You could always remove the policy if the costs of operation were not correctly budgeted..

Bluemilk - what are you trying to screen for and why?

As Roundtuit implies may be you could just stop doing it.

Hi Bluemilk

Possibly time to reevaluate the benefits of Drug (and Alcohol) testing for those who are not doing defined "safety critical" work.

Not seen any recent research that would undermine the conclusion of previous research that doing D&A testing for other people has little value from a health and safety perspective whilst potentially causing HR issues due to the "Big Brother" effect.

Pedestrians working in close proximity to HGVs and heavy machinery whilst under the influence of either drugs or alcohol surely increase the risk to themselves & others / operators & using a suitable D&A policy as a deterrent must be commendable - IMHO

I've used saliva based multi-drug tests from a reputable high-street pharmacy (think safety footwear) that are much cheaper - OK for 1st screening and then back up "issues" with a lab / professional OH service

Following ERICPD you could do it the correct way and Isolate the pedestrians from the traffic rather than relying upon a Disciplinary D&A policy.

Evans

"Pedestrians working in close proximity to HGVs and heavy machinery whilst under the influence of either drugs or alcohol surely increase the risk to themselves & others"

Yes, but so do many other factors. The jury is out on the benefits of D&A testing in scenarios other than designated "safety critical" environments, where the law dictates that such testing is done.

As to your take on ERICPD, it is an interesting one, though I have never been much of a fan of acronyms.

Eliminate the problem worker is the sort of solution that is popular (for some) in authoritarian regimes. 

However, the "principles of prevention" (what used to be called the "hierarchy of control") set out in the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, are perhaps a little more kind to humans.

So, it is always preferable, assuming that it is reasonably practicable, to deal with an "unsafe condition" before homing in on "unsafe behaviour".

"Pedestrians working in close proximity to HGVs and heavy machinery whilst under the influence of either drugs or alcohol surely increase the risk to themselves & others".

Would you agree that your sentence is still valid if the words in yellow are removed?

If yes, then the first question is why pedestrians are working in close proximity to HGVs and heavy machinery, not "are they (or plant operators) under the influence of whatever substance (including medication)?"

So you have a drugs and alcohol policy; great, and you agree  that someone under the influence of either can be a danger to others and themselves  at work: super.

But then things get complicated. Many drugs testing kits will detected the presence of things like cannabis long after the person has “sobered up” . What is you policy then? Do you still apply a disciplinary approach because what they are doing is illegal(unless they have been away somewhere where it is not) or what?

Personally I am more worried about the people I see in the morning going onto building sites while finishing off their cans of Special Brew, than the possibility that someone had a dodgy smoke a few days earlier.

...we have only ever done pre-work screening for safety critical staff...all others rely on supervisor/ manager identification and external testing...all of our drugs testing is done independantly....you could amend your policy to reflect the greater empahsis on supervisor/ manager training and remove your site part and include it as part of pre-start medical.