Posted By Nick House Hi Robert Might be worth contacting ROSPA - www.rospa.com or Brake - www.brake.org.uk They should have plenty of advice on this for you. Regards Nick.

Posted By Philip McAleenan An article on drugs screening was published in SHP in May 2001. I prepared a response, elements of which were published in the following months issue. I focused on the human rights issue associated with mandatory drugs/alcohol testing and raised a number of concerns. Below I include some of those thoughts from my response. The concept of mandatory drugs testing must be challenged, not solely by ourselves in the safety professions, but by all who manage work environments and people for the assumption implied 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 May 01 article in SHP gave the impression that drug testing procedures are developed for safety purposes, however that proposition was negated at the time by the list of what drugs that were being tested for, as well as by the main picture of the article. Without exception the author detailed tests for the presence of controlled, and therefore illegal, substances. There are many GP prescribed and proprietary medications that adversely effect performance and therefore safety, but by their omission from this type of article, and from drug an alcohol policies, screening evidently becomes 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? As safety professionals we should seek good practice for improving safety rather than jumping onto bandwagons that 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 highly irregular mass screening 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

Posted By Ken Stevens Phillip While i have read your reply & understand the point of what you are saying i have to say that its a load of hairy fairy bunkum. We don't live in the world of everyone doing the right thing (companies & individuals). Drugs & alcohol for companies involved in transport is a real issue. Yes companies such as the 1 i work for should do more on awareness for personnel regarding drugs & alcohol but i am afraid that deterents such as testing are also required. i for 1 don't want to have to investigate a multiple fatility caused by 1 of our drivers who was affected by alcohol or drugs. if random testing identified a driver who was about to go out with a vehicle under the influence then i for 1 would think it was worth the intrusion.

Posted By Geoff Burt Ken 'hairy fairy bunkum' I'm surprised. It shows a completely closed mind to ideas from others. We might all have our differences of opinion but I'm not sure phrases like that help in discussions - do you? Geoff

Posted By Robert M Edwards Whatever we think about intrusion, it is a given that risk assessment of potential areas of abuse will become an insurance requirement. In January I will be doing a case study on this area on our website on www.limeone.com examining ways of consultation and comparisons with other countries' views on this emotive area. It is clear that in introducing a policy to random test, every employer will need to consider both the HR and Health and Safety aspects. As well as the policies and implementation you may will also need to dove tail this into other policies and procedures that affect employee behaviour. Lime One Ltd HR, Employment and Health and Safety Law Consultants. 0870 240 4325

Posted By Philip McAleenan Apology noted Ken, however I am fairly secure in my intellectual capabilities that I have taken no offence from your remarks. If we were all so succinct in our arguments, there would be little need for NVQs, NEBOSH or other study. It is the paucity of debate in your posting that should give you, rather than I, some concern. Rational debate on safety and the law should not be reduced to a poorly chosen pithy comment and anyone with whom you disagree put down as merely speaking nonsense, rubbish or whatever other adjective that comes to hand. Fortunately I believe the debate on the civil liberties aspect of drugs policies to be worthy of serious consideration, and would suggest that your dialogical input to the inquiry by Robert for advice may be more likely to harm your (and possibly your employer's) credibility than either my argument or feelings. As I do put some weight onto considered evaluation and rational argument I think it worthwhile to seek clarification on the position that you adopt with respect to the rights of employees. I accept, as you do, that we do not live in a world where everyone does the right thing, but can I interpret by your inclusion of this sentence where it is, that you maybe accept that what I have suggested is the right thing to do, (but, in your opinion, is still "unacceptable")? Because if that is what your are saying, my interpretation is that you are suggesting that because everyone is not doing the right thing, then it is alright for others (or at least yourself and your employer) to also not do the right things, as long as your objectives are right. In other words, are you suggesting that it is all right for the ends to justify the means? I agree that drugs and alcohol are a real issue for employers, but if you read carefully what I have stated above, you will note that I have proposed an approach to the issue that does not make the breaching of human rights a real issue too. However, your argument that deterrents are also required is negated by the first part of that same sentence. Suggesting that the company that you work for "should do more on awareness" is tantamount to saying that it is not doing everything that it is obliged, legally or morally, to do. Yet if that is the case, can you suggest why the deterrents of legal prosecution, public censure and loss of trade are ineffective? Look also at Bob's reply to you. The law already exists for prosecuting and imprisoning people for driving under the influence, possession and use of heroin, cocaine etc. but this did not deter the FLT driver in his example. You go onto suggest that if random testing identified a driver who was about to go out with a vehicle under the influence then you would think it was worth the intrusion. Let me ask, have you considered yourself as the subject of such an intrusion, being required for example to give a urine sample after returning to the office after lunch time? And, without prejudice to the actuality of your family situation, what if your partner was required to submit to intimate testing at work, or your children before they went into the school science labs? You see where the problem lies? Once you begin to make exceptions to human rights, the line become blurred and then disappears. Of course, no one wants to have to investigate fatal accidents at work and I have suggested a way in which work operations can be properly managed without causing harm or breaching employees' rights. If you are interested e-mail me and I will be happy to send you a paper that will elaborate on the above and detail a very successful management model, fraternally, Philip

Posted By Geoff Burt Dear Lord, I have no wish to be torn to pieces, please do not let me get on the wrong side of Philip. Geoff

Posted By John Webster Mmmm.... An interesting debate, and one which begs the question "what are human rights?" The term implies a set of gobal rules, some absolutes, yet there are non. "Human rights" are as flexible as a philosopher's thinking. They depend upon concensus, and that concencus is only applicable to the culture within which it is achieved. "Human rights" is about conferring freedoms on the individual, provided that those freedoms do not conflict with the "common good". In Europe, we have now adopted a written format in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Americans have had something similar for some time. We should, however, always bear in mind that these are not statements of Human Rights per se, but statements of what the authors believed should be human rights, as debated and ratified by the elected representatives of the people to whom the rights would apply. If this is consensus, what proportion of the population of each of the member states actually voted for the articles of the ECRH? All of the articles may be overriden by the domestic laws of the member states - curtailment of "Human Rights" for the common good. This in itself assumes concensus government - that we all agree Tony Blair, or whoever is our President, sorry Her majesty's Prime Minister, can act on all our behalfs. That we rely on Parliament to represent we, the people in the face of the party whipps, and confer final arbitration to the European court of human rights, as we know their decision to be binding on all european governments!!!!! So using the same logic, if a company wishes to introduce random testing, and less than half the employees object, then human rights will not be infringed. If a truck driver from a country which does not have drink driving laws is stopped in the UK and breathalysed, have his human rights now been infringed? Despite attempts at legislation, formal human rights are a myth. They reside in our sense of right and wrong, thet are personal, and it is not for others to determine if our human rights have been infringed.

Posted By Robert M Edwards Ray, Can you provide the details of the EAT case you mention? I ask as we pay a mint for case law and this one hasn't found its way to us yet! Many thanks Lime One Ltd www.limeone.com 0870 240 4325