plannerman:
Our firm has the right to carry out these tests, it’s in the contract of employment. That said, I’ve never been tested yet, so I have no idea how it’s done. Presumably urine test, as I would object to a blood test (nothing to hide, just squeamish). I thought this type of testing, or at least the right of the employer to do it, was pretty standard in transport operations now.
So if you go to the bog and see a guy acting suspiciously around the drains that will be what he is doing… 
Wheel Nut:
if you refuse to give a sample then you should be disciplined (warned, fined, sacked) it will send a message to everyone then.
I would still refuse to give a sample on the grounds that the person taking the samples could be the foreman yard sweeper or office cleaner. I dont get a reference sample to keep, and if the company is so inclined they could use these tests as a selection tool for job cuts. I have no proof that my sample was positive or negative.
If there was an industry standard like a drugs test for every driver and the results were uniform then I could support it, a random selection is only random for the ones it misses.
This subject is very close to my heart at the moment, because I have been prodded, poked, X-ray, wired up, photographed, and had multiple scans along with several changes of medication trying to diagnose an illness. At all times the specialist is concerned that he will not jeapardise my vocational licence although that is not his main concern,
i think it SHOULD be standard throughout many industries, especially where operating machinery and driving are concerned. and there should be specialised units (i’ll get shot for this comment) from vosa, including a doctor doing the transport industry so there is a level playing field for everyone. and all drivers entering at ports should be tested with analysis on the spot for foreign drivers, even if they have to park up for 24 hours to get the results.
Wheel Nut:
his main concern is keeping me alive
lets hope he does mate 
Even if you’ve nothing to hide, you should have legal representation, as it means you are suspected of having illegal substances in your body.
the firm I used to work for do it after every accident and when you return the nurse comes to a managers office and a swab from in side the mouth is take and drug tested and anyone cought that have been taken drugs on 1st offence is sent home till clear this could take a week or more.re tested and issued a final warning
although we were never allachol tested only for drugs
and that was working for the Ozzies!!!
paul@midway:
Testing for drugs is a flawed system …
You could maybe if so inclined to have a little bit of cannabis at the weekend .
Effects lasting a couple of hours.
By monday you are no way near under the influence of it but it it is still detectable in your system, by way of blood or urine sample.
A particular good night on the beer in the pub on a saturday would still be detectable on a monday morning in your urine or blood.Flawed system to be honest , what are they looking for ?
Detectable in the system or people still under the influence ?I would refuse to be honest with you until they clarify the above.
At a good guess it is a half arsed idea that will be applied in a half arsed manner, like most management decisions.
Exactly - have any levels been set for being under the influence of anything other than alcohol yet? If not then the whole idea of testing for drugs is ludicrous.
I personally don’t take drugs but I would hate to see a driver being dismissed just because he smoked a spliff last week which has no bearing on his/her judgement now…
Mike_:
Exactly - have any levels been set for being under the influence of anything other than alcohol yet? If not then the whole idea of testing for drugs is ludicrous.
In the case of illegal drugs then the level is going to be zero regardless of whether it affects their driving.
The firm I work for have drink and drug screening in place as did my last firm. I haven’t been random screened with this one but I was quite regularly with the last one. We’re also tested after any safety incident.
The tests are carried out by BUPA on site.
The drink test is done by electronic breathaliser and the drugs test is done through urine. You get to choose your own cup from the testers supply. Each cup is sealed in wrapping. Once supplied the sample is poured into two tubes. Both are sealed into identical poly bags and you sign the seals on both. One will be a working sample and the other a back up. If they need to open the second bag because they found something they didn’t like this can only be done in your presence.
The tests are surprisingly sensitive. One chap had a sample come back positive for opiates. After investigation they discovered he had a taste for poppy seeded sub-rolls from Sainsbury. I had one flagged up for high caffeine levels. Caffeine itself isn’t the problem but they wondered if I’d been using the diuretic qualities of caffeine to wash something more sinister out of the system.
If we’re found with any prohibited substance we’re sacked - game over. Prohibited just doesn’t mean illegal though, there is a comprehensive list of medicines that are on the list too, even Ibuprofen. If you are given or take any medicine you can refer to the list to see if you can work. If not you go off sick - paid of course. The alcohol threshold is a quarter of the road traffic limits.
mrpj:
Mike_:
Exactly - have any levels been set for being under the influence of anything other than alcohol yet? If not then the whole idea of testing for drugs is ludicrous.In the case of illegal drugs then the level is going to be zero regardless of whether it affects their driving.
So what is the point of the test then? Seems it’s nothing to do with safety but more to penalise people who choose a certain lifestyle.
paul@midway:
Look above for my answerAmphetamines was filed under stimulants and that was what they tested for , stimulants.Medication I was on was a stimulant.
Had SIB interviews the lot, asked for a solicitor and it was him that sorted it all out.
so it is clearly not flawed then, as you were taking medication that had been prescribed to you, (therefore your covered as you rightly say) They tested for amphet and your mediction had it in as an ingredient. The test as you say is to find traces of amphet, and it did, the fact that you had taken it through medication is not down to a drugs test its down to you to explain and produce the evidence to back it up, which is quite simple really.
If a company want to use the alcohol and drugs test who cares, at the end of the day its their right, if you have nothing to hide then its no problem, its only the people who abuse these substances that make the alcohol and drugs test an issue.
mr bluecity:
If a company want to use the alcohol and drugs test who cares, at the end of the day its their right, if you have nothing to hide then its no problem, its only the people who abuse these substances that make the alcohol and drugs test an issue.
You didnt read this thread from the beginning did you?
Just to let everyone know if you have ever been prescribed, or bought over the pharmacy counter, any painkiller that contains codeine and you are drug tested, urine or blood, you will test positive for morphine 
Codeine is a direct derivative of opium and is an active constituent in lots of over the counter pain relief medications, Co-codamol, Co-dydramol, Nurofen Plus, Solpadeine and lots of others plus loads of cough medicines. Codeine metabalises in the liver to produce a morphine positive result on the basic urine test, it takes a lot more testing to determine if the drug is Codeine and has been taken in the prescribed manner, rather than Morphine that might have been misused. These extra tests are very expensive and most Cos; will take the first result as gospel and you are out the door and you are accused of being a drug addict.
Also if your employer thinks its clever to inform the DVLA of the results of the initial test, without further investigation, your vocational licence will be revoked immediately and your car licence will be suspended until you can prove you are not dependant on drugs.
There are lots of drivers out there taking prescribed meds; that would fail any of the current drug testing procedures, not because they are DRUG ADDICTS, but because experienced HGV Drivers are in the 40/60 age group and because of a long unhealthy and stressful lifestyle are now paying the price.
I am not condoning drug use while driving but pointing out the pitfalls of drug testing and the issues HGV drivers need to be aware of when Cos; try to introduce these systems without any kind of consultation or real knowledge of the knock-on effects it can have for the individual invovled or themselves. 
Greg:
paul@midway:
Look above for my answerAmphetamines was filed under stimulants and that was what they tested for , stimulants.Medication I was on was a stimulant.
Had SIB interviews the lot, asked for a solicitor and it was him that sorted it all out.so it is clearly not flawed then, as you were taking medication that had been prescribed to you, (therefore your covered as you rightly say) They tested for amphet and your mediction had it in as an ingredient. The test as you say is to find traces of amphet, and it did, the fact that you had taken it through medication is not down to a drugs test its down to you to explain and produce the evidence to back it up, which is quite simple really.
It is flawed.
Try telling that to SIB …
Trust me , not a good experience.
good idea lets weed out the schizo pot heads
paul@midway:
Greg:
paul@midway:
Look above for my answerAmphetamines was filed under stimulants and that was what they tested for , stimulants.Medication I was on was a stimulant.
Had SIB interviews the lot, asked for a solicitor and it was him that sorted it all out.so it is clearly not flawed then, as you were taking medication that had been prescribed to you, (therefore your covered as you rightly say) They tested for amphet and your mediction had it in as an ingredient. The test as you say is to find traces of amphet, and it did, the fact that you had taken it through medication is not down to a drugs test its down to you to explain and produce the evidence to back it up, which is quite simple really.
It is flawed.
Try telling that to SIB …
Trust me , not a good experience.
Probably not very nice ,However the purpose of a drug test is to find traces of drugs which yours clearly did, as i said though it is not down to a drug test to tell the whys and wherefores as to why you have the trace i your system, thats down to you. So the result is the drug test worked and found traces in your system. Just like a breath test will show alcohol in your system, it doesnt tell anyone why its there, And there are several things that contain this too other than the obvious.
Has someone been convicted of a drug or drink offence at your place?
Or is this just health and safety getting bored again?
What makes them think they need a random drink/drugs test?
Have this where I am based, its a company that takes the pee, they also ask if you are on any medication prescribed or otherwise. To my knowledge only one person caught, sadly related to the boss 
The only gripe I have is that its not a fit young lass collecting…
When I worked for Stagecoach we had random drug and alcohol tests. Alcohol tests were just a breathalyser we a digital read out. Company limit was 30mg instead of the 80mg for drink driving. If positive you had to wait an hour for a retest, if this was positive you would be sacked.
One guy tested positive but managed to get off it as they tested him before his duty start time.
For the drugs the swabbed your forehead and then it was mixed with certain chemicals. But only certain drugs could be tested for. Cannabis was one, can’t remember the rest. But it was always carried out by an Inspector, no idea what training they had to do it tho.
davepenn54:
Just to let everyone know if you have ever been prescribed, or bought over the pharmacy counter, any painkiller that contains codeine and you are drug tested, urine or blood, you will test positive for morphine
No, sorry, I disagree with this. I was prescribed codeine and paracodeine to deal with a whiplash injury a few years ago and it hasn’t flagged up on our BUPA medscreens.
Employers now have to be careful because of corporate manslaughter.
If one of their wagons was in an accident and the driver was high on drugs or alcohol then the authorities would be asking the boss what he had in place to stop drivers from being over the limit. If he had the random testing in place then it would help his case in saying that he had done as much as he could.
If the drivers know that there could be a chance of the test when they started their shift then they would think twice in having a bender close to a shift
