Impairment vs urine testing.

[mangeorge]

*Originally posted by MarkusGoneAwry *
**
If workplace safety was not the issue, there would not be drug testing in any workplace. A corporation takes on the risk of each employee’s actions while at work and each comapny has a right to minimize these risks by having the appropriate employees on the job. The question is how do corporations go about doing this? I think urine testing does not take into consideration the employees’s privacy rights. Better would be some form of impairment testing. **

I think what mangeorge meant by that sentence was that safety wasn’t the real issue with the people at the site linked to.
My real concern isn’t for any loss the company might incur, but for the danger to a employee who may be working with someone who’s impaired, whatever the cause of that impairment. Sickness, lack of sleep, narcotics, booze, whatever. It’s all the same to me. I used to be an electrician, and have many times worked with people who should be at home in bed. I’ve seen three workers die of electricution. Two of whom (?) were in bad need of sleep. The other was due to management stupidity.
Check out the stats on sleepy drivers sometime.
My problem is that I have no idea what to do about it.
Peace,
mangeorge (Big OSHA fan)

[Sweet_Willy]

If urine testing is OK for insurance purposes then stool samples should be the norm too. I mean if you eat too much pork you will increase the risk of heart attack and your insurance company should adjust accordingly. It is unhealthy to use drugs and to eat too much pork. It is just plain sick to go digging around in someones waste looking for it.