WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE

Where To Draw The Line In Workplace Drug And Alcohol Testing Is A Tricky
Issue, Writes The Marlborough Express In An Editorial

It is now being tested in the Employment Court as six unions seek an
injunction to stop Air New Zealand introducing alcohol and drug testing. It
comes as increasingly companies and even schools are deciding whether to
test staff and students.

Drug testing has gained some acceptance in the public eye through the
testing of sports people.

In these cases the tests are mainly for performance enhancing use, while
schools and employers are looking to test when they see a drop in
performance. Either way, the sports testing has been a forerunner, and to a
large degree it works.

Competitors don't wish to be caught out as "cheats" and drug use has
diminished. Take for example the Rugby World Cup where nearly 600 dope
tests are being conducted.

After 195 tests carried out in the past three months on the 20
participating unions, IRB was waiting for 15 results and all the others
were negative, which is a pretty good rate.

Now the emphasis is shifting to the workplace. Workplace testing is not new
but it is growing.

In Marlborough 11 companies now test for drug and alcohol abuse. These are
mostly in the forestry industry, where workplace safety is a big issue, and
there is concern mainly about cannabis use affecting workers. Companies
which do testing claim it's a success with a reduction in accidents, which
is surely a good measure.

However, deciding to introduce companywide random testing, as Air New
Zealand wants to do for its 10,000 staff, is a big step. Most would accept
that it is a fair policy for those in safety critical positions such as
flight crews, but there is an uneasy feeling about introducing such
measures across a whole company.

On the one hand it can be a dilemma for an employer who believes a staff
member may have an alcohol or drug problem which is affecting their
performance, but needs proof to confront the worker.

On the other hand, is the issue of where to draw the line. Will executives
who have been out to a business lunch be tested? As happens in sports
testing, will other legitimate drugs such as nasal congestant be wrongly
picked up? What is to stop an employer abusing the testing by targeting
particular workers, and if an employer believes there is a drugs problem,
why not instigate a criminal investigation?

The aim of testing for workplace safety reasons make sense, but an overall
random testing policy in non-safety areas could indicate a poor
employer-employee relationship where there is a lack of trust of staff.

Abuse of alcohol or drugs can never be condoned in the workplace, and with
increasing use of the drug P there needs to be heightened awareness.

Its use can be insidious, as shown by former TV3 newsreader Darren McDonald
who has admitted getting high while reading the news to viewers.

It is as much a white collar problem as a blue. That may be a good reason
for companywide random testing, but it also shows such problems can be
dealt with through criminal investigations, without the need to make the
workplace a place of mistrust or fear.