Drug testing at work

The stimulus for this post was a posting about possible drug testing at TVNZ, via Reinventing TVNZ. Drug testing at work is invasive and should only be justified on grounds of employee or public welfare. Employee welfare Where employees work in a factory/manual labour situation where heavy machinery or supervision of hazardous machinery takes place, drug testing can be justified. If there is a concern that employees are coming to work under the influence and employee safety is at risk, then testing is a possible option. Example: At Company A, Worker A operates a forklift in a factory warehouse where other employees walk around or are otherwise vulnerable to misoperation of the forklift. At Company B, Worker B operates a computer in order to take telephone calls from members of the public. The worker has no other explicit respsonsibilites for the maintenance of safety measures in that workplace and is employed solely to operate a computer and associated telephony. At Company C, Worker C operates a computer for the purposes of handling hazardous nuclear or biological material. Correct operation of the computer is critical for safe disposal or production of said materials. At Company D, Worker D operates a fax machine and is responsible for effective filing of reports, memos and correspondence from the Company's branch at which she works. At Companies A and C, I would accept an employer's argument for drug testing. At Company D, the employer would have to prove that they have significant doubts about Worker D's ability to safely fax a piece of paper before I would accept an argument for drug testing. At Company B, the employer is dreaming. As an employee in a factory warehouse, I would be highly concerned about my safety should I have doubts about Worker A's rumoured reputation for coming to work stoned/drunk. I do not accept concern for public image as being a reason to implement drug testing. There are other ways to enforce measures that uphold a company's standards and public image. Example: A stoned employee tells a customer to get f***ed over the phone. Rather than discipline the employee for being stoned (effective proof of which would be a conclusive drug test), discipline the employee for breaching company service standards or gross misconduct (the conduct or breach of which was telling the customer to get f***ed). Public welfare I would be far more inclined in the situation where a worker is in control of machinery that if operated incorrectly, could cause harm to either an employee or a member of the public, to accept an argument for drug testing. It would however be up to the workers to decide whether they would stand for it. Example: A worker is operating a crane for Construction Company A. The crane can reach a nearby shopping centre, an apartment block, 6 streets of traffic in a business district and temporary company offices onsite, where people have their offices. The It goes both ways I realise. The phone example can be used in favour of and against drug testing. If an employer has their heart set on implementing drug testing, they'll do it. It's simply up to the workers as to whether they see testing as a necessary end to company policy, and up to them to fight it's implementation if they don't.