And besides being under the influence of drugs/alcohol should never be considered the root cause of an incident anyway.So why do we test for these when we know it is highly unlikely it will be a root cause? — Marie Fleming
Agree with that - the results of the referdum / any law change will potentially cause some headaches for any companies with D&A testing process which are based on a "well it's illegal so you shouldn't be doing it" approach rather than actually considering if there is impairment or not.I'd be much more interested in "Impairment Testing" — Andrew
But the other ways are seen to take a lot more personal effort than just randomly asking someone to pee in a cup... and generally don't have as much visibility of effectiveness to senior management / boards as pinging a "deviant" druggie.There are other ways to identify deviance prone people in an organisation other than D&A testing that will not adversely affect people we want to keep and have the same effect (and it's probably cheaper). — Jon Harper-Slade
It makes me think that there is a good chance that those in leadership positions that are making the decisions to use random dug testing are themselves the "yes" conformist type people and are not necessarily innovators, risk takers or even thinkers - the type of people business needs to flourish.The unintended consequences is that the "good" people who do get hired can potentially just be "yes" conformist type people. Who are not necessarily innovators, risk takers or even thinkers - the type of people business needs to flourish. — Andrew
If you are interested in workplace health & safety in New Zealand, then this is the discussion forum for you.