1st April 2010, 11:56 PM
Geli Wrote:Well thanks to some steering away from the original subject this thread now seems to have come to an end. It has been quite interesting to see the various opinions regarding random testing. For my part I have never seen the issue as whether or not anyone does or doesn't do drugs but rather one of further invasion into peoples private lives. All this done for a bit of health and safety window dressing. Since about 2003 (I think) when members of the board of Directors of Macalpine were on trial in the states on Corporate manslaughter charges (under a class action taken against them by families who have lost relatives in the workplace), there has been a growing paranoia in the construction industry. Many of the resulting new introductions in H&S practice can definitely be seen as a good thing. However, the real safety issues in this instance are not being addressed by random testing. Indeed it is expressive of the bad side of the H&S paranoia, where things are just seen to be done rather than real changes made to working practices. Busting a few stoners may seem to give results and indeed probably some nice statistics, but not I feel make the workplace any safer. Nuff said.
The problem isn't with people who turn up wasted and go crazy at the wheel, it's about people who turn up on monday after an enjoyable "day after the night before" fully unaware that they are potentially dangerous, and other such types. Almost everyone I know in archaeology has done it, and almost none of them acknowledge themselves as being at risk. Indeed, I've done it myself; it's not something to be proud of, but it needs to be understood. The statistics and arguments suggesting that random/alcohol drug tests don't reduce drug/alcohol taking can't possibly be right, it's just not quantifiable.
The whole thing sounds a lot like the speed cameras argument. A system that is on a very fundamental level designed to protect people from other people's mistakes is vilified by people who think they know better. But doesn't it make more sense for a system to allow for the lowest common denominator? That's why we have systems. For bad drivers and people who shouldn't be on site when they think they're ok.
And we can complain about how it's protection for employers and HSE window dressing, but while this is very much true, it's also there for our protection. The rules aren't there for big companies, they're there for us, and to ignore them is just to allow the big companies to absolve themselves from the other life-threatening mistakes they habitually make. If I fall down a hole on site after two pints, life becomes much more financially complex (for me, not for my employer) than if I'd been drinking water.
The HSE has developed a system of CYA (cover your arse) for the entire industry, from top to bottom. This includes drugs and alcohol. You can ignore it, or bitch about it, but ultimately if you fall foul of it you've only yourself to blame because it's actually there for you, though it might not seem that way.