All employees should be subject to mandatory drug testing, the Met Police Commissioner has suggested in a speech to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Cannabis and Children.
Explaining that action is needed to discourage the demand for illegal substances, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe told MPs on Monday (28 January) that help should be offered to anyone who failed a test, but if they refused, they should lose their job. Testing could take place across all occupations, he said, but he singled out teachers, intensive-care nurses and transport workers in particular.
The fear of being fired would act as a deterrent for drug users, he said, adding: “It seems to me we have got to plant in people’s minds something to affect the demand as well as supply. You can think of many occupations where, if you were working with a colleague, you would want to be sure, in fact, that they were drug-free.”
Speaking on Radio 4’s Today programme this morning (30 January), Clare Gerada, chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners, said the costs, practicalities, legal concerns and HR issues far outweigh the benefits of mandatory drug tests.
Conceding that certain safety-critical jobs, such as working in quarries or oil rigs, might justify drug testing, she cited a number of problems, including: the difficulties with setting up the process; potential legal challenges; decisions on whether the tests are announced or unannounced; decisions on whether a witness is present during the test; the possibility of false-positives; productivity issues, with employees potentially staying away from work if they know testing is to take place on certain days; and the fact that because traces of drugs can stay in the system for several days, employers may end up punishing employees who have taken substances on a recreational – and perhaps legal – basis while on holiday.
She added that in the United States, “there is an industry where a few people make an awful lot of money [out of drug-testing] but it is not the best way of tackling issues about drug-taking”.
In June 2011, Conservative MP Jackie Doyle-Price described the growing prevalence of workplace drug and alcohol testing as “great from a health and safety point of view and, through deterrence alone, could be anticipated to lead to fewer industrial accidents”.
€
I’ve been subject to workplace random drug testing since 1995. I fully support it in principle and practice.
How about drug testing for benefit claimants; if I’ve got to be clean to earn the money that is then taxed and handed to them, surely they can make an effort to be clean to receive it?
The cost of implementing such a scheme would be exorbitant to start with- I thought this government was about cutting red tape. Then there’s the issue of alcohol the most dangerous drug out there, what about the person coming back from Amsterdam( where it’s legal) with detectable levels of cannabis and finally do they mean ALL workers, from CEO down including the cocaine sniffers who work in on the City trading floors whose lack of clear judgement got us into our current financial mess?
Try the MoD model. Testing of 100% of department staff on a random and surprise basis, flavoured with some intelligence-led testing.
The team arrive unanounced and nobody leaves the site until they’ve provided a urine sample – yes, they do take the p*** – all samples are tested.
WRT to Bill, if it’s not detectable then it’s not having an effect. A regular coke user WILL be detected. Cannabis is fat soluble and the brain is mostly fat; hence it continues to have an effect days after use.
How often would you have to test? For cannabis (a working class and black drug of choice perhaps) only infrequently as it remains detectable for ages. Cocaine however has to be tested almost daily. Result class and race based firing in practice.
Pre start screening and annual re screaning is mandatory in the Rail Industry and LUL, so why is it not possible to implement it elswhere.
Radom and For Cause D&A testing is undertaken.
5 percent of employees are radomly tested annually, and any non attendance refusal is deemed to be positive test and dismissal.
No exeptions. unless you are a train driver (seems they have other rules?)
In 2006/7 my employer dismissed 12 guys from 1 site alone for D&A failure.
All valid comments BUT it is a great way to reduce drug taking and sends out a very clear message “Take drugs and your fired” should get Sir Alan to sponser this.
Being under the influence of drink or drugs in the workplace is very worrying, not only putting their own lives at risk but that of others. In the construction industry, drink is not as prevalent as it used to be, Fridays liquid lunch does not exist nowadays. The increase in cannabis users in society does feed its way into the workplace where many habitual users go unchecked. In the event of an accident investigation, drug taking should be checked.
Wow, i cannot believe some of the statements made in the article. In Australia it is written into the mining regulations that drugs are not permitted, inlcuding sleeping tablets. Having worked on minesites myself, it was the nurses that did the drug tests (dip tests). In the case of transport, teachers etc this really should be mandatory drug testing. It is not expensive at all compared to saving someone’s life.
Testing those on benefits: Now this is a good suggestion 😉
Work related testing should only worry those who have something to worry about and MUST include all staff, from the very top down.
We undertake random D&A testing as we are in a high risk sector
The failure rate is a problem, and our employees no the consequences.
The resultant unemployment and lack of production would be unacceptable
What a mess! If a person is taking drugs or drinking to excess they are always a risk to themselves and their colleagues. “Recreational” or not all employees should be offered their job on the basis of signing a declaration that they will be drug free while in this employment with the realisation that they can be dismissed immediately if any testing, random or otherwise, proves positive. There is no excuse.
What I get up to in my own time is MY business unless it is illegal. In the case of “alcohol” (i.e. ethanol), I may have some residual but low concentration in my blood the following day. The law would not consider me incapable of driving, so should I be fired?
Additionally, I see this as a strong invasion of privacy. Most of the employees under this plan would not have the option as to whether to take the test; it would be imposed.
1984 come 30 years late!