Random Drug Testing

[James Reid]

Advice please. Our Company has sent out an email stating they will begin random drug testing to all staff - office and workshops. They say if an employee refuses they may face disciplinary action.

The notice includes this section "Employee to be escorted to the toilet and witnessed urinating into the test cup. (Ensure that the urine sample is that of the employee and that it is not being tampered with). Some of the females especially are complaining about this.

Any advice?

regards
James

[HR Solutions]

Im not sure of what the regulations are about, but I do know that if I worked for a large corporation and they asked employees to have a drug test - I would not have a problem to do this. Almost all of the people that do have problems with this are people that might be on some drug.

If you are clean - no problem

[James Reid]

Thank you for the response. I have never taken illegal drugs in my life but I do have a problem with my right to privacy. More so this section "Employee to be escorted to the toilet and witnessed urinating into the test cup.

[tec0]

Advice please. Our Company has sent out an email stating they will begin random drug testing to all staff - office and workshops. They say if an employee refuses they may face disciplinary action.

The notice includes this section "Employee to be escorted to the toilet and witnessed urinating into the test cup. (Ensure that the urine sample is that of the employee and that it is not being tampered with). Some of the females especially are complaining about this.

Any advice?

regards
James

The legal guys may want to give you more detail to this, as far as i know it is a good time to get a union involved. I know when i signed my 3 month contract that i had to agree to random drug tests being done. I would start there... Now if i where you i would spend the money and go to a lawyer with a print out of that e-mail. She/he can help you... Also find out what the company policy is and how long it has been around.

now according to the

Employment Equity Act, 1998 (Act No. 55 of 1998)
Chapter II : Prohibition of Unfair Discrimination
7. Medical testing

(1) Medical testing of an employee is prohibited, unless—

(a) legislation permits or requires the testing; or
(b) it is justifiable in the light of medical facts, employment conditions, social policy, the fair distribution of employee benefits or the inherent requirements of a job.


(2) Testing of an employee to determine that employee's HIV status is prohibited unless such testing is determined to be justifiable by the Labour Court in terms of section 50(4) of this Act.

[HR Solutions]

it is a good time to get a union involved.

Why the heck would you do that ? ?
That just causes more problems and bitterness.


You must remember it is hard enough for companies to survive in todays climate. We need less of the unions and more actual work !!!
If one of my employees wanted to get the union involved for something like this - it would tell me a whole story and I would know
exactly where I am headed with that employee in the long run !

[Justloadit]

It may be the said company is having a problem with personnel taking drugs. If the company targets the specific individual, then the company is taken to court for victimizing.
The only other manner to deal with this kind of situation, is to test every one in order to clean up the house.

You may not even know a fellow employee is taking drugs, and in so doing is endangering the lives of fellow employees. Recently I had a spate of pilfering, then small robberies at the office, it then escalated to a larger theft, and damage to equipment. Upon investigation, one of other departments employees was identified and confessed, the reason for the theft then came down to financing his addiction to tick.

Having another employee accompany the cup is to ensure that there is uniformity through out the test process. If only some members are requested to be accompanied, then the victimization is an issue.

It may seem that the company is infringing on your rights, but it is probably trying to protect your from a worse experience at a latter stage.

[HR Solutions]

Yep .... too many people get on the defensive and don't want to be tested or run to the union as tec said above, but they forget that they are at work, they are there to do a job, their bosses can see that there is a problem and as Just said the company cannot victimise one employee. So good for the company and Im sorry for them if the person taking drugs has cocked up their work somewhere along the line and possibly caused damage. I would go as far as to say give the person ONE chance only to clean up their act and then if they don't - fire them !

[tec0]

To be clear i am 100% behind drug testing, when i work contracts i insisted to be tested first, secondly i am 100% behind alcohol testing when you enter and when you exit the work place. Thirdly i am 100% behind any company that wants to clean house.

That said the company is expected to do so lawfully and if they don't then that WILL open a door for unions, lawyers and other relevant parties.

That said my friend "union rep" when he saw the above post he just said "typical" and said any company and business that doesn't welcome unions may have something to hide? Goes to show it cut's both ways.

***edit***

I know a few unions started a progressive program to investigate businesses/companies "lack of union reps" See it is a employee's right to have representation. This followed after a few employees got hurt at the same company.

I guess this is what you call a double edge sword.

[HR Solutions]

Lol the reason why companies do not want unions has NOTHING to want to hide something - that is a typical Union persons opinion. More and more companies are talking to their staff and both parties are agreeing that unions cause more damage than actually helping their members.

[BusFact]

I tend to agree with HR here. The reasons companies want to avoid unions does not necessarily mean we are hiding something. I have a small company that is not unionised. I would have no issue with them having access to a legal consultant should they feel they are being treated unfairly by the company. However, it must be an arrangement between them and their consultant (union), leave me out of it until a dispute is considered to be significant enough (requires management involvement).

- Do not make me responsible for paying their union fees off my payroll, they are adults and can organise their own bills.
- Do not make me provide company paid time and stop all production for them to hold meetings (until it reaches significant dispute level which requires the manager's personal involvement).
- Do not make us get involved in the disputes of others (industry wide strikes).
- Do not increase my already unnecessarily large load of unproductive admin. An exception would be where its pointed out that I am not following a legal requirement such as a safety feature. This information does not require a union though.
- Do not make me become the employer and funder of a union employee (shop steward).

A union is an extra level of painful and costly bureaucracy. That is the small employer's concern.

[HR Solutions]

Then ask yourself why companies screen candidates. As a business owner myself I hire people. Simply put - I want people that want to work, people that are hungry to make money, dynamic people, good work environment, happy staff etc etc - all of which we have got without a union. When/if a problem arises we discuss it and sort it out within minutes. Finding the right people to work for a company is not always easy if you want to tick all the boxes on your criteria list, but you can get pretty close at the end of the day.

Remember that when screening people for a job spec, certain items do not matter e.g. if the person has a minor ITC record and they are going to be a draughtsman for e.g. does not really matter. If he has iTC for hundreds of thousands then it does matter because this will affect his work.
If that person is applying for an accounts position then they will not get the job because clearly if they cannot handle their own affairs they will not be able to handle a companies affairs. Another example is as tec has mentioned is a person has dyslexia he will more than likely not get a position working with figures - this is obvious, but he most certainly will get a position as a computer tech. This was mentioned quite a while ago and tec read it totally wrong again. People are screened to fit into the correct position. Just because they are not accepted in one position does not mean they can't do another job. This is very simply put but obvious to most people, but unfortunately you do get some people who cannot understand this.

It is no use bitching and complaining if you cannot find a job. Look deeper and try to figure out why you cannot get a job. Is it your attitude, your lack of qualification, you drug habit, your alcohol problem or are you trying to find job which just will not fit your personality. No union in the world is going to help you if you don't do your job properly.

[tec0]

Computer aid has made it possible for many people to do more tasks accurately, stock keeping or inventory checks are common place for the computer. And yet large clothing stores still deal with losses because they don't want to upgrade there systems and use the RFID tag system that is a norm in Europe UK and the USA. It is cost effective and can benefit stores in general. Computer aided technologies can enable a person to function better and help a person with problems to function normally. Unfortunately many companies are slow accepting this fact.

As for drug testing, Being qualified in safety myself i know the importance of these tests "drug and alcohol tests". However proper contracts and proper company policy must be introduced from the very beginning to avoid future problems. The legal requirements are there for a reason and is there to both protect the employer and employee. Please never for a moment think that any person would want to work with a intoxicated person on a dangerous job. It is just the matter about drug/alcohol testing should have been introduced when a possible employee was first interviewed. So that when they agree to the employment contract that they know where they stand.

Yes companies can implement testing at a later stage "if it becomes a problem" but again this must be done properly. Now in this case the company threaten the employees with a e-mail. That is unacceptable hence i say bring in the Unions. The employees have the right to have there rights protected. They need to know that the company is doing these tests lawfully and correctly. Unfortunately we do not know all the details here. But any threat to your employment is a priority and if the company did not do there homework properly why must the employee suffer?

The employee has a right to lawful testing and any testing not done lawfully must be reported to the proper entities involved. I will always maintain that laws must be respected on both the employer and employee side. Shortcuts and unlawful practice must be unacceptable for all parties involved.

[HR Solutions]

You point to the company again that must have proper procedures from the beginning ! I as the employer point to the employee and say don't do drugs and then we won't have a problem - if you are suspected of being on drugs you will be tested.

Anyway we will never agree

[tec0]

You point to the company again that must have proper procedures from the beginning ! I as the employer point to the employee and say don't do drugs and then we won't have a problem - if you are suspected of being on drugs you will be tested.

Anyway we will never agree

If you read carefully you would find that it was mentioned that policies can be updated and new policies can be introduced. As long as said actions are done lawfully.

These are the infromation we have access to.

Advice please. Our Company has sent out an email stating they will begin random drug testing to all staff - office and workshops. They say if an employee refuses they may face disciplinary action.

It is not a lot to go on... But i insist that all tests and new policy implementation must be done lawfully. If you believe i am saying anything else it is your choice to do so.

Both the company and individuals have rights, if those rights are not being represented properly then surly objections can be made by both parties. Third parties are available and can act as a valuable recourse. It is as it stands.

This is not about "how one feels" it is about ethic and lawfulness involving all parties.

It is not an attack but a requirement by law.

[HR Solutions]

Sure thing