Pubdate: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 Source: New Zealand Herald () Copyright: 2004 New Zealand Herald Contact: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/300 Author: Andrew Little DRUG TESTING Your view on workplace alcohol and drug testing in light of the Employment Court's ruling is too simplistic. The unions which took the case argued that the right not to be tested in a humiliating way by being randomly asked to provide a urine sample could be traded off if doing so was an effective health and safety measure. The question is whether random testing for drug use (as opposed to post-incident or "for cause" testing which was conceded during the hearing as having some value) is an effective measure. We argued that it was not because it cannot tell the employer that the employee is impaired and therefore cannot prove anything. As for whether it is a deterrent, the reality is that under a truly random testing regime any worker has a significantly greater probability (some 99 percent) of not being tested on any working day. Some deterrent. Unions and their members have the greatest vested interest in having the best possible health and safety measures in the workplace. Random testing is far from failsafe and is nothing more than a lottery. No one should feel safer with businesses hat place so much reliance on random testing. Andrew Little, national secretary, Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union. - --- MAP posted-by: Larry Seguin