Drug testing

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
21

Not mentioned here are false positives, a company i worked at (in the office) decided to undertake random drug testing one Monday morning and I was asked to provide a sample to ensure fairness (most of the other guys were drivers), i tested positive for opiates - i thought it was a wind up as the MD was standing next to me at the time, nope. then was asked “do you eat seeded bread”, yes was the reply, ahh. “that’s it - causes a lot of false readings”, they said they would test it properly at the lab and never heard anything else.

Worse though, my son goes for an interview to work in a warehouse (agency), passes the interview and aptitude test with flying colours, last thing can you do a drug test (one of those sticks you put on your tongue), yes - no problem, fails :open_mouth: , testing positive for amphetamines, he re-takes the test - same again, sorry no job for you son. turns out certain over the counter painkillers give a false positive, and I know my lad hadn’t taken naughty drugs for 2 reasons. a)if he had, he wouldn’t have told that was the reason he didn’t get the job, b)if you knew my lad, the main thing he could do with is some “speed” :smiley:

22

The big problem is these tests have been dumbed down and are administered by people who have no medical knowledge…just ‘training’ delivered by the people who make the tests, and therefore have a vested interest in producing as many positives as possible.

A test that proves ‘positive’ is no evidence at all, unless there is nothing else that can trigger a positive.

For example, gold dissolves in ‘aqua regia’ (a mix of nitric acid and hydrochloric acid), but so do many other elements and materials. So an object that dissolves in aqua regia isn’t necessarily gold.

I’d ask what qualifications any potential drug-tester had before I let them test me. I’d want to see a biochemistry qualification to degree level, or be tested by a medical doctor.

23

GasGas:
The big problem is these tests have been dumbed down and are administered by people who have no medical knowledge…

I’d ask what qualifications any potential drug-tester had before I let them test me. I’d want to see a biochemistry qualification to degree level, or be tested by a medical doctor.

I agree.
You can just picture the type that would just love doing the test…
The ‘‘up their own arse, self important’’ non job type coming at you with a tester kit, …can’t you just :unamused:

24

nightline:
Need it here as well. Do it at truckstops too, they’d have a field day at 4-6am when more than a few are rolling out of various truckstops with bars after sinking several pints going to bed just a few hours before and thinking they’re OK.

And you would know that how
Some people have a life
[/quote]
I’m at a truck stop with a bar most nights a week including Friday as well as nighting out there on a Friday night and setting off back in the wee hours Saturday morning so I get to see the odd few come out of the bar steaming and by 5-6am that place is deserted. At the time they’re coming out the bar back to their truck there’s no way they’re legal when they start.

25

Conor:

nightline:
Need it here as well. Do it at truckstops too, they’d have a field day at 4-6am when more than a few are rolling out of various truckstops with bars after sinking several pints going to bed just a few hours before and thinking they’re OK.

And you would know that how
Some people have a life

I’m at a truck stop with a bar most nights a week including Friday as well as nighting out there on a Friday night and setting off back in the wee hours Saturday morning so I get to see the odd few come out of the bar steaming and by 5-6am that place is deserted. At the time they’re coming out the bar back to their truck there’s no way they’re legal when they start.
[/quote]
Its only a matter of time before there cought
Them days are over

26

My previous company has a culture of night and the odd day driver taking the old white marching powder while on shift. There is a drugs testing policy in place but only if they have grounds for suspicion.

27

I’m now taking firm steps to leave lorry driving. I’m putting my plan into action - should be out within 6-12 months.

I’m 100% narcotic free, and always 100% sober when I start my shift, yet am completely against random drug testing.

So why am I leaving? Because surveillance per-se is a joke now. I remember when work was at least bearable, dare I say enjoyable. But now every workplace feels like an open prison. It’s not that I think people should be free to drink/drug drive, but for every driver that allows an employer to drink/drug test them, that’s one more driver that’s implicitly saying intrusion is ok. This is not ok. Privacy was always a prime value of mine, and now we have random drug testing combined with microlise throwing up harsh brakings, and inward facing cameras to investigate that single harsh braking, I’ve had enough of this ■■■■. And the camel’s back has just been broken by that final straw.

My employer has recently written to us telling us they’ve invested tens of thousands into drink and drug testing equipment, and they’re very much carrying out random tests. Not only this, but doing them without a whiff of thought for confidentiality. They’re just doing them in the office in front of everybody. Why the ■■■■ we give them the power to intrude on us like this, and treat us essentially no different to criminals defies me. Why should a driver who has a few puffs on a spliff on Friday night lose his job on Monday morning because his employer has the bizarre power to peer into his body like a naughty little schoolboy? Life is no fun anymore.

28

you ^ are taking steps to leave cos you know youre going to be found out. non of this “spliff on a friday nite” its also on the sunday arvo and evening and you know you cant/wont stop .

29

corij:
you ^ are taking steps to leave cos you know youre going to be found out. non of this “spliff on a friday nite” its also on the sunday arvo and evening and you know you cant/wont stop .

Not in the slightest. Not in the slightest. I’m 100% narcotic free. If I wasn’t, I’d say so here. No biggie.

I explained my reasons for my disdain, it’s the wider encroaching totalitarianism seeping in through not only society and culture, but now our employers too. This brave new world should not be endorsed by any of us. So I’m quitting the whole rat race, because I’ve had enough of feeling like a naughty paranoid schoolboy when I’m anything but. I find it frightening that our misinformed and ignorant employers have so much power over us.

30

ezydriver:

corij:
you ^ are taking steps to leave cos you know youre going to be found out. non of this “spliff on a friday nite” its also on the sunday arvo and evening and you know you cant/wont stop .

Not in the slightest. Not in the slightest. I’m 100% narcotic free. If I wasn’t, I’d say so here. No biggie.

I explained my reasons for my disdain, it’s the wider encroaching totalitarianism seeping in through not only society and culture, but now our employers too. This brave new world should not be endorsed by any of us. So I’m quitting the whole rat race, because I’ve had enough of feeling like a naughty paranoid schoolboy when I’m anything but. I find it frightening that our misinformed and ignorant employers have so much power over us.

If you’re drink/drug free then you should have no reason to be against being tested. I know sometimes H&S goes a bit too far, but I’m totally on board with testing.
Imagine one of your colleagues comes in tomorrow after having a few too many tonight, goes out on the road and kills a family of innocent people. The company would be f@%&ed. Insurance wouldn’t cover the accident because of the driver being over the limit, leaving the company liable to be sued for god knows how much, not to mention all the negative press that would come with such an incident.
This might seem like an extreme example, but it’s exactly the type of situation companies want to avoid finding themselves in. For the sake of a 30 second test? Seems worth it to me. I know I’d rather be told ‘go home, you’re not safe to work today’, than have someone’s life on my conscience.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

31

CookieMonster:
If you’re drink/drug free then you should have no reason to be against being tested. I know sometimes H&S goes a bit too far, but I’m totally on board with testing.
Imagine one of your colleagues comes in tomorrow after having a few too many tonight, goes out on the road and kills a family of innocent people. The company would be f@%&ed. Insurance wouldn’t cover the accident because of the driver being over the limit, leaving the company liable to be sued for god knows how much, not to mention all the negative press that would come with such an incident.
This might seem like an extreme example, but it’s exactly the type of situation companies want to avoid finding themselves in. For the sake of a 30 second test? Seems worth it to me. I know I’d rather be told ‘go home, you’re not safe to work today’, than have someone’s life on my conscience.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Totally agree. In fact I’d like to see even more measures in place so we can once and for all get rid of this ridiculous “innocent until proven guilty” nonsense.

Perhaps everyone should have their DNA taken and stored in a database, and perhaps CCTV with sound recording facilities should be placed in everyone’s houses too? After all , if we’ve done nothing wrong we’ve nothing to hide! Bravo.

Oh, as an aside, which particular RDC did you hear the old “insurance won’t cover you” bollox in?

32

the maoster:

CookieMonster:
If you’re drink/drug free then you should have no reason to be against being tested. I know sometimes H&S goes a bit too far, but I’m totally on board with testing.
Imagine one of your colleagues comes in tomorrow after having a few too many tonight, goes out on the road and kills a family of innocent people. The company would be f@%&ed. Insurance wouldn’t cover the accident because of the driver being over the limit, leaving the company liable to be sued for god knows how much, not to mention all the negative press that would come with such an incident.
This might seem like an extreme example, but it’s exactly the type of situation companies want to avoid finding themselves in. For the sake of a 30 second test? Seems worth it to me. I know I’d rather be told ‘go home, you’re not safe to work today’, than have someone’s life on my conscience.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Totally agree. In fact I’d like to see even more measures in place so we can once and for all get rid of this ridiculous “innocent until proven guilty” nonsense.

Perhaps everyone should have their DNA taken and stored in a database, and perhaps CCTV with sound recording facilities should be placed in everyone’s houses too? After all , if we’ve done nothing wrong we’ve nothing to hide! Bravo.

Oh, as an aside, which particular RDC did you hear the old “insurance won’t cover you” bollox in?

Normally, I can’t be bothered with deliberately trolling comments like this, but you know what, I’ve got some time on my hands, so I’ll play along…
Firstly, I bet you do all of your vehicle checks in the morning, like a good little boy. Why are you doing those checks? They take up valuable time, and after all, you had the same wagon yesterday and it was fine then. So why bother?
Oh, that’s right, you have to be able to show that it is safe and legal to be on the road!
That’s exactly the same reason we make sure our load is secure, that we’re trained in the use of any equipment we use, that paperwork is correct.
All of these things to make sure that a vehicle is safe and legal to be on the road, driven by someone who’s three sheets to the wind because maoster thinks that testing the most important thing, the driver, is the ‘nanny state’ gone crazy and H&S intruding into his personal life.
Secondly, the insurance thing? That’s just common sense, we all know insurance companies will do anything to get out of paying claims, especially if it means a big settlement. Hell, that’s the reason they spend fortunes on underwriters, lawyers and all that jazz.
So let’s imagine all these people sitting in a room, looking over the details of a claim. Then they see that the driver responsible was over the limit. I can practically hear them rubbing their hands together, congratulating themselves on a job well done for finding a way out of paying up.
It you clipped another car on your way out of the pub car park, your insurance would not pay, the same principle applies here.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

33

the maoster:

CookieMonster:
If you’re drink/drug free then you should have no reason to be against being tested. I know sometimes H&S goes a bit too far, but I’m totally on board with testing.
Imagine one of your colleagues comes in tomorrow after having a few too many tonight, goes out on the road and kills a family of innocent people. The company would be f@%&ed. Insurance wouldn’t cover the accident because of the driver being over the limit, leaving the company liable to be sued for god knows how much, not to mention all the negative press that would come with such an incident.
This might seem like an extreme example, but it’s exactly the type of situation companies want to avoid finding themselves in. For the sake of a 30 second test? Seems worth it to me. I know I’d rather be told ‘go home, you’re not safe to work today’, than have someone’s life on my conscience.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Totally agree. In fact I’d like to see even more measures in place so we can once and for all get rid of this ridiculous “innocent until proven guilty” nonsense.

Perhaps everyone should have their DNA taken and stored in a database, and perhaps CCTV with sound recording facilities should be placed in everyone’s houses too? After all , if we’ve done nothing wrong we’ve nothing to hide! Bravo.

Oh, as an aside, which particular RDC did you hear the old “insurance won’t cover you” bollox in?

CCTV and recording in everyone’s house is well underway. And people are stupid enough to install the equipment voluntarily…

“Alexa…”

(Other surveillance apparatus are available)

34

Oh dear, you’re too either dumb or brainwashed to see that you are part of the problem here. You really don’t grasp the concept of civil liberties or their gradual erosion do you? Trust me, people like you are why we are sliding inexorably towards a total surveillance society.

Vehicle check. Of course I do a vehicle check as apart from good practice it’s a legal requirement. The same goes for load security. What isn’t a legal requirement is for firms to drink or drugs test random employees. If a policeman wants to do either to me then fair enough, crack on, I have no problem with that because guess what? Yup, that’s right a police officer is employed and paid to uphold the law. Some ■■■■ in an office however isn’t paid to uphold/enforce the law and there stems my problem. Obviously it’s my problem and not yours as you apparently have no problem with bending over and spreading.

Edit to add; carry on with the insurance thingy btw, it’s fun. :wink:

35

the maoster:
Oh dear, you’re too either dumb or brainwashed to see that you are part of the problem here. You really don’t grasp the concept of civil liberties or their gradual erosion do you? Trust me, people like you are why we are sliding inexorably towards a total surveillance society.

Vehicle check. Of course I do a vehicle check as apart from good practice it’s a legal requirement. The same goes for load security. What isn’t a legal requirement is for firms to drink or drugs test random employees. If a policeman wants to do either to me then fair enough, crack on, I have no problem with that because guess what? Yup, that’s right a police officer is employed and paid to uphold the law. Some ■■■■ in an office however isn’t paid to uphold/enforce the law and there stems my problem. Obviously it’s my problem and not yours as you apparently have no problem with bending over and spreading.

Edit to add; carry on with the insurance thingy btw, it’s fun. :wink:

As I am actually ‘Some ■■■■’ that carries out these tests on occasion, I disagree that people like CookieMonster are the reason that we are in this position.

I would blame the HGV drivers that crash into things while being drunk at the wheel.

For years I have dealt with customers who operate random testing on their factory/office based employees, wondering why truck drivers aren’t tested more often if at all.

My feeling is within 10 years drink/drug testing will be mandatory for drivers.

36

The point is not HGV drivers crashing into things whilst drunk. Obviously it goes without saying that being impaired through drink, drugs or whatever whilst behind the wheel should be dealt with appropriately, my point is that we already have an agency tasked with policing that, snappily named “the police” it is their job to do that. Quite frankly Darkside you’ve surprised me with your post as I always had you down as a cynic of the big brother approach to life. Maybe I misread you?

37

the maoster:
Oh dear, you’re too either dumb or brainwashed to see that you are part of the problem here. You really don’t grasp the concept of civil liberties or their gradual erosion do you? Trust me, people like you are why we are sliding inexorably towards a total surveillance society.

Vehicle check. Of course I do a vehicle check as apart from good practice it’s a legal requirement. The same goes for load security. What isn’t a legal requirement is for firms to drink or drugs test random employees. If a policeman wants to do either to me then fair enough, crack on, I have no problem with that because guess what? Yup, that’s right a police officer is employed and paid to uphold the law. Some ■■■■ in an office however isn’t paid to uphold/enforce the law and there stems my problem. Obviously it’s my problem and not yours as you apparently have no problem with bending over and spreading.

Edit to add; carry on with the insurance thingy btw, it’s fun. :wink:

Times change, you either change with them or get left behind. Complaining that things were better ‘back in my day’ won’t prevent that. Digi-tachos, CPCs, drive time limits, vehicle checks, and, that’s right, even breath testing, have all been brought in to rid this industry of people who simply don’t deserve to be in it.
I’m going to take a stab in the dark, I’m guessing you had problems with all of the other things I listed being brought in as well? ‘Some ■■■■ in an office who’s never been behind the wheel, telling me how to do my job? They can get to f@^$’. Am I right? But look at it, how much safer is the industry now compared to twenty, ten or even five years ago.
‘People are just looking to blame drivers for everything!’. As well they should, as a driver you’re responsible for yourself, your vehicle and your load. If any part of it is not safe, you’re ■■■■ right the driver is responsible, and therefore subject to the blame.
And you’d be happy to be stopped by PC Plod to be tested, is that after you’ve caused an accident, or just when they see you swerving all over the road? But sure, cause chaos, then lose your license and your livelihood, all because it’s better to react to an accident than it is to try and prevent it in the first place.
And as for the insurance, tell me where you think I’m wrong, and I’ll gladly keep correcting you, cause you’re right, this is fun

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

38

the maoster:
The point is not HGV drivers crashing into things whilst drunk. Obviously it goes without saying that being impaired through drink, drugs or whatever whilst behind the wheel should be dealt with appropriately, my point is that we already have an agency tasked with policing that, snappily named “the police” it is their job to do that. Quite frankly Darkside you’ve surprised me with your post as I always had you down as a cynic of the big brother approach to life. Maybe I misread you?

No mate you have me bob on as cynical… :smiley:

However all companies have a duty of care by law to the public with regard to people being fit to drive. As a CPC holder, if some clown runs into someone while under the influence it comes back to bite me, in the form of “the police”, unless I can prove some process is in place to prevent it happening.

Be aware if you don’t like doing a test (and I admit I wouldn’t) you can refuse, and request the police do it.

What gets me is the fact that we have to be seen to do these awful tests in the first place.

39

CookieMonster:
And as for the insurance, tell me where you think I’m wrong, and I’ll gladly keep correcting you, cause you’re right, this is fun

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Ok, so earlier you stated along the lines of "if a driver has a few the night before and goes on to wipe out a family then his Co (employers) would be screwed as the insurance would not pay out/be invalid ". Would you like me to correct your ridiculous statement or perhaps you’d prefer anyone else who doesn’t believe RDC bollox to explain that one to you?

As for DCPC, digital cards etc etc etc I have no problem with any of that, what saddens me however are people like yourself , basically a car driver who lucked into an HGV licence willingly surrendering all of your freedoms (hard won by past generations upon past generations) on the ridiculous premise of “.if you haven’t done anything wrong you’ve nothing to fear”.

40

Darkside:

the maoster:
The point is not HGV drivers crashing into things whilst drunk. Obviously it goes without saying that being impaired through drink, drugs or whatever whilst behind the wheel should be dealt with appropriately, my point is that we already have an agency tasked with policing that, snappily named “the police” it is their job to do that. Quite frankly Darkside you’ve surprised me with your post as I always had you down as a cynic of the big brother approach to life. Maybe I misread you?

No mate you have me bob on as cynical… :smiley:

However all companies have a duty of care by law to the public with regard to people being fit to drive. As a CPC holder, if some clown runs into someone while under the influence it comes back to bite me, in the form of “the police”, unless I can prove some process is in place to prevent it happening.

Be aware if you don’t like doing a test (and I admit I wouldn’t) you can refuse, and request the police do it.

What gets me is the fact that we have to be seen to do these awful tests in the first place.

I totally understand your reasoning behind what you’re saying mate, I don’t necessarily agree with it, but hey, that’s what forums are for isn’t it? :wink:

How about a real curve ball here then? If Companies showed more diligence during the recruiting process, altered their business model so they could pay higher wages, showed an actual duty of care to employees rather than a HR box ticking exercise, then just maybe they’d recruit and retain the calibre of driver who doesn’t need micro managing?