Posted By Philip McAleenan
My response to an article in SHP may be useful to this debate:
Articles such as that published in SHP (May 01) must be challenged, not solely by ourselves in the safety professions, but by all who manage work environments and people for the assumption it makes regarding the right of employers to infringe basic human rights through general and systematic screening operations.
Drugs testing is an invasive procedure, whether it involves taking body fluid samples or cutting hair, and invasive procedures beyond those necessary for surgical purposes or expressly sanctioned by proper laws, constitute an assault on the individual, no matter how minor the physical hurt caused. It further presumes a state of guilt with the onus on the individual to continually prove his/her innocence.
The publication of the article in SHP implies that they are procedures developed for safety purposes, however such a proposition is negated by the list of what drugs are being tested for, and by the main picture of the article. Without exception the author details tests for the presence of controlled, and therefore illegal, substances. There are many GP prescribed and proprietary medications which adversely effect performance and therefore safety, but by their omission from this type of article, screening policies are evidently a policing operation by employers. Basic civil and human rights prohibits the State from conducting any such screening operations on its citizens, why then should private companies be permitted such a function?
The author justifies the need for these procedures and his business by reference to very dubious research. He quotes statistics published by an entertainment's magazine and a music publication. There is no reference to any peer assessed scientific studies to support his conclusions and when he does make reference to a "professional" article he misnames the body concerned. A scientific laboratory should know better than to rely at all much less almost exclusively on such tabloid reports.
As safety professionals we should seek good practice for improving safety rather than jumping onto bandwagons which ignore or are incapable of seeing the long term and wider implications of their actions. In this regard, the correct approach is to set standards for safety and performance and to expect workers to meet those standards after induction and training has been provided. Where workers fail to meet the required standard (or appear likely to be unfit to do so) then the role of the manager is to work with the employee to determine why and to inform him/her of the requisite performance requirements (including abstinence from substances likely to impair performance, and to report the taking of medication). It is by setting the standards, monitoring performance and, where necessary, retraining or removing consistent under-performers that good safety practice is established without the infringement of human rights. In these circumstances it is immaterial whether the under-performance is due to incompetence, medication or drug use, the approach is the same and is acceptable, in law and in principle.
If any individual is involved in "illegal" activities, it is up to the police to collect the evidence and to prosecute, and there are internationally recognised standards controlling how they do this. It is not for employers and advocates of drug screening to subvert justice by adopting such highly irregular practices. As safety professionals we must ensure that our concern for the safety and welfare of workers is holistic, far-seeking and ethical.
Regards, Philip