CANSFORD LABS

[Cansford says] Random drug and alcohol testing could be brought in for council staff

Oct 5, 2018

[Cansford says] Random drug and alcohol testing could be brought in for council staff

Medical staff, the armed forces, professional drivers, pilots - in certain professions, drug testing just makes sense. In such safety-sensitive roles, workers under the influence of drugs or alcohol could not only put their own lives at risk, but the lives of the general public too.

But should such testing be mandatory for anyone, in any workplace?

This summer, Hyndburn Council in Lancashire has submitted a draft revision to its drug and alcohol policy, which would see all workers in safety-sensitive roles subject to random drug testing. The previous iteration of the policy, first introduced in 2014, only featured testing for those suspected to be working under the influence. Now all those in safety-sensitive roles - including highway workers, drivers and those operating machinery could face the prospect of random drug testing. Staff working in confined spaces or construction sites, working at height or with hazardous chemicals, or in roles with a high risk of confrontation are also potentially included in the revised policy.

The new policy also includes a “last chance” clause, which applies to those who admit their problem, and prove that they are taking steps to resolve it. However, trade union Unison has expressed concerns around whether supportive measures will be in place for those testing positive - and what, if any, disciplinary action may be taken against them.

Cansford says...  

Cansford Labs co-founder John Wicks believes that random drug and alcohol testing would benefit every single workplace - including councils and social services.

On one hand, it would serve as a deterrent to those tempted to work under the influence, while on the other, random testing could identify those struggling with stress before it becomes an even bigger problem.

Hyndburn Council’s approach is a positive step forward. From our own work, we see testing on the rise in workplaces - but many are still fearful of the financial implications, and taking steps to introduce a drug testing programme can often be seen as a cost, rather than a benefit.

Numerous UK industries, though, are already employing random drug tests. Regulated industries such as the rail industry do so, while prisons - where drugs are a huge problem - and the military are also on board. Logistics firms like Stobart conduct random testing to keep their drivers clean: important in an industry where long distance drivers can be tempted to turn to drugs like amphetamine to stay awake.

Drug testing long distance drivers

But are Hyndburn Council and other employers really getting the biggest possible benefit from their current - and proposed - testing programmes?

While a urine or oral fluid test would give a snapshot of whether the employee was under the influence in the workplace at that particular moment, it would not, for example, prove an alcohol-induced hangover or drug comedown that could also affect an employee’s ability to work. With an appointment booked in, it would also give the employee a chance to be clean for a few days beforehand, knowing that this would elicit a negative result.

A hair test, on the other hand, would benefit councils like Hyndburn, as well as other employers, twofold. Firstly, it would ensure that workplace drug tests could not be cheated. Secondly, hair tests would give a longer term picture of drug or alcohol use - and in a cost-effective way.

A 1cm hair sample would allow for analysis of substance use in the last month: the same as conducting 8-10 urine tests, spread equally across the month - and without the need to choose a specific date.

Ultimately, the testing method chosen - and the decision to use random drug testing in the workplace at all - depends on the purpose. For us, the value in employing such an approach is in prevention, rather than punishment: a health and wellness-orientated approach, rather than attempting to catch people out and showing them the door.

We predict that Hyndburn Council will use the revised policy as a deterrent: probably testing around 5% of the workforce throughout the year for substances like cannabis, amphetamines, opiates, benzos and cocaine, to try and stamp out the problem of workers coming in under the influence of drugs.

Combining such testing with an employee wellness programme would raise drug awareness and benefit employees and employers alike. Not only that, but we can potentially convince insurers to look at this combination of testing and wellness programmes as a means of reducing risk, and therefore of cutting premiums.

We may be biased, but we strongly believe that using hair as opposed to urine testing would offer greater benefit. Giving employees a handle on lifestyle changes (including changes in alcohol use, which can be an early warning of stress-related issues) would not only reduce the risk of problems on a long term basis, but would also save the council money. Combining education, testing in the right way and testing for the right reasons will undoubtedly benefit all involved.

Subscribe to Email Updates

Recent Posts

Exclusive: Celebrating 40 years of DNA 'fingerprinting' in family law cases
Discover the ‘secret sauce’ in Cansford’s industry-leading efficiency
The impact of cocaine abuse on parents and their children
Exclusive from Cansford for Family Law Professionals: Has the penny finally dropped on early legal advice?
Dry January – how testing would detect if you’d fallen off the wagon.
New Family Law blog for 2024: The not-so-jolly season
Exclusive festive 'long read': Six 2023 family cases that were…different