In house Breathyliser and drugs testing.

[robroy]

This has been discussed before on here, so this thread IS NOT to get into the argument if this is right or wrong ok?, ......because on one side you are going to get the guys with a bit of self pride who sees this as an insult to their professionalism and integrity..(like me) and on the other side the bend over type yes men who will readily accept it (like everything else) and come out with the famous Borg's charter....''If you're doing nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear''...So that's it in a nutshell, no point discussing the ways and where fors about it.

My question is.........
If this is not in your contract of employment when you first start, and is just brought in on a whim, how do you stand legally?
If you went the whole hog to the bitter end, and refused it on a matter of principle, then they either suspended you or sacked you, how do you stand in 'industrial law' ?
What are the Union's views on it for instance?

Can I just say to get this out of the way.... I don't do drugs, and I don't turn up for work pissed or unfit to drive, I just do not agree with it for the reasons I've already laid out.
Btw...I would be more than willing if this came about to be breatylised by the Old Bill if my firm thought for any reason I was unfit through drink or drugs....(I would not be. )

[David5l]

As far as I'm aware to change your terms and c conditions of employment the company has to give you 12 weeks written notice.
So you could refuse for twelve weeks and then bend over and accept it....or...
One out, all out as Arthur used to say

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[dieseldog999]

ive only had 1 instance when i was unfortunate to work for a while agency in tesco.
if your a day man and back to base all the time,then theres no biggy if your already working for a plobber company like that.
i took a guys front bumper off,did the delivery,back to the yard for a debrief and murder inquiry and did the breath and pee test with a doctor they bring in.
no biggy.
having lost all self respect by demeaning myself to work there in the first place,then its easier to just do whatever they want to varying degrees ( this includes leaving your brain and any aspect of rational thinking to get the job done in your car in the carpark at the start of your shift).
ive never worked ,nor would i work for any company that did breath tests though to be fair,most of the ones i would work for would be hooligans anyway.
if your a tramper,then theres not much point unless your the sort who turns up monday morning smelling like a distillery,or your shift partner has dobbed you in for the empty cans of special brew lying in the cab.

legally,dont they need to give you notice of any contract changes and then you decide to bend over or leave?

[Jimmy McNulty]

It would need to be introduced as either a stand alone policy or as part of the wider Health & Safety policy.

There would need to be justification (for example after an accident, smelling of drink) or if its random selection the company would need to be able to prove that it truly is random selection.

Your contract would already reference that you agree to abide by the company policies

[dieseldog999]

It would need to be introduced as either a stand alone policy or as part of the wider Health & Safety policy.

There would need to be justification (for example after an accident, smelling of drink) or if its random selection the company would need to be able to prove that it truly is random selection.

Your contract would already reference that you agree to abide by the company policies

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
truly random is fair enough i would think in a large faceless company.
in tesco as you go out the gate,theres a button for you to whack,if it goes red,you go in for a quick pat down search by a cabbage.
its totally random and no biggy to me personally.

[Bigtruck3]

It's slowly coming all these changes, there is not a lot you can do about it because they have the good for all on there side, things like that will come built in with a new truck in the future
Facing cameras, breathalyzers, smoke alarms, phone blocking, and anything else you can think of, it will just mean there will more than normal zombies on the road

[robroy]

My other point is..Can they actually make you do it?
I don't mean put your arm up your back, or two heavies sit on you , I mean can they make you in terms of you have the right to refuse, and is it legal in that context to not let you go out in the truck if you do refuse, although there is no REAL suspicion of drinking, just fulfilling their quota on random testing.

There needs to be some sort of test case on this for clarification, I know some d/heads do turn up for work in varying degrees of unfitness, but it's just another one size fits all policy as Juddian would say, decent drivers treated the same as the firm's dicks.

Still,.as long as drivers are willing just to roll over, they will go on be faced with all types of injustices, humiliation, and unfair treatment.....along with the ones who are not willing, ...and because of them..

[alamcculloch]

Some new buses have an alcohol lock, you breathe into the tube only if you are clear the engine will start.

[Odd days]

I was lead to believe it was 12 weeks notice too. Then it’s agree , leave, or strike, but as there is very few strong unions now most people agree what ever industry they are in.

[robroy]

I was lead to believe it was 12 weeks notice too. Then it’s agree , leave, or strike, but as there is very few strong unions now most people agree what ever industry they are in.

And that is why this job is like it is now.

Compare those sorry arsed types ''who agree'' with our Grandfathers who fought tooth and nail (and won) for workers rights and terms,... the same types who handed them all back and lost them.

[Juddian]

I'm in two minds about this.

One side says to hell with them, i ain't stupid enough to risk my livelihood and i take pride in my work, plus even i wanted to go to work under the influence i'm no drinker and would have a job to stand up straight after 3 pints, and as for drugs if i was in charge of the country convicted drug dealers would be put against the wall first offence, with users facing real jail time....so why should i have to submit to random testing as if i'm one of those miserable worthless specimens.

The other side admits that we work with a small number of bloody fools, even the best jobs have them, but in these days of minorities holding rule over the rest of us it's hard for a company even if they have suspicions to take action, if the company got it wrong and the person singled out proved clean but isn't a working class mature white native Brit male then the company has laid itself open to all sorts of trouble, hence why it has to be random only.

On balance whilst not happy about it i would reluctantly give whatever samples were required, and curse my fellow workers (probably sacked already) who through their stupidity ignorance and lack of pride in themselves caused this sorry state of affairs to be, BUT, this random testing must apply equally to very person employed by the company right up to and including the big cheese, not just for drivers, and it must be a random machine that everyone has to press the button of when arriving at work, including security and the person trained (qualified?) in the testing procedure.

The machine must be calibrated and of a quality that would stand as indisputable evidence at the Old Bailey, and the person overseeing properly qualified in its use, there also needs to be a code of practice in place regarding what is the order of events should someone fail the test, ie if they walk out and refuse to go to the next stage then they've probably sacked themselves but no one should be sacked on the spot if they protest innocence and a proper investigation involving company doctors etc must follow immediately.

We are where we are with this one, it's probably not something the company want to do either and i doubt if it's on a whim, there might be good reason but the story behind it has been kept quiet, the penalties for allowing persons under the influence out on the road in a vehicle belonging to them could well end up with everyone losing their jobs.

Put it this way, if the choice was between proving you are sober and drugs free, or a driver facing camera, then the former wins every time.

[remy]

I hope you don't lose control of your senses then Robroy and come to the US. Trucking companies are required to randomly test a certain percentage of drivers. And most don't have contracts so it's either comply or your shown the door.

[maga]

people are randomly tested in all lines of work, can't see why or how any driver can argue against it tbh.

[robroy]

people are randomly tested in all lines of work, can't see why or how any driver can argue against it tbh.

Ok so here's an analogy.....granted it's ridiculous, but just go with it.
You bring your little kid to my little kid's birthday party, I meet you at the door and say, ''I'm just going to do a quick background check on you, before you come in here, just in case you're a paedophile child rapist''...would a tiny bit of you not be offended that you are being tarred with that brush?
As I said, ridiculous and slightly ott , but you get my drift.
I'm being considered to be a crack head and/or a piss artist, after x no of years driving, and never showing those tendencies.
And that is my point.

On the other hand if the breathyliser was a genuine ''Good reason to believe'' scenario, then fair play.

[Tude]

I hope you don't lose control of your senses then Robroy and come to the US. Trucking companies are required to randomly test a certain percentage of drivers. And most don't have contracts so it's either comply or your shown the door.

I agree with that given that cannabis is now legal in so many states, which is a shame as Las Vegas was once an acceptable place, it is now awful.

Plus you guys drive at 70-80 mph, so it goes wrong quick when it does.

[toonsy]

When I was working on the continent some vehicles had aloclock systems fitted, so you had to breathe into them to start the engine. I've worked with random testing for years and years and honestly it's not something that I've ever really been bothered with. End of the day, anything that takes someone who is willing to flout alcohol/drug limits and step until a large (or any) vehicle off of the road can only he a good thing.

Lot I'm at now uses an outside company to select someone.

[Henrys cat]

My other point is..Can they actually make you do it?
I don't mean put your arm up your back, or two heavies sit on you , I mean can they make you in terms of you have the right to refuse, and is it legal in that context to not let you go out in the truck if you do refuse, although there is no REAL suspicion of drinking, just fulfilling their quota on random testing.

There needs to be some sort of test case on this for clarification, I know some d/heads do turn up for work in varying degrees of unfitness, but it's just another one size fits all policy as Juddian would say, decent drivers treated the same as the firm's dicks.

Still,.as long as drivers are willing just to roll over, they will go on be faced with all types of injustices, humiliation, and unfair treatment.....along with the ones who are not willing, ...and because of them..

It depends on the terms in the contract.

I can only comment on ours (different industry though), its in our contract and also in Network Rails policy on drugs and alcohol testing, that a refusal to any legitimately requested test (either for cause because of an incident, random, or medical/pre sponsor testing) will be marked as a fail. This can lead to the PTS card being revoked for a period of 5 years

[JIMBO47]

Not just usa drivers remy, Us folks that run for a Canadian company that’s runs south have to take the test .mater o fact just was called to testing lab last week. Had 48hrs to comply or it was marked down by the USA as a refusal and therefore I would not be allowed into the USA

[Norfolkinclue1]

My other point is..Can they actually make you do it?
I don't mean put your arm up your back, or two heavies sit on you , I mean can they make you in terms of you have the right to refuse, and is it legal in that context to not let you go out in the truck if you do refuse, although there is no REAL suspicion of drinking, just fulfilling their quota on random testing.

There needs to be some sort of test case on this for clarification, I know some d/heads do turn up for work in varying degrees of unfitness, but it's just another one size fits all policy as Juddian would say, decent drivers treated the same as the firm's dicks.

Still,.as long as drivers are willing just to roll over, they will go on be faced with all types of injustices, humiliation, and unfair treatment.....along with the ones who are not willing, ...and because of them..

It’s a bit of an awkward to be fair Rob. On the one hand, drink driving is a massive no no but also on that basis has the possibility of being weaponised for harassment of the workforce.
I really don’t think it’s a good look for anyone to organise or engage in a strike over being breathalysed before driving a truck, that’s the kind of thing that would surely play into the hands of certain management, the clash would be over enforcement and policy.
I personally wouldn’t have an issue with the test being done but I think it really needs a very clear policy agreed by all, even that is going to be a challenge. Imagine trying to quota the tests, hardcore offenders would simply see that as almost a timetable to gamble on drinking.
To me the only real way would be on a truly random basis, something, as stupid as it sounds, like a simple button to push when you get the keys at the desk, green then no test and red means you give a sample.
As far as I’m aware it’s 90 days to change terms so in that 90 days maybe those who drink regularly can gets of there own breathalysers and work out if they have an issue, let’s face it, everyone has different tolerances.
Don’t forget though, this is only really going to work for shift drivers. Trampers and night out men are another issue, just look at that AIM driver with the multiple fatalities, no office policy and random test was going to pick him up as he was asleep and drunk at the wheel, I’ll bet there are a few drivers out there who’ll sink 4 cans on a reduce and think they’re ok because they had some kip and a bit of food.....

[biggriffin]

I can't see the point in being awkward about having to take these two tests, takes 10minutes to do, all done no harm, yes you might not agree with them, as long as every member of staff are being tested, then it's fair,. If you wish to throw a spanner in the works take 2 co-codamal and eat 2 slices of bread with poppy seeds on, about 2 hours before the test,,

[the maoster]

It's not the drink and drugs tests per se that worry me, it's as always the potential abuse of power that concerns me. We all know the type of character who'd willingly volunteer to be a tester (Christ, this forum alone throws up a few no marks who'd kill for the opportunity). So for that reason alone I'm against them.

The Co I work for have this policy and indeed have had for as long as I've worked there. In fairness though not a single driver has ever been tested. A few managers have (which I'm all in favour of ) and they also used to test the warehouse bods a lot. I say used to, but taking into account that the majority of the warehouse workers are sub 25 years old they found that they were dismissing about 30% of the workforce every time they had a purge! That was quietly dropped.

The only time I've been drink and drugs tested was when I was pimped out to Iceland at Warrington for a few weeks. In fairness again I was pre warned that I'd be tested and given the option not to go there if the thought upset me. As I'd been pre warned I wasn't bothered at all about the test, and indeed on the drive up there I made sure I kept my intake down to two cans of Stella in anticipation.

[Heavy-metal-Hodge]

I can’t blame companies for alcohol testing seen as a stobart driver (walkers contract) failed a breathalyser after falling out of his wagon at our DC. Blowing 2 or 3 times over

[biggriffin]

It's not the drink and drugs tests per se that worry me, it's as always the potential abuse of power that concerns me. We all know the type of character who'd willingly volunteer to be a tester (Christ, this forum alone throws up a few no marks who'd kill for the opportunity). So for that reason alone I'm against them.

The Co I work for have this policy and indeed have had for as long as I've worked there. In fairness though not a single driver has ever been tested. A few managers have (which I'm all in favour of ) and they also used to test the warehouse bods a lot. I say used to, but taking into account that the majority of the warehouse workers are sub 25 years old they found that they were dismissing about 30% of the workforce every time they had a purge! That was quietly dropped.

The only time I've been drink and drugs tested was when I was pimped out to Iceland at Warrington for a few weeks. In fairness again I was pre warned that I'd be tested and given the option not to go there if the thought upset me. As I'd been pre warned I wasn't bothered at all about the test, and indeed on the drive up there I made sure I kept my intake down to two cans of Stella in anticipation.

.

I hadn't noticed any difference, a large majority still seem vacant.

[CookieMonster]

If companies are testing due to an accident or because of suspicion then I don't really have an issue. I would take issue with random testing, because of how difficult it would be to prove it was truly random, and not the result of am office bod with a vendetta.
I would be very surprised if most companies don't currently have something written into contracts already allowing them to test in the event of accident or suspicion. They would have to be seen to have something in place, even purely as an arse-covering exercise, to say they have policies in place to protect themselves in the event of an employee being caught under the influence, although it remains to be seen how these policies would actually stand up in the real world.
Imagine a driver causing an accident and police/solicitors etc going to the company and asking if anyone suspected the driver of being over the limit, and why they were not tested, only to be given the response of 'we couldn't assess him, as if we're in the office when he was in the yard!'. Can't imagine that would go down well...

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

[R420]

I was lead to believe it was 12 weeks notice too. Then it’s agree , leave, or strike, but as there is very few strong unions now most people agree what ever industry they are in.

And that is why this job is like it is now.

Compare those sorry arsed types ''who agree'' with our Grandfathers who fought tooth and nail (and won) for workers rights and terms,... the same types who handed them all back and lost them.

My memory has gone a little fuzzy, but just remind me again how the fiasco over your employer deducting damage from your pay packet panned out in the end?

[Jimmy McNulty]

I was lead to believe it was 12 weeks notice too. Then it’s agree , leave, or strike, but as there is very few strong unions now most people agree what ever industry they are in.

If it was a change to a contract or terms and conditions of employment then there would need to be a notice period, defined in the contract and based on your length of service. With a union agreement in place or collective bargaining this would be 12 weeks across the board.

But introducing drugs and alcohol testing isn't a change to your contract or terms and conditions of employment, it's a change of a company policy.

Depending on the company refusal would probably lead to dismissal.

[Bigtruck3]

You don't have a choice it's up there with all the important stuff, and as you have said many times about drivers just following the lead this is something you should follow without question
It's not something you can really make a stand on but you can insist that everyone is treated the same top to bottom, now that's a stand you could make about it

[HobNobRoy]

I was lead to believe it was 12 weeks notice too. Then it’s agree , leave, or strike, but as there is very few strong unions now most people agree what ever industry they are in.

And that is why this job is like it is now.

Compare those sorry arsed types ''who agree'' with our Grandfathers who fought tooth and nail (and won) for workers rights and terms,... the same types who handed them all back and lost them.

My memory has gone a little fuzzy, but just remind me again how the fiasco over your employer deducting damage from your pay packet panned out in the end?

Class.

Thinks its the same old, if you dont like it theres the door attitude. So be a good little yes man and bend over and take it.

[Nite Owl]

If my manager, supervisor and other orifice staff were in front of me in the queue, then I'd gladly provide a sample. But if I'm simply being selected because of my role in the company (ie driver), then I'd be as awkward as I could get away with.

As far as I'm aware, we'd only get tested in the event of a collision or if there was just cause.

[robroy]

I was lead to believe it was 12 weeks notice too. Then it’s agree , leave, or strike, but as there is very few strong unions now most people agree what ever industry they are in.

And that is why this job is like it is now.

Compare those sorry arsed types ''who agree'' with our Grandfathers who fought tooth and nail (and won) for workers rights and terms,... the same types who handed them all back and lost them.

My memory has gone a little fuzzy, but just remind me again how the fiasco over your employer deducting damage from your pay packet panned out in the end?

Not just fuzzy pal, but playing tricks on you ...wtf are you on about exactly?