Working in a safety critical industry, I am subject to random drugs and alcohol screening. Any time I am on or about the track – or even running a course in the classroom, I could be selected. It goes with the territory and I accept it and the reasons behind it, as does every other rail worker that I know.
However, I am firmly with those teachers who are refusing to be so subjected.
Teachers at an independent special school in Derbyshire are on strike after one of them was asked to take a random drugs test.
As the NASUWT points out, there is no reason for this policy to be in place. There is no evidence that there is a problem and there is no safety implication here. Indeed, the school has arbitrarily imposed this and insisted that the teaching staff sign a new contract agreeing to it. That they didn’t might not hold up in law as it could be argued that by continuing to work without protest at the time, they mutually agreed the variation, but that’s another matter.
So, yes, I agree with their refusal. From time to time, employers try to take the piss (literally in this case) and employees have to make a stand when they do. When we agree to a contract of employment, we are selling our time and expertise, not our bodies and not our personal lives. From time to time, there is more to it than that of course, so some infringement of personal liberty is involved. My industry’s drug screening, for example. However, not in this case. We do not give employers the key to our lives and when they try to take it, we should stand firm and refuse.
In a lot of inner London schools, they’d get more hits testing the pupils!
@JuliaM – Lot of UK schools period…
Mind you, it always seems that they test the car park attendant and not the CEO every time…. like who’s going to make the biggest difference to everybody else if they’re off their face eh?
Depends if the drug testing test if they are actually under the influence or took it some time (upto days) in the past. If the later, then what teachers (or anyone else) do in their private life is no concern of the employer. If the former, then it should be treated exactly like being drunk. It shouldn’t need testing just monitoring of people’s behaviour.
The drug testing procedures within the employment industry need to be over-hauled completely. I work offshore in the oil and gas industry,where you are subject to random testing both during your time spent offshore (as well as your check in at the heliport) – but you can also be summoned to provide a urine sample when on your home leave.
Now, someone doing drugs whilst on an offshore installation is a no-no and they deserve everything they get if they are caught. But as SBML points out above, I fail to see how they can justify sacking someone for having a smoke* during his time off and subsequently failing a drugs test weeks later. His previous consumption has no bearing on his ability to do the job efficiently or safely.
It’s bad enough that our elected representatives want to control every facet of our lives but when our employers start to do so then something needs to be done.
*people using coke and assorted recreational drugs (as well as heroin and crack) are very seldom caught as it passes through the system quickly where as the THC in cannabis / marijuana remains detectable for a longer period of time.
An excellent lesson on reverse-prejudice for the pupils.
Just because the biology teacher looks and acts like a crack-whore it doesn’t mean she is one. 😆
Longrider: When we agree to a contract of employment, we are selling our time and expertise, not our bodies
If you’re a prostitute in a brothel, then this doesn’t apply. 😉
Sorry, someone was going to say it.
I think you will find they are self employed