Rise in use of drug tests to sack staff without redundancy pay

    * Diane Taylor
    * The Guardian, Monday 18 May 2009
    * Article history

Employers are increasingly using drug testing to get rid of staff without
having to make redundancy payouts, as a way of ­cutting costs during the
recession, a ­charity has said.

Release, which focuses on drugs, the law and human rights, reported a
four-fold increase in calls to its drugs team about problems with
workplace testing in the first three months of 2009 compared with the same
period last year.

In the first quarter of 2008, the team received 493 calls, with just 31
(6.2%) related to testing at work. In the first three months of this year,
548 calls were received with 145 (26.4%) about this issue.

In many cases callers have been getting in touch in a state of distress,
having been tested for the first time after years in the same job. Often a
programme of voluntary redundancies was announced, followed by workplace
medicals for the remaining staff, including a drug test.

Sacking employees who test positive for illicit drugs allows employers to
avoid making redundancy payouts. Cannabis, which can remain detectable for
several weeks after use, is the substance causing the biggest problems for
employees.

While drug testing in the workplace has been routine for many years in
safety critical jobs, such as driving and machine operation, Release
reports that many calls are coming from sectors they had comparatively few
dealings with before such as office work, banking and commerce.

Previously the charity received regular calls from employers about how
best to support staff with drug problems. These calls have dwindled to
almost zero.

The expansion of drug testing into non-traditional areas could breach
employees' human rights and entitlement to a private life, while offering
few enhancements to workplace performance, Release said.

Forty per cent of the workforce under 40 have used illicit drugs,
according to Frank, the government's drug awareness campaign. It is
unclear how many users are impaired by drugs during working hours.

Frank's literature states that while some workplaces may benefit from drug
testing there are also many drawbacks, such as a negative impact on
employer/employee relations.

The independent inquiry into drug testing at work in 2004 said "good
management, education and support for staff is more useful, effective and
less costly [than drug testing] in dealing with drug problems".

Concateno, a group of companies that between them have approximately 60%
of the UK workplace drug testing market, reported a 13.2% increase in
testing between 2007 and 2008. In 2007, 159,000 workplace drug tests were
carried out and in 2008, 180,000 tests were done

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/may/18/drugs-testing-workplace-redundancy

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

On Mon, 18 May 2009 at 16:32:25, Dr John Watson 
 wrote in uk.legal :

>
>Rise in use of drug tests to sack staff without redundancy pay
>
>    * Diane Taylor
>    * The Guardian, Monday 18 May 2009
>    * Article history
>
>Employers are increasingly using drug testing to get rid of staff without
>having to make redundancy payouts, as a way of ­cutting costs during the
>recession, a ­charity has said.
>
There is a very easy way of avoiding this though - NOT TAKING DRUGS!
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On Mon, 18 May 2009 16:57:54 GMT, Paul Hyett <pah@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>On Mon, 18 May 2009 at 16:32:25, Dr John Watson 
> wrote in uk.legal :
>
>>
>>Rise in use of drug tests to sack staff without redundancy pay
>>
>>    * Diane Taylor
>>    * The Guardian, Monday 18 May 2009
>>    * Article history
>>
>>Employers are increasingly using drug testing to get rid of staff without
>>having to make redundancy payouts, as a way of ­cutting costs during the
>>recession, a ­charity has said.

>There is a very easy way of avoiding this though - NOT TAKING DRUGS!

You can still get as pissed as a fart every weekend, though.

Svenne

In article  Paul Hyett <pah@invalid.invalid> writes:
>On Mon, 18 May 2009 at 16:32:25, Dr John Watson 
> wrote in uk.legal :

>>Employers are increasingly using drug testing to get rid of staff without
>>having to make redundancy payouts, as a way of ­cutting costs during the
>>recession, a ­charity has said.

>There is a very easy way of avoiding this though - NOT TAKING DRUGS!

One can avoid air pollution also by not breathing, STDs by not having sex and
automobile accidents by never leaving your home.

People could avoid ladder accidents by never climbing a ladder, bath falls by
never bathing, etc., etc., etc.

The upshot, though, is that as long as someone doesn't impact someone else
negatively against their will, whether or not they breathe, have sex, climb
ladders, or ingest substances you don't approve of -- IT IS NONE OF YOUR DAMN
BUSINESS!

(See, I can use all caps too!)

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@seeheader.nospam)

"Once the realization is accepted that even between the closest human beings
 infinite distances continue to exist, a wonderful living side by side can
 grow up, if they succeed in loving the distance between them which makes it
 possible for each to see each other whole against the sky."

					-Rainer Rilke

On Mon, 18 May 2009 at 11:43:53, Pete nospam Zakel  
wrote in uk.legal :

>In article  Paul Hyett 
><pah@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>On Mon, 18 May 2009 at 16:32:25, Dr John Watson
>> wrote in uk.legal :
>
>>>Employers are increasingly using drug testing to get rid of staff without
>>>having to make redundancy payouts, as a way of ­cutting costs during the
>>>recession, a ­charity has said.
>
>>There is a very easy way of avoiding this though - NOT TAKING DRUGS!
>
>One can avoid air pollution also by not breathing, STDs by not having sex and
>automobile accidents by never leaving your home.
>
>People could avoid ladder accidents by never climbing a ladder, bath falls by
>never bathing, etc., etc., etc.
>
>The upshot, though, is that as long as someone doesn't impact someone else
>negatively against their will, whether or not they breathe, have sex, climb
>ladders, or ingest substances you don't approve of -- IT IS NONE OF YOUR DAMN
>BUSINESS!
>
>(See, I can use all caps too!)

It's not me your comments should be aimed at though, but the employers 
in the OP.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On Mon, 18 May 2009 16:32:25 +0100, Dr John Watson
 wrote:

>
>Rise in use of drug tests to sack staff without redundancy pay
>
>    * Diane Taylor
>    * The Guardian, Monday 18 May 2009
>    * Article history
>
>Employers are increasingly using drug testing to get rid of staff without
>having to make redundancy payouts, as a way of ­cutting costs during the
>recession, a ­charity has said.

I'm not inciting anybody to do such a thing. Oh no, god forbid, that
would be quite wrong.

But If they tried it on some worker who was so upset at being drug
tested with a view to firing him that he wanted to get his own back,
there are ways he might go about doing it.

I can't speak for other professions, but in the job I know and can do,
an unscrupulous and maltreated worker might do things to the automatic
machinery that would cause random stoppages in the process costing the
drug testing employer a fortune, and it would take them months to sort
it out. Limit switches loosened slightly and adjusted to the extreme
edge of their operating area so that they failed to switch now and
again, photocells adjusted to the limit of their sensitive area so
that vibration made them miss their signal occasionally, terminal
screws loosened on relays and connector blocks, tachometer screws
loosened just enough so that after a week or so they would start
slipping and returning the wrong speeds.

And that's just a start. There are lots of things such a worker could
do and they wouldn't be able to prove a thing. The mistreated worker
would get off scott free. 

Oh, what a terrible injustice. How bad and immoral. How could anyone
do such a thing? I would never do anything like that to my employer if
they drug tested me with a view to firing me. Oh, no, it would be very
bad and naughty and I would never do it, nor would I incite anybody
else to do it, so listen to me and don't do it, even though there must
be similar things other mistreated workers might do in their line of
work.

Svenne

On May 18, 11:32 am, Dr John Watson 
wrote:
> Rise in use of drug tests to sack staff without redundancy pay
>
>     * Diane Taylor
>     * The Guardian, Monday 18 May 2009
>     * Article history
>
> Employers are increasingly using drug testing to get rid of staff without
> having to make redundancy payouts, as a way of ­cutting costs during the
> recession, a ­charity has said.
>
> Release, which focuses on drugs, the law and human rights, reported a
> four-fold increase in calls to its drugs team about problems with
> workplace testing in the first three months of 2009 compared with the same
> period last year.
>
> In the first quarter of 2008, the team received 493 calls, with just 31
> (6.2%) related to testing at work. In the first three months of this year> 548 calls were received with 145 (26.4%) about this issue.
>
> In many cases callers have been getting in touch in a state of distress,
> having been tested for the first time after years in the same job. Often a
> programme of voluntary redundancies was announced, followed by workplace
> medicals for the remaining staff, including a drug test.
>
> Sacking employees who test positive for illicit drugs allows employers to
> avoid making redundancy payouts. Cannabis, which can remain detectable for
> several weeks after use, is the substance causing the biggest problems for
> employees.
>
> While drug testing in the workplace has been routine for many years in
> safety critical jobs, such as driving and machine operation, Release
> reports that many calls are coming from sectors they had comparatively few
> dealings with before such as office work, banking and commerce.
>
> Previously the charity received regular calls from employers about how
> best to support staff with drug problems. These calls have dwindled to
> almost zero.
>
> The expansion of drug testing into non-traditional areas could breach
> employees' human rights and entitlement to a private life, while offering
> few enhancements to workplace performance, Release said.
>
> Forty per cent of the workforce under 40 have used illicit drugs,
> according to Frank, the government's drug awareness campaign. It is
> unclear how many users are impaired by drugs during working hours.
>
> Frank's literature states that while some workplaces may benefit from drug
> testing there are also many drawbacks, such as a negative impact on
> employer/employee relations.
>
> The independent inquiry into drug testing at work in 2004 said "good
> management, education and support for staff is more useful, effective and
> less costly [than drug testing] in dealing with drug problems".
>
> Concateno, a group of companies that between them have approximately 60%
> of the UK workplace drug testing market, reported a 13.2% increase in
> testing between 2007 and 2008. In 2007, 159,000 workplace drug tests were
> carried out and in 2008, 180,000 tests were done
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/may/18/drugs-testing-workplace...
>
> --
> Dr John Watson
> Baker Street

This is the price thats paid for not challenging the legality of
forced testing when it was initially instituted (although I mostly
speak for "the colonies" -- we had a shot to nip it in the bud back in
the late 70's, but didn't)...

and so it goes,
K e v

"Paul Hyett" <pah@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:6HaX7HUAOnEKFwFS@blueyonder.co.uk...
> On Mon, 18 May 2009 at 11:43:53, Pete nospam Zakel  
> wrote in uk.legal :
>
>>In article  Paul Hyett 
>><pah@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>On Mon, 18 May 2009 at 16:32:25, Dr John Watson
>>> wrote in uk.legal :
>>
>>>>Employers are increasingly using drug testing to get rid of staff 
>>>>without
>>>>having to make redundancy payouts, as a way of ­cutting costs during the
>>>>recession, a ­charity has said.
>>
>>>There is a very easy way of avoiding this though - NOT TAKING DRUGS!
>>
>>One can avoid air pollution also by not breathing, STDs by not having sex 
>>and
>>automobile accidents by never leaving your home.
>>
>>People could avoid ladder accidents by never climbing a ladder, bath falls 
>>by
>>never bathing, etc., etc., etc.
>>
>>The upshot, though, is that as long as someone doesn't impact someone else
>>negatively against their will, whether or not they breathe, have sex, 
>>climb
>>ladders, or ingest substances you don't approve of -- IT IS NONE OF YOUR 
>>DAMN
>>BUSINESS!
>>
>>(See, I can use all caps too!)
>
> It's not me your comments should be aimed at though, but the employers in 
> the OP.
>
Employers just exploit, it's the idiots who perpetuate this dictatorial 
nonsense in the legislature that need taking out and all the self righteous 
cretins who applaud it.

"Paul Hyett" <pah@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:GqSIwtch4YEKFww3@blueyonder.co.uk...
> On Mon, 18 May 2009 at 16:32:25, Dr John Watson 
>  wrote in uk.legal :
>
>>
>>Rise in use of drug tests to sack staff without redundancy pay
>>
>>    * Diane Taylor
>>    * The Guardian, Monday 18 May 2009
>>    * Article history
>>
>>Employers are increasingly using drug testing to get rid of staff without
>>having to make redundancy payouts, as a way of ­cutting costs during the
>>recession, a ­charity has said.
>>
> There is a very easy way of avoiding this though - NOT TAKING DRUGS!
>
What business is it of an employer what a member of staff does in his off 
hours.

Colonel Colt wrote:
> "Paul Hyett" <pah@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:GqSIwtch4YEKFww3@blueyonder.co.uk...
>> On Mon, 18 May 2009 at 16:32:25, Dr John Watson
>>  wrote in uk.legal :
>>

>>> Employers are increasingly using drug testing to get rid of staff
>>> without having to make redundancy payouts, as a way of ­cutting
>>> costs during the recession, a ­charity has said.
>>>
>> There is a very easy way of avoiding this though - NOT TAKING DRUGS!
>>
> What business is it of an employer what a member of staff does in his
> off hours.

Nothing at all.  It's what he's doing in work time that concerns them. 
That's why they test in work time, and proceed on the basis of what drugs 
and in what concentration are found in his body while that body is at work.

It's like drink-driving.  You can still be over the limit the morning after 
the night before.  It's not the time you take them that matters, but the 
time they're there.

On Wed, 20 May 2009 at 00:05:51, Colonel Colt  wrote 
in uk.legal :
>>>
>>>Employers are increasingly using drug testing to get rid of staff without
>>>having to make redundancy payouts, as a way of ­cutting costs during the
>>>recession, a ­charity has said.
>>>
>> There is a very easy way of avoiding this though - NOT TAKING DRUGS!
>>
>What business is it of an employer what a member of staff does in his off
>hours.
>
Rather too vague a statement to be meaningful - what if he comes back to 
burgle the premises at night...
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

"Norman Wells"  wrote in message 
news:xxOQl.158145$IC1.109895@newsfe06.ams2...
> Nothing at all.  It's what he's doing in work time that concerns them. 
> That's why they test in work time, and proceed on the basis of what drugs 
> and in what concentration are found in his body while that body is at 
> work.
>
> It's like drink-driving.  You can still be over the limit the morning 
> after the night before.  It's not the time you take them that matters, but 
> the time they're there.

But many drugs tests do not test for the drug but instead test for the 
metabolytes that exist after the affects have worn off.
It is widely touted that cannabis can be detected in the blood for weeks 
after taking. What they actually mean is that the products left after the 
THC has been metabolysed  hang about for weeks. A cannabis test may show 
that a person has taken cannabis in the preceeding weeks. I have worked for 
a firm that reserved the right to test for drugs. The test they used for 
cannabis tested from the metabolytes which means that I could have failed a 
drugs test even if I had taken the cannabis legally.

Andy

On Wed, 20 May 2009 08:44:16 +0100, "Norman Wells"
 wrote:

>> What business is it of an employer what a member of staff does in his
>> off hours.

>Nothing at all.  It's what he's doing in work time that concerns them. 
>That's why they test in work time, and proceed on the basis of what drugs 
>and in what concentration are found in his body while that body is at work.

All very well *if* the drugs test actually test for the presence of
drugs.  But IIUC most such tests are for the presence of metabolites
that indicate only that the person *has taken* drugs recently, not
that s/he is currently *under the influence* of drugs.

>It's like drink-driving.  You can still be over the limit the morning after 
>the night before.  It's not the time you take them that matters, but the 
>time they're there.

Alcohol testing checks for the presence of alcohol - i.e. if you fail
the test then you *are still* under the influence of alcohol.

Fail a canabis test however and it may well mean that you used canabis
serveral days previously and the effects completely wore off long
before you started work.

-- 
Cynic

Norman Wells wrote:
> Colonel Colt wrote:
>> "Paul Hyett" <pah@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:GqSIwtch4YEKFww3@blueyonder.co.uk...
>>> On Mon, 18 May 2009 at 16:32:25, Dr John Watson
>>>  wrote in uk.legal :
>>>
> 
>>>> Employers are increasingly using drug testing to get rid of staff
>>>> without having to make redundancy payouts, as a way of ­cutting
>>>> costs during the recession, a ­charity has said.
>>>>
>>> There is a very easy way of avoiding this though - NOT TAKING DRUGS!
>>>
>> What business is it of an employer what a member of staff does in his
>> off hours.
> 
> Nothing at all.  It's what he's doing in work time that concerns them. > That's why they test in work time, and proceed on the basis of what 
> drugs and in what concentration are found in his body while that body is 
> at work.
> 
> It's like drink-driving.  You can still be over the limit the morning 
> after the night before.  It's not the time you take them that matters, > but the time they're there.
> 
> 
	That is wholly dependent on the drug used and the drug tested for.LSD 
for example is eliminated by the body quite rapidly but the effects of 
ingestion persist for up to  12 hours.

	Cannabis effects pass in about 4 hours but its inactive metabolites 
which are the substance tested for are persistent in body fat for up 
to 30 days after a single use.   The test is always said to be for 
marijuana but it is not and is only evidence of prior use.

	Most of the recreational stimulants are not as persistent as
cannabis nor is their prior use easily detected,

	later
	bliss

It is New Labour’s left wing best wet dream, by whatever means if not
up front then by back door measures such as this, that we should all
be saved from ourselves as necessary.

Their motivation is driven by the belief that only such measures can
disguise the continued failure of the NHS to deliver any kind of
service at a reasonable price and avoid the reforms needed for it to
so do.

In short, they wish to protect the last vestige of their entirely
discredited ideology because without a state run health service and
state education they have no ideology left.

Of course, the laughs is, they should be careful what they wish for
because a nation of racehorses would certainly, in the longer term,
only store up problems and therefore destroy the NHS completely.

You see, we all get sick and die in the end and none more expensively
(and for the least tax) than the health fanatic geriatrics that live
longest, a NHS that can’t deliver needs more of them like a hole in
the head.

If the Guardianistas really knew what was good for them they would be
handing out free fags to the school kids anything less will inevitably
fail to stop their lies being revealed for what they are.

Noticed at Mon, 18 May 2009 16:57:54 +0000: Paul Hyett informed us:

> On Mon, 18 May 2009 at 16:32:25, Dr John Watson 
>  wrote in uk.legal :
> 
>>
>>Rise in use of drug tests to sack staff without redundancy pay
>>
>>    * Diane Taylor
>>    * The Guardian, Monday 18 May 2009
>>    * Article history
>>
>>Employers are increasingly using drug testing to get rid of staff without
>>having to make redundancy payouts, as a way of ­cutting costs during the
>>recession, a ­charity has said.
>>

> There is a very easy way of avoiding this though - NOT TAKING DRUGS!

Alternatively, one could switch from long-detectable drugs to ones with a
short detectability, say, from cannabis (weeks) to heroin or alcohol (days).

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

On Mon, 18 May 2009 16:57:54 GMT, Paul Hyett <pah@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>>Rise in use of drug tests to sack staff without redundancy pay
>>
>>    * Diane Taylor
>>    * The Guardian, Monday 18 May 2009
>>    * Article history
>>
>>Employers are increasingly using drug testing to get rid of staff without
>>having to make redundancy payouts, as a way of ­cutting costs during the
>>recession, a ­charity has said.
>>
>There is a very easy way of avoiding this though - NOT TAKING DRUGS!

There's another way - explain to whoever is asking for your sample
that you will pee in a pot for your doctor, if you can't get to the
loo in time, or, at a push, if you're pissed and think it's a good way
to liven up a party, however what you won't do is pee in a pot on
command.


G

On Tue, 19 May 2009 09:03:56 GMT, Paul Hyett <pah@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>>The upshot, though, is that as long as someone doesn't impact someone else
>>negatively against their will, whether or not they breathe, have sex, climb
>>ladders, or ingest substances you don't approve of -- IT IS NONE OF YOUR DAMN
>>BUSINESS!
>>
>>(See, I can use all caps too!)
>
>It's not me your comments should be aimed at though, but the employers 
>in the OP.

I think too many people like to blame others. Why blame the employers?
It's not their liberties and dignity that is being discussed. If you
don't want to be subjected to such humiliation at work, then refuse to
do so. Unless it's actually in the contact of employment, I don't see
how they can insist. If it is in the contract, then challenge it
before you sign it. 

I haven't seen drugs testing in many contracts (two to be exact) -
each time, I spoke to the agent involved and had the clause removed.
Much more frequent (in my trade - I'm a programmer) are clauses saying
that any I write while I'm working for them will belong to them -
again, usually a phone call is all it takes to get the clause removed.
You can't really blame them - they are simply offering you terms, if
you don't like them, don't accept them.

GEJ

On Wed, 20 May 2009 08:44:16 +0100, "Norman Wells"
 wrote:

>Colonel Colt wrote:
>> "Paul Hyett" <pah@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:GqSIwtch4YEKFww3@blueyonder.co.uk...
>>> On Mon, 18 May 2009 at 16:32:25, Dr John Watson
>>>  wrote in uk.legal :
>>>
>
>>>> Employers are increasingly using drug testing to get rid of staff
>>>> without having to make redundancy payouts, as a way of ­cutting
>>>> costs during the recession, a ­charity has said.
>>>>
>>> There is a very easy way of avoiding this though - NOT TAKING DRUGS!
>>>
>> What business is it of an employer what a member of staff does in his
>> off hours.
>
>Nothing at all.  It's what he's doing in work time that concerns them. 
>That's why they test in work time, and proceed on the basis of what drugs 
>and in what concentration are found in his body while that body is at work.
>
>It's like drink-driving.  You can still be over the limit the morning after 
>the night before.  It's not the time you take them that matters, but the 
>time they're there.

That's a different matter entirely. Testing for alcohol is about
deciding whether you are fit to drive at the time of the test. If the
situation was similar with drugs test, you'd be doing the test to see
if someone were stoned at work. 

The problem is, the tests for cannabis in particular give positive
results because some metabolites of cannabis remain in the body long
after the period of intoxication. 

GEJ

"Paul Hyett" <pah@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:Fdo4dfPIH7EKFwiP@blueyonder.co.uk...
> On Wed, 20 May 2009 at 00:05:51, Colonel Colt  wrote in 
> uk.legal :
>>>>
>>>>Employers are increasingly using drug testing to get rid of staff 
>>>>without
>>>>having to make redundancy payouts, as a way of ­cutting costs during the
>>>>recession, a ­charity has said.
>>>>
>>> There is a very easy way of avoiding this though - NOT TAKING DRUGS!
>>>
>>What business is it of an employer what a member of staff does in his off
>>hours.
>>
> Rather too vague a statement to be meaningful - what if he comes back to 
> burgle the premises at night...
>
Hmm I think you mean your own ridiculous statement is a little too vague to 
be meaningful.

There's nothing vague about saying what an employee does on his or her own 
time is none of the employers damned business unless the employee makes it 
so.

Sounds like you're all for the guilty until proven innocent drug war idiocy?

The employers role is to employ people to do a job of work - it isn't to 
dictate how employees live their lives.

On Wed, 20 May 2009 at 21:07:13, Gareth Erskine-Jones  
wrote in uk.legal :

>On Tue, 19 May 2009 09:03:56 GMT, Paul Hyett <pah@invalid.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>>The upshot, though, is that as long as someone doesn't impact someone else
>>>negatively against their will, whether or not they breathe, have sex, climb
>>>ladders, or ingest substances you don't approve of -- IT IS NONE OF YOUR DAMN
>>>BUSINESS!
>>>
>>>(See, I can use all caps too!)
>>
>>It's not me your comments should be aimed at though, but the employers
>>in the OP.
>
>I think too many people like to blame others. Why blame the employers?
>It's not their liberties and dignity that is being discussed. If you
>don't want to be subjected to such humiliation at work, then refuse to
>do so. Unless it's actually in the contact of employment, I don't see
>how they can insist. If it is in the contract, then challenge it
>before you sign it.
>
And they'll say 'No problem - the job offer is withdrawn'.

Plus, you'll give the DSS a good laugh when you try to explain to them 
'I turned the job down because they won't let me turn up to work 
stoned...' :p
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

"Paul Hyett" <pah@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:sWzCvhMiRQFKFwfK@blueyonder.co.uk...
> On Wed, 20 May 2009 at 21:07:13, Gareth Erskine-Jones  
> wrote in uk.legal :
>
>>On Tue, 19 May 2009 09:03:56 GMT, Paul Hyett <pah@invalid.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>The upshot, though, is that as long as someone doesn't impact someone 
>>>>else
>>>>negatively against their will, whether or not they breathe, have sex, 
>>>>climb
>>>>ladders, or ingest substances you don't approve of -- IT IS NONE OF YOUR 
>>>>DAMN
>>>>BUSINESS!
>>>>
>>>>(See, I can use all caps too!)
>>>
>>>It's not me your comments should be aimed at though, but the employers
>>>in the OP.
>>
>>I think too many people like to blame others. Why blame the employers?
>>It's not their liberties and dignity that is being discussed. If you
>>don't want to be subjected to such humiliation at work, then refuse to
>>do so. Unless it's actually in the contact of employment, I don't see
>>how they can insist. If it is in the contract, then challenge it
>>before you sign it.
>>
> And they'll say 'No problem - the job offer is withdrawn'.
>
> Plus, you'll give the DSS a good laugh when you try to explain to them 'I 
> turned the job down because they won't let me turn up to work stoned...' 
> :p
>
I turned the job down because they are hypocritical vindictive scumbags?

In article ,
 Svenne  wrote:

> On Mon, 18 May 2009 16:57:54 GMT, Paul Hyett <pah@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
> >On Mon, 18 May 2009 at 16:32:25, Dr John Watson 
> > wrote in uk.legal :
> >
> >>
> >>Rise in use of drug tests to sack staff without redundancy pay
> >>
> >>    * Diane Taylor
> >>    * The Guardian, Monday 18 May 2009
> >>    * Article history
> >>
> >>Employers are increasingly using drug testing to get rid of staff without
> >>having to make redundancy payouts, as a way of ­cutting costs during the
> >>recession, a ­charity has said.
> 
> >There is a very easy way of avoiding this though - NOT TAKING DRUGS!
> 
> You can still get as pissed as a fart every weekend, though.
> 
> Svenne

And probably do cocaine and heroin too, they pass quickly. This drives 
people to harder drugs. Hell you can huff glue or gasoline and not be 
pick up for drug abuse.

A drug that takes even three days is not likely to get you caught.

On Thu, 21 May 2009 07:56:47 GMT, Paul Hyett <pah@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>On Wed, 20 May 2009 at 21:07:13, Gareth Erskine-Jones  
>wrote in uk.legal :
>
>>On Tue, 19 May 2009 09:03:56 GMT, Paul Hyett <pah@invalid.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>The upshot, though, is that as long as someone doesn't impact someone else
>>>>negatively against their will, whether or not they breathe, have sex, climb
>>>>ladders, or ingest substances you don't approve of -- IT IS NONE OF YOUR DAMN
>>>>BUSINESS!
>>>>
>>>>(See, I can use all caps too!)
>>>
>>>It's not me your comments should be aimed at though, but the employers
>>>in the OP.
>>
>>I think too many people like to blame others. Why blame the employers?
>>It's not their liberties and dignity that is being discussed. If you
>>don't want to be subjected to such humiliation at work, then refuse to
>>do so. Unless it's actually in the contact of employment, I don't see
>>how they can insist. If it is in the contract, then challenge it
>>before you sign it.
>>
>And they'll say 'No problem - the job offer is withdrawn'.

Not if they want the candidate. I've asked for such a clause to be
removed more than once and it's never been a problem.

>Plus, you'll give the DSS a good laugh when you try to explain to them 
>'I turned the job down because they won't let me turn up to work 
>stoned...' :p

You used to post reasonably sensibly - why not now? You know very well
we are not discussing turning up to work stoned. We are talking about
employers performing drugs tests on employees' urine. 

GEJ

On Thu, 21 May 2009 at 21:30:04, Gareth Erskine-Jones  
wrote in uk.legal :
>>>
>>>I think too many people like to blame others. Why blame the employers?
>>>It's not their liberties and dignity that is being discussed. If you
>>>don't want to be subjected to such humiliation at work, then refuse to
>>>do so. Unless it's actually in the contact of employment, I don't see
>>>how they can insist. If it is in the contract, then challenge it
>>>before you sign it.
>>>
>>And they'll say 'No problem - the job offer is withdrawn'.
>
>Not if they want the candidate. I've asked for such a clause to be
>removed more than once and it's never been a problem.
>
>>Plus, you'll give the DSS a good laugh when you try to explain to them
>>'I turned the job down because they won't let me turn up to work
>>stoned...' :p
>
>You used to post reasonably sensibly - why not now?

You obviously missed my smiley.

>You know very well
>we are not discussing turning up to work stoned. We are talking about
>employers performing drugs tests on employees' urine.

I don't agree with pre-emptive testing.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On 2009-05-21, Paul Hyett <pah@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 May 2009 at 21:07:13, Gareth Erskine-Jones  
> wrote in uk.legal :


>>I think too many people like to blame others. Why blame the employers?
>>It's not their liberties and dignity that is being discussed. If you
>>don't want to be subjected to such humiliation at work, then refuse to
>>do so. Unless it's actually in the contact of employment, I don't see
>>how they can insist. If it is in the contract, then challenge it
>>before you sign it.
>>
> And they'll say 'No problem - the job offer is withdrawn'.

I've never had any problem having clauses in contracts of employment
removed - not that I've ever seen one about drug testing. I routinely
request that the Intellectual Property one is removed and have never
been refused. It does seem to cause some consternation among HR droids,
I suspect because people rarely read, never mind challenge, contracts of
employment.


-- 
                    http://hyperangry.blogspot.com/
       [email me, if you must, at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

On Fri, 22 May 2009 06:52:32 GMT, Paul Hyett <pah@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>On Thu, 21 May 2009 at 21:30:04, Gareth Erskine-Jones  
>wrote in uk.legal :
>>>>
>>>>I think too many people like to blame others. Why blame the employers?
>>>>It's not their liberties and dignity that is being discussed. If you
>>>>don't want to be subjected to such humiliation at work, then refuse to
>>>>do so. Unless it's actually in the contact of employment, I don't see
>>>>how they can insist. If it is in the contract, then challenge it
>>>>before you sign it.
>>>>
>>>And they'll say 'No problem - the job offer is withdrawn'.
>>
>>Not if they want the candidate. I've asked for such a clause to be
>>removed more than once and it's never been a problem.
>>
>>>Plus, you'll give the DSS a good laugh when you try to explain to them
>>>'I turned the job down because they won't let me turn up to work
>>>stoned...' :p
>>
>>You used to post reasonably sensibly - why not now?
>
>You obviously missed my smiley.

I did indeed. My apologies!

>>You know very well
>>we are not discussing turning up to work stoned. We are talking about
>>employers performing drugs tests on employees' urine.
>
>I don't agree with pre-emptive testing.

Well that's really the only kind which makes sense (i.e. if you're an
employer and you want to get rid of any employees who use cannabis). I
suppose an employer might suspect that a worker is stoned, and then
try to subject that candidate to a test to get objective evidence, but
the test would only show that they'd used it within the last few
weeks, so I don't see the point.

I presume that people who turn up to work drunk are disciplined
without having to be tested for alcohol, so it's surely possible to do
something similar with people who turn up intoxicated with other
substances.

GEJ

"Gareth Erskine-Jones"  wrote in message 
news:j5td15pibat35c8bquo5651051o602oool@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 22 May 2009 06:52:32 GMT, Paul Hyett <pah@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 21 May 2009 at 21:30:04, Gareth Erskine-Jones 
>>wrote in uk.legal :
>>>>>
>>>>>I think too many people like to blame others. Why blame the employers?
>>>>>It's not their liberties and dignity that is being discussed. If you
>>>>>don't want to be subjected to such humiliation at work, then refuse to
>>>>>do so. Unless it's actually in the contact of employment, I don't see
>>>>>how they can insist. If it is in the contract, then challenge it
>>>>>before you sign it.
>>>>>
>>>>And they'll say 'No problem - the job offer is withdrawn'.
>>>
>>>Not if they want the candidate. I've asked for such a clause to be
>>>removed more than once and it's never been a problem.
>>>
>>>>Plus, you'll give the DSS a good laugh when you try to explain to them
>>>>'I turned the job down because they won't let me turn up to work
>>>>stoned...' :p
>>>
>>>You used to post reasonably sensibly - why not now?
>>
>>You obviously missed my smiley.
>
> I did indeed. My apologies!
>
>>>You know very well
>>>we are not discussing turning up to work stoned. We are talking about
>>>employers performing drugs tests on employees' urine.
>>
>>I don't agree with pre-emptive testing.
>
> Well that's really the only kind which makes sense (i.e. if you're an
> employer and you want to get rid of any employees who use cannabis). I
> suppose an employer might suspect that a worker is stoned, and then
> try to subject that candidate to a test to get objective evidence, but
> the test would only show that they'd used it within the last few
> weeks, so I don't see the point.
>
> I presume that people who turn up to work drunk are disciplined
> without having to be tested for alcohol, so it's surely possible to do
> something similar with people who turn up intoxicated with other
> substances.
>
>
Just so. If an employee turns up to a place of work, unfit to carry the job 
they've been employed and paid to do, then an employer has every right to 
investigate the matter.

If an employee isn't in that posititon then there isn't, or certainly 
shouldn't be, anything for the employer to concern themselves with.

On 23 May, 04:06, "JohnR"  wrote:
> "Gareth Erskine-Jones"  wrote in message
>
> news:j5td15pibat35c8bquo5651051o602oool@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 22 May 2009 06:52:32 GMT, Paul Hyett <p...@invalid.invalid>
> > wrote:
>
> >>On Thu, 21 May 2009 at 21:30:04, Gareth Erskine-Jones 
> >>wrote in uk.legal :
>
> >>>>>I think too many people like to blame others. Why blame the employers?
> >>>>>It's not their liberties and dignity that is being discussed. If you
> >>>>>don't want to be subjected to such humiliation at work, then refuse to
> >>>>>do so. Unless it's actually in the contact of employment, I don't see
> >>>>>how they can insist. If it is in the contract, then challenge it
> >>>>>before you sign it.
>
> >>>>And they'll say 'No problem - the job offer is withdrawn'.
>
> >>>Not if they want the candidate. I've asked for such a clause to be
> >>>removed more than once and it's never been a problem.
>
> >>>>Plus, you'll give the DSS a good laugh when you try to explain to them
> >>>>'I turned the job down because they won't let me turn up to work
> >>>>stoned...' :p
>
> >>>You used to post reasonably sensibly - why not now?
>
> >>You obviously missed my smiley.
>
> > I did indeed. My apologies!
>
> >>>You know very well
> >>>we are not discussing turning up to work stoned. We are talking about
> >>>employers performing drugs tests on employees' urine.
>
> >>I don't agree with pre-emptive testing.
>
> > Well that's really the only kind which makes sense (i.e. if you're an
> > employer and you want to get rid of any employees who use cannabis). I
> > suppose an employer might suspect that a worker is stoned, and then
> > try to subject that candidate to a test to get objective evidence, but
> > the test would only show that they'd used it within the last few
> > weeks, so I don't see the point.
>
> > I presume that people who turn up to work drunk are disciplined
> > without having to be tested for alcohol, so it's surely possible to do
> > something similar with people who turn up intoxicated with other
> > substances.
>
> Just so. If an employee turns up to a place of work, unfit to carry the job
> they've been employed and paid to do, then an employer has every right to
> investigate the matter.

> If an employee isn't in that posititon then there isn't, or certainly
> shouldn't be, anything for the employer to concern themselves with.

Sack the potheads I've known and worked with, including myself, and
they'd be getting rid of a lot of their best staff.

People who could very well leave their vindictive employer with a very
unwelcome goodby present that would cost them much more dearly than
treating their employees with respect.

Svenne

On 18 May, 16:32, Dr John Watson  wrote:

> Sacking employees who test positive for illicit drugs allows employers to
> avoid making redundancy payouts. Cannabis, which can remain detectable for
> several weeks after use, is the substance causing the biggest problems for
> employees.

If only there was a simple, straightforward way of avoiding this
problem, eh?

Ian

On 23 May, 17:01, ubergeek...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On 18 May, 16:32, Dr John Watson  wrote:
>
> > Sacking employees who test positive for illicit drugs allows employers to
> > avoid making redundancy payouts. Cannabis, which can remain detectable for
> > several weeks after use, is the substance causing the biggest problems for
> > employees.

> If only there was a simple, straightforward way of avoiding this
> problem, eh?

Yep. Choose an employer who respects the right of employees to a
private life and so doesn't demand urine tests, or knuckle under,
admit you are owned by your boss and live as a cowed slave.

Svenne

On Sat, 23 May 2009 at 06:00:39, tvaerskaegg@aol.com wrote in uk.legal :
>>
>> Just so. If an employee turns up to a place of work, unfit to carry the job
>> they've been employed and paid to do, then an employer has every right to
>> investigate the matter.
>
>> If an employee isn't in that posititon then there isn't, or certainly
>> shouldn't be, anything for the employer to concern themselves with.
>
>Sack the potheads I've known and worked with, including myself, and
>they'd be getting rid of a lot of their best staff.
>
>People who could very well leave their vindictive employer with a very
>unwelcome goodby present that would cost them much more dearly than
>treating their employees with respect.

And the ex-employees facing a prison sentence?
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On Sat, 23 May 2009 at 08:49:46, tvaerskaegg@aol.com wrote in uk.legal :
>>
>> > Sacking employees who test positive for illicit drugs allows employers to
>> > avoid making redundancy payouts. Cannabis, which can remain detectable for
>> > several weeks after use, is the substance causing the biggest problems for
>> > employees.
>
>> If only there was a simple, straightforward way of avoiding this
>> problem, eh?
>
>Yep. Choose an employer who respects the right of employees to a
>private life and so doesn't demand urine tests, or knuckle under,
>admit you are owned by your boss and live as a cowed slave.
>
Or people use their own common sense and choose not to touch drugs in 
the first place...
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On 23 May, 19:42, Paul Hyett <p...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 May 2009 at 06:00:39, tvaerska...@aol.com wrote in uk.legal :
>
>
>
> >> Just so. If an employee turns up to a place of work, unfit to carry the job
> >> they've been employed and paid to do, then an employer has every right to
> >> investigate the matter.
>
> >> If an employee isn't in that posititon then there isn't, or certainly
> >> shouldn't be, anything for the employer to concern themselves with.
>
> >Sack the potheads I've known and worked with, including myself, and
> >they'd be getting rid of a lot of their best staff.
>
> >People who could very well leave their vindictive employer with a very
> >unwelcome goodby present that would cost them much more dearly than
> >treating their employees with respect.

> And the ex-employees facing a prison sentence?

In my line of work it would be very, very easy to bugger up a
production line so it caused no end of trouble for months costing the
swine a fortune before it was sorted out again and it would be
totally, absolutly impossible to prove a thing. The bastards would pay
and it would be Ideal, sweet revenge.

Not that I would ever do such a thing. Oh no, deary me, it would be
bad and immoral and all that. Perish the thought.

Or that I would ever be in that situation. If they want to take the
piss out of their employees they can make do with second best.

Svenne

On 23 May, 19:42, Paul Hyett <p...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 May 2009 at 08:49:46, tvaerska...@aol.com wrote in uk.legal :
>
> >> > Sacking employees who test positive for illicit drugs allows employers to
> >> > avoid making redundancy payouts. Cannabis, which can remain detectable for
> >> > several weeks after use, is the substance causing the biggest problems for
> >> > employees.
>
> >> If only there was a simple, straightforward way of avoiding this
> >> problem, eh?
>
> >Yep. Choose an employer who respects the right of employees to a
> >private life and so doesn't demand urine tests, or knuckle under,
> >admit you are owned by your boss and live as a cowed slave.

> Or people use their own common sense and choose not to touch drugs in
> the first place...

Depends whose life your regard your own as.

Svenne

"Paul Hyett" <pah@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:Ag5pCHeEUCGKFwBO@blueyonder.co.uk...
> On Sat, 23 May 2009 at 08:49:46, tvaerskaegg@aol.com wrote in uk.legal :
>>>
>>> > Sacking employees who test positive for illicit drugs allows employers 
>>> > to
>>> > avoid making redundancy payouts. Cannabis, which can remain detectable 
>>> > for
>>> > several weeks after use, is the substance causing the biggest problems 
>>> > for
>>> > employees.
>>
>>> If only there was a simple, straightforward way of avoiding this
>>> problem, eh?
>>
>>Yep. Choose an employer who respects the right of employees to a
>>private life and so doesn't demand urine tests, or knuckle under,
>>admit you are owned by your boss and live as a cowed slave.
>>
> Or people use their own common sense and choose not to touch drugs in the 
> first place...
>
Theirs or yours...

wrote in message 
news:68a11c39-eb47-4a95-84e4-a2000998a9e3@m17g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> On 18 May, 16:32, Dr John Watson  wrote:
>
>> Sacking employees who test positive for illicit drugs allows employers to
>> avoid making redundancy payouts. Cannabis, which can remain detectable 
>> for
>> several weeks after use, is the substance causing the biggest problems 
>> for
>> employees.
>
> If only there was a simple, straightforward way of avoiding this
> problem, eh?
>
>
Oh there is... problem is that the war on some drugs has nothing whatsoever 
to do with reason and logic.

On Sat, 23 May 2009 at 10:23:41, tvaerskaegg@aol.com wrote in uk.legal :
>>
>> >> If only there was a simple, straightforward way of avoiding this
>> >> problem, eh?
>>
>> >Yep. Choose an employer who respects the right of employees to a
>> >private life and so doesn't demand urine tests, or knuckle under,
>> >admit you are owned by your boss and live as a cowed slave.
>
>> Or people use their own common sense and choose not to touch drugs in
>> the first place...
>
>Depends whose life your regard your own as.

I don't understand - I thought my above comment indicated it was up to 
the individual concerned. Only the 2nd half of it was my personal 
opinion on the subject.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On Sun, 24 May 2009 at 02:07:58, JohnR  wrote in 
uk.legal :
>>>
>> Or people use their own common sense and choose not to touch drugs in the
>> first place...
>>
>Theirs or yours...

Notice my use of 'their' in the above comment?
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On Sun, 24 May 2009 06:46:38 GMT, Paul Hyett <pah@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>On Sat, 23 May 2009 at 10:23:41, tvaerskaegg@aol.com wrote in uk.legal :
>>>
>>> >> If only there was a simple, straightforward way of avoiding this
>>> >> problem, eh?
>>>
>>> >Yep. Choose an employer who respects the right of employees to a
>>> >private life and so doesn't demand urine tests, or knuckle under,
>>> >admit you are owned by your boss and live as a cowed slave.
>>
>>> Or people use their own common sense and choose not to touch drugs in
>>> the first place...
>>
>>Depends whose life your regard your own as.

>I don't understand - I thought my above comment indicated it was up to 
>the individual concerned. Only the 2nd half of it was my personal 
>opinion on the subject.

Yes,it is apparent you don't understand.

People who regard their life as their own should avoid caving in to
the unreasonable demands of others. 

If forced by circumstances to submit to indignity and outrageous
intrusion, then submit, but regard your employer with the contempt he
deserves and give no commitment or loyalty. If it becomes possible to
shit on him from a great height, then by all means return to him the
compliment he gave you.

As for your forswearing of all intoxicants, it certainly put you in a
minority. But like you said, everyones choice is their own.

Svenne

On Sun, 24 May 2009 06:46:38 GMT, Paul Hyett <pah@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>On Sun, 24 May 2009 at 02:07:58, JohnR  wrote in 
>uk.legal :
>>>>
>>> Or people use their own common sense and choose not to touch drugs in the
>>> first place...
>>>
>>Theirs or yours...

>Notice my use of 'their' in the above comment?

Everyone has options, not all of them the best possible. If an
employer chooses to insult and degrade his employees and an employee
is in a stiutation where he sees no alternative but to submit to the
indignity, then the employer can't expect his employees to show
commitment, trust and loyalty. 

Quite the opposite, the employer becomes the enemy and an employee is
not going to go out of his way to be helpful. I can only speak for my
line of work, but there must be similar situations in other
professions. For example If I noticed in passing a production line
that a component was close to failure or a parameter was close to
being exceeded, leading to production stoppage and loss of money, then
in my present employment I would as a matter of course interrupt my
passing and remedy the situation. If my employer were my enemy, I
would look in a different direction, think to myself "fuck the cunt"
and keep on walking.

But if that's the choice an employer makes in his choice of workforce
relations and motivation management , like you said it's his own
choice and he'll get what he asks for.

Svenne

"Paul Hyett" <pah@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:DqKJwDFImOGKFwAO@blueyonder.co.uk...
> On Sun, 24 May 2009 at 02:07:58, JohnR  wrote in 
> uk.legal :
>>>>
>>> Or people use their own common sense and choose not to touch drugs in 
>>> the
>>> first place...
>>>
>>Theirs or yours...
>
> Notice my use of 'their' in the above comment?
>
Oh I noticed, it's your implication I was addressing. I suspect what you 
actually meant was "choose not to use some drugs"