Drug and Alcohol testing!

[evil8beezle]

So what have I missed? Oh, a good bit of sarcasm that seemed to ignite this thread!

Robroy - On the age and generation thing, I’m the same age as the Beaver and I’m more in your camp, whatever that is!

However, I do think that initial and random drug testing should take place, but ONLY when they have perfected the tests to detect whether you are “under the influence” and therefore NOT LEGAL (just like the 35 micrograms limit) for that moment when work starts! Anything that shows a history or indicators will OBVIOUSLY be held against anybody, and that to me is a step too far! The firm (your employer) does have the right to ensure ALL it’s employees are safe and protected from bellends that are off their ■■■■, but only for the duty time they are paying that person for. As the moaster flippantly inferred (and this is to the Beaver) What happens when My mate gets married and the stag do is in Amsterdam? It’s perfectly legal to smoke weed there and cannabis can detectable for about 2 weeks (up to 6 for a habitual user)? Does the firm have any right to that information? No laws were broken and I can’t see how driving a few days later has any relevance…

FYI - Cocaine stays in the system about a week, which can be reduced by flushing your system with lots of water. Cannabis however cannot, as it get stored away in the body and this is why a habitual cannabis user can take such a long time to pass the normal testers. It’s probably fair enough that they get their collar felt, but the system “AS IT IS” also detects/fails those who want to live their life differently, and who are we to discriminate? If I had a friend that wanted to get trashed (on their chosen poison) on a Friday or Saturday night, what the hell has that got to do with work on Monday? Not all “drug users” are “addicts”, and SOME can use drugs in moderation and sensibly, just like money, and they don’t write cheques that can’t be cashed! So come WORK TIME, that employee is what the company is paying for, an employee, NOT AN OWNER!!!

P.S. Just done a stint in somewhere where drug testing (for safety reasons) was red hot, and apparently most people didn’t fail, most “potentials” refused the tests and therefore left instantly!

Ohh I almost forgot, I’m doing a promo on subscriptions to moaster’s CCTV feed, a bargain at a tenner a month!
You won’t believe what he did with that beer can!

[yt03]

Evil8Beezle:
So what have I missed? Oh, a good bit of sarcasm that seemed to ignite this thread!

Robroy - On the age and generation thing, I’m the same age as the Beaver and I’m more in your camp, whatever that is!

However, I do think that initial and random drug testing should take place, but ONLY when they have perfected the tests to detect whether you are “under the influence” and therefore NOT LEGAL (just like the 35 micrograms limit) for that moment when work starts! Anything that shows a history or indicators will OBVIOUSLY be held against anybody, and that to me is a step too far! The firm (your employer) does have the right to ensure ALL it’s employees are safe and protected from bellends that are off their ■■■■, but only for the duty time they are paying that person for. As the moaster flippantly inferred (and this is to the Beaver) What happens when My mate gets married and the stag do is in Amsterdam? It’s perfectly legal to smoke weed there and cannabis can detectable for about 2 weeks (up to 6 for a habitual user)? Does the firm have any right to that information? No laws were broken and I can’t see how driving a few days later has any relevance…

FYI - Cocaine stays in the system about a week, which can be reduced by flushing your system with lots of water. Cannabis however cannot, as it get stored away in the body and this is why a habitual cannabis user can take such a long time to pass the normal testers. It’s probably fair enough that they get their collar felt, but the system “AS IT IS” also detects/fails those who want to live their life differently, and who are we to discriminate? If I had a friend that wanted to get trashed (on their chosen poison) on a Friday or Saturday night, what the hell has that got to do with work on Monday? Not all “drug users” are “addicts”, and SOME can use drugs in moderation and sensibly, just like money, and they don’t write cheques that can’t be cashed! So come WORK TIME, that employee is what the company is paying for, an employee, NOT AN OWNER!!!

P.S. Just done a stint in somewhere where drug testing (for safety reasons) was red hot, and apparently most people didn’t fail, most “potentials” refused the tests and therefore left instantly!

Ohh I almost forgot, I’m doing a promo on subscriptions to moaster’s CCTV feed, a bargain at a tenner a month!
You won’t believe what he did with that beer can!

You worded that alot better than me, what someone does is their own time should not land them in trouble with work. I know drivers who tramp and come home and have a big blow out on a Friday night… If they need that to relax, let them get on with it!

[eagerbeaver]

Simple answer Beezle. If ’ your mate ’ goes to Amsterdam where it is LEGAL to smoke weed, he has the KNOWLEDGE that it is ILLEGAL in the UK. So he has the CHOICE to smoke there and be potentially tested when he is home.

If he then loses his job, then the GAMBLE did not pay off. Depends how much you enjoy weed or drink I suppose.

Maybe you could ask yourself this question. " How do I feel now that I have just found out that the LGV driver that accidently hurt my loved one, shouldn’t of (according to the law) been on the road at that time? ".

I am simply exploring the various angles to the discussion.

[robroy]

Let’s all not get carried away and all believe what they want us to believe in order to jusyify and fit their agenda…as it appears some have swallowed it.

I do not think for 1 second that the industry is awash with ■■■■■■ up drivers, in every yard in the UK, or drivers off their faces with various rec drugs.
I reckon in all the 30+yrs in this job, I have seen it tops …about maybe 10 times. (drink not drugs)
I know each of those 10 times in 37 years are all totally unacceptable…not arguing, but let’s keep things in perspective ffs.

The obvious answers (so I’ll save you answering) are to that ‘‘If they catch just one’’ ‘‘think of the children’’ etc etc.

There is NOT an epidemic of ■■■■■■ up drivers, no matter what these tossers try and make us believe, so let’s all not get carried away.

[kr79]

Spot on and from the reports of drunken hgv driving you hear the vast majority are not British.
It seems in eastern Europe it’s quite acceptable to drive after a skin full.
As for firms it’s like a lot of the H&S bull pooh stick up signs and make everyone wear ppe but how many placed do you see where there is a real safety concern but it’s brushed under the carpet as it costs money.

[evil8beezle]

eagerbeaver:
Simple answer Beezle. If ’ your mate ’ goes to Amsterdam where it is LEGAL to smoke weed, he has the KNOWLEDGE that it is ILLEGAL in the UK. So he has the CHOICE to smoke there and be potentially tested when he is home.

If he then loses his job, then the GAMBLE did not pay off. Depends how much you enjoy weed or drink I suppose.

Maybe you could ask yourself this question. " How do I feel now that I have just found out that the LGV driver that accidently hurt my loved one, shouldn’t of (according to the law) been on the road at that time? ".

I am simply exploring the various angles to the discussion.

LOL - 15 years since I did a stag do in Amsterdam, and from memory I can’t be certain if I was even there!

Anyway, while “mum” gets worried we are getting carried away , you and I Beaver basically agree that testing should take place. We only disagree on the aspect of “Under the influence” when expected to carry out work duties. What scares me is “the nanny state” knowing what we do in our free time, as I see this as a step towards discrimination, and that’s never a good thing! It works fine while you’re not the minority it persecutes, but as the nanny state develops and grows stronger eating away at these little freedoms, before you know it you’ll be in a minority that’s persecuted…

Going a bit “off the wall” - What if the nanny state decided that the terrorist threat was so great, that everyone who’d visited a Muslim country in the last 3 years had to report to the police station every week for a further 3 years?
We need to protect and look after the majority mate!

I accept the above Muslim example is CURRENTLY stretching it a bit, and it’s tongue in cheek as I know you would be screwed!
But I’m only jealous!

Right, that’s enough with the handbag stand-off, mum will get upset!

[kr79]

eagerbeaver:
Simple answer Beezle. If ’ your mate ’ goes to Amsterdam where it is LEGAL to smoke weed, he has the KNOWLEDGE that it is ILLEGAL in the UK. So he has the CHOICE to smoke there and be potentially tested when he is home.

If he then loses his job, then the GAMBLE did not pay off. Depends how much you enjoy weed or drink I suppose.

Maybe you could ask yourself this question. " How do I feel now that I have just found out that the LGV driver that accidently hurt my loved one, shouldn’t of (according to the law) been on the road at that time? ".

I am simply exploring the various angles to the discussion.

If someone had been to Amsterdam a fortnight ago and tested ppsitive today i don’t think it would have affected there ability to drive today

[franglais]

Ive a few random thoughts to offer here. In many European countries its legal to stop anyone at random for an alcohol breath test. Ive been breath tested at 06hr00 in Spain; and mid morning and early evening in France. In all cases done n dusted in 5 minutes. To be a mite pedantic alcohol is a drug too, albeit a legal one. I wonder if alcohol and tobacco were not old, but were only discovered today, would they be legal? Id say not. How to stop kids smoking? Easy: forget age limits, say that anyone born after 2000 cannot smoke, so the age of smokers rises.
Alcohol testing in the workplace seems perfectly OK to me. No-one should be under the influence at work. (Time off is down to personal choice). So any drivers, machine operators, or directors (with responsibility for millions of £ investments, as they tell us) should all undergo testing.

[bob96]

I understand the need for alcohol test in exceptional circumstances for example but why should we be made to feel like a prisoner at work
At a place I worked at before there were routine alcohol test and I was tested searched all the time as a “suspected thieve” whilst the regular drivers waved on this left me with a very sour feeling at the end of a hard days graft and let me thinking what the point of working hard for this company.

[franglais]

bob96:
I understand the need for alcohol test in exceptional circumstances for example but why should we be made to feel like a prisoner at work
At a place I worked at before there were routine alcohol test and I was tested searched all the time as a “suspected thieve” whilst the regular drivers waved on this left me with a very sour feeling at the end of a hard days graft and let me thinking what the point of working hard for this company.

If you were being singled out for searches as a potential thief, then I think you have every right to feel aggrieved. Depends whether the company has a good security system in place, and whether its being followed correctly. But at the least it will leave a bitter taste in the mouth. And dont start on “lie detectors” etc.

[robroy]

bob96:
I understand the need for alcohol test in exceptional circumstances for example but why should we be made to feel like a prisoner at work
At a place I worked at before there were routine alcohol test and I was tested searched all the time as a “suspected thieve” whilst the regular drivers waved on this left me with a very sour feeling at the end of a hard days graft and let me thinking what the point of working hard for this company.

That is more or less Bob what I have been saying both on this thread and the other one on this subject.(stobbie drunk thread)

Most on here (including me) moan on about how we are perceived, …‘Thick lorry drivers’ seems to be the favourite, with the lack of courtesy when driving thing, chucked in.

The driving thing is another argument for another day, but how are we going to be thought of as anything else but thick when we readily roll over for this latest management pr stunt to make them look like… ‘they are doing the right thing’

I asked the ‘If you have nothing to hide’ crew about the ‘finger up the arse’ scenario, to no avail (then the ■■■■ sample thing is brought up ) which is one step away from that imo,… again without a hint of objection to it being totally over the top and unacceptable .

I also asked what they think about the employer’s opinion of their drivers is, when they come up with schemes like this, so at least Bob’s post has answered that one… They think we are ■■■■

I just can not believe that I am in the minority on here when I say it is an insult to my professionalism as a driver.

They have you all (or a lot of you) brainwashed (true to form ) that there is a epidemic of… ■■■■■■ up drivers waiting to cause carnage on our roads and kill our children
So you all queue up for your tests like good boys, rather than say ‘‘Hang on, how dare you imply that I am irresponsible enough to turn up for work ■■■■■■■ if I smell of drink report me to the Police, if not ■■■■ off’’

So then they do their tests over a week, and I would bet a weeks wage that 99% of said pro.s are clean, maybe even 100%.

So the results are…

The ‘If you have nothing to hide’’ guys with their kecks round their ankles are happy, but they are always happy no matter what they are asked to do.

The management pr team are happy they look really good for their image.

The public are happy as the ’ hundreds…nay thousands, of ■■■■■■ up drivers’ are banned,
Our roads are now much safer.

However drivers like me and Bob, (and a few more with a bit of pride and integrity) are angry, insulted and totally ■■■■■■ off with the display of lack of respect towards us. (which is not a good recipe for a productive driver)

But hey…who gives a ■■■■ about the drivers in the minority.

Classic case of chucking out the baby (ies) with the bath water.

[the_maoster]

^^^^^ saved me typing it. Cheers Rob.

[franglais]

If Bob has been singled out as a potential thief then Im totally against that. No justification for it. Ive tipped at a coupla sites where I was given a full “tap down” on leaving a secure area, but since all employees were given the same treatment I didnt feel too aggrieved. Obviously in an ideal world thered be no need for security to this extent, but it appears not everyone is as honest as us here.
If all employees are given random alcohol tests then, although Im not be happy about it, Id accept it. And that obviously would apply to all; be it drivers, machine operators, those with responsibility for the livelihoods of hundreds of workers futures, such as financial directors, etc. I dont want to share the road or a work site with a p155ed up driver, or have my job, or future pension wrecked by a p155ed up company officer who cant keep his/her mouth shut. (i.e. crappy jewellery salesmen).

[chronosuk]

There’s a deeper issue here. You, as a human being, are not property, yet there’s a creeping tendency for many companies to treat you as just that. It’s not just logistics, either. It’s endemic in the workplace across the spectrum these days, telling you what to wear, how to act, where to go even on your own time, requiring you to supply things like your social media credentials and so on, justifying it with a need to preserve corporate image and integrity while really simply being an excuse for certain people with chronic megalomania to exert their influence.

There’s not only a lack of trust, there’s a distinct lack of respect for one’s own autonomy as an individual and the minority who think this way are spreading their disease as we speak. They then wonder why people become unable to show initiative and professionalism when it is needed. I suspect you old school drivers notice it more because it’s that innate sense of freedom that drew you to life on the road in the first place.

[yellowasp]

Interesting thread

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

[robroy]

ChronosUK:
There’s a deeper issue here. You, as a human being, are not property, yet there’s a creeping tendency for many companies to treat you as just that. It’s not just logistics, either. It’s endemic in the workplace across the spectrum these days, telling you what to wear, how to act, where to go even on your own time, requiring you to supply things like your social media credentials and so on, justifying it with a need to preserve corporate image and integrity while really simply being an excuse for certain people with chronic megalomania to exert their influence.

There’s not only a lack of trust, there’s a distinct lack of respect for one’s own autonomy as an individual and the minority who think this way are spreading their disease as we speak. They then wonder why people become unable to show initiative and professionalism when it is needed. I suspect you old school drivers notice it more because it’s that innate sense of freedom that drew you to life on the road in the first place.

Well said and very true.
Their agenda of which you speak, is acheived by the employee’s tendencies towards complete and unquestionable subservience which is equally as prevalent as the employer’s meglomania you mention.
As for your theory on a past sense of freedom in the job, that is definitely one of the aspects of it then that attracted me to it.
Employers, and driver’s attitudes were also much different then than today, and not as self detremental.

[chronosuk]

robroy:
Their agenda of which you speak, is acheived by the employee’s tendencies towards complete and unquestionable subservience which is equally as prevalent as the employer’s meglomania you mention.

That is indeed one of the root causes. Acceptance just emboldens those craving control; simply rolling over and taking what can only be described as abuse of position is a contributory factor. I suppose it could be put in the vernacular as “growing a pair” although I prefer to think more in terms of having enough self-respect to recognise one’s own worth and try to maintain the line which should not be crossed which takes you from being a colleague working with a company to property owned by a company. In doing so, you also reinforce the idea of respect for others, so it’s not a selfish act.

Obviously I’m not advocating doing anything that could endanger employment prospects but maintaining dignity and a professional demeanor, demanding the same respect as you’re expected to show would seem to be good start. After all, every driver has worked hard to gain and keep their professional driver status and has responsibilities in many important, complex and potentially dangerous areas.

robroy:
As for your theory on a past sense of freedom in the job, that is definitely one of the aspects of it then that attracted me to it.
Employers, and driver’s attitudes were also much different then than today, and not as self detremental.

As I suggested, it may be an issue that spans multiple professions. I have certainly seen similar in my own career, which we started jokingly referring to as the “hierarchy of incompetence” where the less able someone is, the more likely they are to be a despotic maniac when promoted out of harm’s way. I’m a little dismayed to find it also happens in this profession but I’m not going to let that put me off doing something I’ve wanted to do for most of my life. There’s no better place to make a difference than from within. Perhaps it’s because my father was am old school driver and some of his ethics rubbed off.

Now that I think about it, it does seem to be mainly managers who have trouble getting their foot into the correct shoe in the morning who act this way. Is it at all possible that this whole attitude is simply projecting their own insecurity and incompetence onto others?

[immigrant]

Had our Neighbour fighting a Dragon tonite and early Morning.
Front Door destroyed,Back Door destroyed,Bedroom Door destroyed and even started to dig a Hole into the Kitchen Wall.
His excuse to his Landlord was he was taking somethings in a Londoner Cafe and when back home there were dragons attacking him.
so much to drugs

[robroy]

Immigrant:
Had our Neighbour fighting a Dragon tonite and early Morning.
Front Door destroyed,Back Door destroyed,Bedroom Door destroyed and even started to dig a Hole into the Kitchen Wall.
His excuse to his Landlord was he was taking somethings in a Londoner Cafe and when back home there were dragons attacking him.
so much to drugs

Unless he was a driver about to start his shift under the influence, wtf has that to do with this thread exactly?
I think we already are aware of the general adverse effects of drugs thanks mate.

[eagerbeaver]

Lol. Maybe you should stay off drugs too Immigrant.