Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2006
As far as I am aware random testing in the workplace is not a legal requirement by the HSE or any other authority. However, despite on the face of it being a voluntary agreement many of the main contractors force this upon subcontractors, usually at the induction phase by saying you won't be allowed on the job unless you sign a agreement to submit to testing. I don't know how that works out in employment law, but there's nothing in any contract I've ever signed with an archaeological firm which stipulates that you have to submit to testing just abide by their policy of alcohol and drugs in the workplace? I'd be curious to know if anybody knows what the legal standpoint would be if an individual either refused to be tested or failed a test by the main contractor but was not in breach of the contract they had signed with the archaeological firm they were working for? Could the archaeological firm legitimately terminate your contract?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2005
I think that this last point is finally getting to the crux of the issue.
It would also be very interesting to know whether any of the subcontractors had opted out of the scheme as I have worked on jobs where other archaeological companies/consultants were not subject to random drugs testing despite being in exactly the same amount of potential danger as others. Is this info freely available?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Another one for unions !
For really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he
Thomas Rainborough 1647
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2009
Geli, if I understand you right, you disagree with random drug testing because it does not test a safe limit of intoxication but tests whether the individual uses drugs in their own time.
At the same time you appear to agree that being under the influence of alcohol is linked to increased risk to H&S, So do you disagree with random testing for intoxication by alcohol or not?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2009
One of the problems with having to rely on a supervisor's ability to judge someone's level of intoxication is that it is just a matter of opinion. The "offender" will always be able to maintain that they are not intoxicated, and would pull the "I'm offended by the accusation" line. Good case for unfair dismissal. A place of work is no place to be inhebriated IMO, and so I would have thought that random alcohol testing is a better approach than waiting til you get a suspect, test them and embarass them, before finding out they have a medical condition and are on medication that makes them APPEAR to be intoxicated.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2005
While not always having been an angel myself in my younger days, I'm throughly bored with having drunk people at work. I'm talking seriously drunk. I've seen it too many times to count. It's dangerous.
It is all well and good stating that we can rely on the supervisor to tell who is off their nut, but what if it's the supervisor who's drunk? Or even the PO or PM? I've seen all of that in the last few years.
It also makes us look like a bunch of cowboys. We have a hard enough time trying to present ourselves as a serious profession without this to deal with.
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Simple really!
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
" I'd be curious to know if anybody knows what the legal standpoint would be if an individual either refused to be tested or failed a test by the main contractor but was not in breach of the contract they had signed with the archaeological firm they were working for? Could the archaeological firm legitimately terminate your contract?"
No - not directly. They would have to argue that, due to your personal circumstances, you were unable to do tasks asigned to you (ie work on sites with mandatory testing). If this were claimed and a tribunal was to be avoided, then before termination the company would have to demonstrate that they had made reasonable efforts to alter work given, or that such alternatives did not exist.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
Surely it would have to be determined, in court, on an individual case basis, whether it reasonable or not to demand testing for that particular task?
I wonder, are bus, train or lorry drivers subject to random (or non-random) testing? You do hear of airline pilots turning up for work already flying!
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2005
I don't really care what people get up to in their free time. If they want to blast their brain cells with booze and drugs that's up to them. What I do care about is them risking the health and safety of themselves and those around them. the rules are (or should be) clear and common sense: don't turn up for work under the influence or still hung-over. if you do, you are: 1) a danger to yourself and others; 2) a ***t!
I am sick and tired of the old argument that 'elf and safety is just there to make money for beaurocrats and that it either does not or should not apply to archaeology. It applies to EVERYONE working in construction and other hazardous workplaces. It's to prevent people like us from being maimed, killed or otherwise bashed about at the convenience of our employers. If you want to go back to the good old days of the 1960s and 70s when site practices claimed the life of Jeffrey Radley, then that's fine but don't come bleating to me about it when you're unable to work because you've suffered an avoidable injury.
D. Vader
Senior Consultant
Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants
A tremor in the Force. The last time I felt it was in the presence of Tony Robinson.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2009
I agree with Amber and Sith (and quite a few others).
I've forgotten just how many chemically imbalanced (to the point of actual psychotic) people I've had to endure on site. Basically, if you want to get p***ed or trashed, do it in your own time and not in work time (if you really feel the need... hey, it's what the weekend was created for... do it then).
