Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
dwbremner  
#1 Posted : 26 May 2010 10:40:19(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
dwbremner

My company (Quarrying, Construction, Demolition, Transport) is currently reviewing our drug & alcohol policy as part of our occupational health surveillance, we have looked at our competitors stated alcohol limits which are generally either 0.17mg or 0.35mg (the drink drive limit). The question I am asking is what is the industries take on "acceptable limits" and what if any limits are in place out there? In addition what are your experiences on this topic?
Rob35  
#2 Posted : 26 May 2010 13:26:25(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Rob35

There has been a few discussions on here regarding D&A policy and what level is acceptable, both for work and lifestyle. Ours has been written as a zero tolerance for both drugs and alcohol. It works very well and was written to allow help to be given, rather than a tool for dismisal. But you are likely to get a varied response.
colinreeves  
#3 Posted : 26 May 2010 13:51:45(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
colinreeves

You asked if there are any limits out there - I also note the word "transport" in your introduction. If the word transport includes railways or ships then there are statutory limits - see Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003
Clairel  
#4 Posted : 26 May 2010 14:25:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Clairel

Oddly there was BBC news report today on people going to work with hangovers. Disappointingly it only banged on about a loss of productivity, no mention of safety risks (not even in relation to driving)! I would post the article but it seems to have disappered off the website. Personally I say zero tolerance if there is transport, machinery or other high risks involved.
Reed21854  
#5 Posted : 26 May 2010 16:01:16(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Reed21854

Hi there My company works in the entertainment sector and whilst we do not carry out testing ourselves I am aware of other companies who randomly test anyone working on their sites. Earls Court Olympia has a limit of 17.5 mg / litre breath which is half the legal driving limit. They have a stringent drugs and alcohol policy in place following a couple of high profile deaths involving falls from height where alcohol and drugs were found to be contributory factors. If your testing people to verify alcohol levels I think there could be probelms with having a complete zero tolerance - I'm not sure...
stephendclarke  
#6 Posted : 26 May 2010 20:46:59(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
stephendclarke

Hi, I think zero tolerance drugs testing is a difficult one, which drugs to test for, so many variables, so many drugs, accuracy and precision, cost of testing, illegal/legal drugs, effect of prescription medicines, half life of the drugs in the body, I believe traces of cannabis can be found in the blood stream weeks after use, in addition people can be accidently exposed by friends/others and thus produce a positive result, also what level is unsafe? I think alcohol testing is easier but again I don’t think zero tolerance is practicable there needs to be a set level e.g. 35micrograms/100ml of breath (non-invasive). In my opinion testing with due cause is the best policy e.g. employee’s behaviour suggests under influence and in safety critical role. You need to think about what happens if employee refuses to be tested, who will do the tests, training, where test will take place, repeat tests, what if result is positive/negative what then, equipment calibration, involvement of occy health, help for employee etc etc. I don’t think its straightforward but following links might help: http://www.healthyworkma...ol/drug_employer.htm#top http://www.rgsonline.co....s/GEGN8570%20Iss%201.pdf Just some random thoughts. Regards Steve
Rene Peters  
#7 Posted : 26 May 2010 22:20:45(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Rene Peters

hi, I strongly believe a zero tolerance policy is the way to go forward, ( dont get me wrong I enjoy a drink as much as any person) simply because the effects of D&A differ from person to person and from situation to situation, I think that when you start messing with accepted levels you are on the wrong track , I do also strongly believe as another member mentioned that it should not be a dismissal tool , as you are only displacing the problem for some other company to deal with , I believe that once you are confronted with a member of staff who suffers from D&A issues you have a moral duty of care ( not to be confused with legal duty of care). and in most cases they are solvable and awarding. without acting like mother theresa
Rene Peters  
#8 Posted : 26 May 2010 22:37:03(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Rene Peters

hi, obviously without any disrespect for mother theresa and her work
PJG  
#9 Posted : 27 May 2010 00:02:47(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
PJG

Stephendclarke wrote:
Hi, I think zero tolerance drugs testing is a difficult one, which drugs to test for, so many variables, so many drugs, accuracy and precision, cost of testing, illegal/legal drugs, effect of prescription medicines, half life of the drugs in the body, I believe traces of cannabis can be found in the blood stream weeks after use, in addition people can be accidently exposed by friends/others and thus produce a positive result, also what level is unsafe? Steve, Just to clarify, drugs testing WILL be able to differentiate between types of drugs, and anyone being tested would be expected to declare if they are on medication. As for people being accidentally exposed by friends/others and thus produce a positive result…. Sorry, but no way… and yes, the excuse has been tried (to no avail!!!). As for traces of cannabis being found several weeks later in the blood, try 30+ days in urine. We have had to part company with many, many persons returning positive test results, predominantly drugs rather than alcohol. The amount of users out there, recreational or otherwise, is far more than one would think… disturbingly so! (and it's not restricited to young employees either!) We conduct pre-employment and causation testing and it works quite well. Managers are trained in the use of Alcohol testing equipment and we employ the services of an external company to conduct drugs testing. Prior to going live with the policy we had an amnesty period where-by staff could declare if they had a problem and subsequently receive free treatment to get them off the habit. Once the policy was ‘live’ then positive results are dealt with through the disciplinary procedure… sorry rene but who can afford to operate their business like ‘the Priory’. There is absolutely no way you can seriously expect private companies to ‘morally’ have a duty of care when staff fall foul or there employment terms and conditions… my morale duty of care is towards staff who conduct themselves responsibly and need protecting from such a person who enters the workplace under the influence of drugs or alcohol… sorry, little-to-no sympathy for offenders. I work in the private sector, Warehousing and Distribution... lots of trucks and fork lifts... potential for very nasty accidents!
PJG  
#10 Posted : 27 May 2010 00:11:46(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
PJG

By the way.... Accident Investigations On Mondays Consider if injuries were incurred from weekend sports or diy projects, or impairment as a result of heavy weekend drinking (Hung-over) On Tuesdays Consider if the accident is as a result of impairment from recreational weekend drug use (Tuesday is the 'come-down' day)
ricci  
#11 Posted : 27 May 2010 00:50:42(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
ricci

Having been involved for many years in both Alcohol and Drugs testing as well as being involved in setting up the policy for a large company, a number of points. It is impossible to have a zero policy fro alcohol as the human body produces substances in breath which can give a reading even when the person is a non drinker. Plenty of law to prove this. Current breath machines are accurate to a +/- amount, that is why you are not prosecuted if you blow 38ug alcohol in breath even though the limit is 35ug. The law even allows you the option of blood if reading =< 50ug. Best to set a limit, 12ug is a good one. Another point a reading of 50ug is obtained what do you do. Send them home. If they leave and drive who is responsible if they have an accident. You were aware they presented a clear danger on the road but sent them home anyway. Drugs are easier. A basic screening test and a hair sample if positive to identify which drugs. A rule that refusal or failure to take a test when asked treated as a positive test.
Bridge To Safety  
#12 Posted : 01 July 2010 13:59:53(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Bridge To Safety

I've been reading up on impairment testing over the last couple of days. It sounds like it could be a better method of testing - more acceptable to employees, and picks up on impairments such as tiredness and illness as well as impairments from drugs and alcohol. It sends a message that what the employer is interested in is health and safety at work, not trying to trap someone for what they do in their time-off. Has anyone tried it?
Steve e ashton  
#13 Posted : 01 July 2010 14:33:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Steve e ashton

Oh dear - and I thought we as a profession were trying to avoid being seen as the ban it brigade..... Well done "bridge to safety" - impairment is the concern. To all those who 'assume' that drug use = impairment, I can only refer you (yet again!!!!!) to the fact that international research for e.g. HSE and the Australian Government has established no link between recreational use of alcohol and drugs and workplace accidents, whilst for many these tests are considered to have significant human rights issues - to the extent that they (the tests) are banned in at least one EU nation, Finland. See HSE Research Report 193 "The scale and impact of illegal drug use by workers" and "Work-Related Alcohol and Drug Use - A Fit for Work Issue", published by the Ozzie Govt. See also papers from the nursing and midwifery council of GB, the BMA and others.... Government stats indicate that nearly one third of workers under 30 have taken drugs in the last 12 months. We have to assume that a significant proportion of e.g. any major employer's workforce will also have done, unless not gambling with the regimes in safety critical sectors such as rail. Given the length of time that abuse can be detected this could have a severe negative impact on recruitment, let alone retention. So - to those of you who seem intent on ban it and sack em. Do the policea favour and do all their testing for illegal drugs ('cos sure as eggs is eggs you ain't gonna be testing for prescribed tranquilisers.... which (in my experience) have a very significant effect on functional capability and error - prone performance). In UK PLC - we generally trust our employees to tell us (and DVLA) if their eyesight is good enough to drive a car (but many don't - so there are multiple deaths every year which could be attributed to deficient eyesight). But we don't trust 'em to tell us (and the police!) if they've just returned (within the past thirty days) from Amsterdam where it is perfectly legal to indluge in some substances which are illegal over here. WHY????? I have to ask those of you who seem determined to impose a 'zero tolerance' policy - WHY??? where is your evidence of impairment? I fear that we have our priorities very seriously skewed and that the evangelists who campaign tirelessly with prejudice but without evidence are winning. Time to get below the parapet methinks. Steve
Bob Shillabeer  
#14 Posted : 01 July 2010 15:38:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Bob Shillabeer

In the rail industry there has been a no drugs or alcohol policy in place for quite an number of years now and it seems to have worked. Each railway company has a policy (very much the same across the board) that anyone who is called for a random test is tested for both drugs and alcohol consumption. The penalty for failing such a stest is generaly dismissal. This policy applies to all safety dritical staff and is widely supported by the trade unions. It works well and is accepted as the norm. Try looking at the RSSB wedsite and look under railway group standards to see how the standard specifies the testing process.
Bob Shillabeer  
#15 Posted : 01 July 2010 15:42:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Bob Shillabeer

Have just read steves ashton's comments and can only say have you ever been present when someone is told that thier husband, brother or sister or son has been killed because the person responsible or even the person who has died was under the influence of alcohol or drugs? I think not as it is a very heart breaking thing to have to do. Put simple drugs and alcohol do not mix with undertaking any task taht can put safety at risk its as simple as that.
Steve e ashton  
#16 Posted : 02 July 2010 09:42:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Steve e ashton

Bob - I agree, Its not pleasant. But emotional linkages and prejudice are not conducive to good decision making. I would suggest I would feel no better to hear my daughter has been killed by a driver whose eyesight was so poor they could barely see the road in front of the car (and remember they do that every single time they get behind the wheel) or that my son has been killed by a trucker whose employers had worked him eighteen hours a day and he fell asleep at the wheel.... Or my wife had been killed by a depressive whose temazepam had turned him into a psychopath... (And remember your drug tests do not look for legally prescribed drugs..).. No death is nice, however caused - and yes, I've been there (twice as the first bearer of bad tidings....) But we- the professional members of the Isntitution - shoudl be tackling the problem - which is impairment. We should not be chasing will - o' the wisps which research has not found (despite a fairly determined hunt) Back below the parapet Steve
Bob Shillabeer  
#17 Posted : 02 July 2010 19:39:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Bob Shillabeer

Sorry to hear that you have had the very hard job of telling someone that a loved one is dead especially because that resulted from alcohol, done it too often myself and seen the aftermath. We should not take a view of this in a wider mix of other causes such as tiredness, they all have an impact upon safety, but the original posting was about drugs and alcohol and that is what I responded to. If you want a discussion about tiredness or even overwork or poor training I would be happy to join in but this topic was about D&A so I respopnded to that particular topic.
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.