Drug and Alcohol testing

[Kiwi Pete]

who tests the boss man that likes a sup or to sniff a few lines ?

It's all arse-covering, isn't it?

And, blatant hypocrisy, when you consider the habitual "alteration" that goes on, on most farms.
Drugs and alcohol just represent props of a more personal nature - it isn't really much different to a farm having a reliance on pharmaceuticals and diesel, but for our own biases and beliefs of how things should be done

 

[Farmer Roy]

interesting point
how do you differentiate between an employee who sucks a few cones to help cos he hates his life, argues with his wife & has a pansy for a boss, & a farm that's addicted to N & fungicides & pharmaceuticals because its natural systems are breaking down & the landholder is pushing for ever increasing production ??

 

[Kiwi Pete]

interesting point
how do you differentiate between an employee who sucks a few cones to help cos he hates his life, argues with his wife & has a pansy for a boss, & a farm that's addicted to N & fungicides & pharmaceuticals because its natural systems are breaking down & the landholder is pushing for ever increasing production ??

That is why I raised the point, and how it may relate to the safety of themselves and others.

I won't enlarge on beneficiaries being tested in order to claim their welfare payments, but no doubt you will also have picked up on it by my use of the words "blatant hypocrisy" - when you swap contexts very few "substances" aren't government funded and endorsed, in some way, shape, or form.

Most of them simply mask the failings of mankind to manage complexity.

 

[Farmer Roy]

sooo . . .

if single mothers & unemployed teenagers should be tested before receiving benefits . . . ?

' blatant hypocrisy '



haha youre a funny bugger

 

[Kiwi Pete]

sooo . . .

if single mothers & unemployed teenagers should be tested before receiving benefits . . . ?

' blatant hypocrisy '



haha youre a funny bugger

They certainly should be held to account, in my opinion.

Plenty over here seem using "their" welfare money "to live the high life" as it were, kids living on toast and instant noodles as the main intention is to keep it going as long as possible without being detected or reported.... not that anything much is done anyway, as it is "for their welfare" apparently

I didn't make that comment to pass judgement on area payments or anything else, merely to demonstrate that there is usually a reason behind reliance of any sort - and at the root of it is usually some type of failure to manage complexity.

Working on that bit - the root - usually has better outcomes than laws, legislations, testings, or anything else.

Work out the why first, especially if you value your people, as there is always a 'why' if you look for one....
...and often the failings are within society itself, or governments treating people as cash-cows, and not people!!

It is good policy to have much of the population dangling from some type of "lifeline" and the all big players: tobacco, pharmaceutical, and brewery companies have their shoulder behind the staus quo

There really are some obvious parallels within agriculture though.... money is the winding sheet, obviously; so the crutches will get leaned on heavier as economies unravel, as this is "nature designed by the elite" at work.
It grieves me to see how happily people buy into being a slave to it, and how judgemental we can be as a species: myself included
seeking to understand is very important if we wish to change

 

[Farmer Roy]

anyone ever seen my 'today at work' pics ?

 

[Dry Rot]

Sir Winston Churchill wouldn't have lasted long.

 

[Hesstondriver]

Thanks for the replies,

useful and interesting replies

I think you'd better consult an employment law specialist so you can handle this properly and legally from the start. IMO a question above about allegedly targeting someone you suspect of being under the influence is very valid. What do the employment contracts say about drink & drugs? If you get a positive test(s) you'd need to prove impairment and lack of fitness to work to have a case against that person or people.

naturally we will take advise, the devil will always be in the detail, and indeed it will be a contractual matter for us and our HR!

A neighbour had a good staff member.apart from his boozy nights
Ended up blowing into breathaliser every morning and being sent home if over limit.

Sadly he started drinking at work, so had to go. Forklifts and booze don't mix

On a risk basis one person can do a lot of damage to themselves, others and property with a forklift, much less so with a yard broom or shovel, hence I mentioned doing it by department eg, forklift drivers , machine operators etc as they are 'higher risk' . not discrimination - selection by risk assessment

So what should I do if I am sheeting up and chucking tyres for someone in the sun and they offer me a cold beer when we have finished?

joking aside, whats the worst that could happen in the above, worst : you fall off , death or serious injury, next is: you lob a tyre and it takes one of your pals out, - here the risks are confined. however the risks on a forklift in a busy warehouse or factory extend byond the individual,

 

[ollie989898]

I do not believe it would be legal to drug test a selected number of employees merely due to their role- singling people out would appear unfair and almost victimisation in my view, and would be damaging to workforce morale I think.

Better, I would think, to test everyone.

 

[Pieces_of_Eight]

The employer should have it written into contracts that drug/drink tests may or may not happen at some point each year, with the consequences clear in black & white.

If an employee causes and accident due to being over a drink/drug driving limit, and the employer cannot prove reasonable duty of care procedures have been followed, any insurance is likely to be null & void.

I've been to industrial sites (including a maltings) where there is a dry site policy, as certain segments of the employee demographic would have a vodka or four at lunchtime.

Definitely seek advice, but it may be easier to pick a random day and test everyone, rather than picking random people

 

[davidroberts30]

who tests the boss man that likes a sup or to sniff a few lines ?

If you implement the testing then ALL employees AND bosses names go down for random testing

 

[Yorkshire lad]

When I drive a wagon on a weekend . I visit a factory where I have to sighn in and agree to the site rules
One of the rules states that if cause any damage on site or require medical attention then I consent to provide a urine or blood sample
I don’t know if they have ever enforced it
Other drivers tell me that this becoming common now

 

[Lincs Lass]

Alot of big construction sites ,the oil refineries and the steel works here all implement mandatory drug and alcohol testing ,,if you fail ,you loose your job .
I was on a gas installation back in in 2008 ,everybody from the guys emptying dustbins on site to the main managers could be randomly tested ,,at least 5 of the construction lads would fail every monday and ejected from site,no ifs and buts ,,there's the gate ,use it and dont come back.
Centrica Gas didnt take prisoners

 

[uztrac]

Do you really want a fellow on D or D in charge of your £ 400,000 Lexion or £ 200,000 Fendt ? Put a clause into their employment contracts for random testing.

 

[1594mac]

There was a programme a while back about workplace drug testing which talked about a positive drugs test indication from eating poppy seeds on bread! Which is somewhat scary for the healthy eaters amongst us

 

[TripleSix]

There was a programme a while back about workplace drug testing which talked about a positive drugs test indication from eating poppy seeds on bread! Which is somewhat scary for the healthy eaters amongst us

I have nothing to fear!

 

[Brisel]

naturally we will take advise, the devil will always be in the detail, and indeed it will be a contractual matter for us and our HR!



On a risk basis one person can do a lot of damage to themselves, others and property with a forklift, much less so with a yard broom or shovel, hence I mentioned doing it by department eg, forklift drivers , machine operators etc as they are 'higher risk' . not discrimination - selection by risk assessment



joking aside, whats the worst that could happen in the above, worst : you fall off , death or serious injury, next is: you lob a tyre and it takes one of your pals out, - here the risks are confined. however the risks on a forklift in a busy warehouse or factory extend byond the individual,

I get the reasoning for the higher risk for machine operators but you'll have to be careful if one group feels more persecuted than others IMO.

 

[ollie989898]

Im so mad I dont need drugs to be a liability.

 

[Doing it for the kids]

Surely big differnace bettween drugs and booze. Booze goes in hours, drugs can stay in the system for days?

 

[Ukjay]

Surely big differnace bettween drugs and booze. Booze goes in hours, drugs can stay in the system for days?

But if you continue to drink whilst at work or just before work and operate heavy machinery and get injured, hurt someone else or kill yourself / others, then the employer will be held ultimately responsible!