[Tman]

So it’s change for change’s sake then? All of the instances you mention directly improve safety for those concerned. I’m sure you will have the statistics to hand on how incidents of drunk and drug driving have lead to this new policy being brought in to protect us and the general public to the same degree as the introduction of the seatbelt.

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.

Keep suckling on that corporate teat Tman. I’m sure your overlords will reward you with a few more crumbs for your sycophancy.

I knew you wouldn't let me down.

[thefox]

Dunno if this has been posted in the thread before but this is from .gov.uk:

Drug testing

Employers have to have consent if they want to test for drugs. Usually this is when they have a full contractual health and safety policy, which should be in the contract or staff handbook.

Employers should:

limit testing to employees that need to be tested

ensure the tests are random

not single out particular employees for testing unless this is justified by the nature of their jobs

Workers can’t be made to take a drugs test but if they refuse when the employer has good grounds for testing, they may face disciplinary action.

So if this is to be the policy, the key thing to note is that the testing has to be random. And combine that with the fact that the purpose of the testing is to improve safety. Then I suggest it is doomed to do really nothing to help.

The reason being that if, let's say, five guy walk through the door of a DO one morning and three are picked for testing that day. Say one is clearly hungover on that particular day. However, the random testing for that day hasn't picked him. He gets to pass by and carry on with the morning's work. However the guys picked - who are not showing any signs of impairment - are asked to take a quick breath test or something?

So the policy is to be to shoot randomly in the dark, at a national level, and disrupt the morning prep etc. in the hope that someone is found to fail a test and then what? Word will get round and everyone else stops drinking and drug taking on the off chance they are caught? Sounds stupid.

A better policy would be that if some walks through the door and "looks" like they would fail a sobriety test, then they are asks to do a quick test. However, the vast majority of us are never bothered. I'd be OK with that. Because the standard would be: do what you like in your own life, but if you look drunk or high when you arrive for work that's not OK and you'll be pulled up about it.

The only problem with your better option is it's open to the manager turning a blind eye to one of his pets being stoned/hungover but possibly pulling up someone who he doesn't like who is in a similar state to the managers pet.

[Tman]

Exactly why random testing is the norm; to ensure it's not used selectively by managers.
A point clearly lost on many here.

[thefox]

Yip it 100% needs to be random.

[SpacePhoenix]

Yip it 100% needs to be random.

I think it'll end up with EVERYONE on shift being tested