DCC proposal for random drug testing

Random testing and the use of covert electronic surveillance could be among powers to be used by the Dunedin City Council to root out drug abuse by its staff.

Council staff are being asked to consider a proposed new alcohol-and-other-drug policy, which details procedures for random and targeted testing for inappropriate use of illicit substances.

The list of substances to be tested for include alcohol - over the legal drink-drive limit - as well as cocaine, ecstasy, cannabis and other illegal drugs.

A copy of the draft policy was released to the Otago Daily Times last week by council community life general manager Graeme Hall, who said the policy aimed to ensure key staff were "right on top of their game".

He was not aware of "significant" drug or alcohol problems among the council's 687 full-time equivalent staff, but the draft policy matched those of other major employers.

The council had an obligation to provide a safe workplace, already had general guidelines on prohibiting inappropriate alcohol and drug use and a programme in place to help staff with issues.

However, the new policy pulled the guidelines into one cohesive document, provided more specific instructions and spelt out in greater detail the council's power when it came to search and surveillance, Mr Hall said.

The draft allowed random testing for council staff working in safety-sensitive areas, such as those operating heavy machinery, and those responsible for public safety, such as lifeguards at Moana Pool.

Those failing tests would be stood down without pay until a clean test result was obtained, or dismissed if one was not received within seven days, and subjected to disciplinary action leading to written warnings.

Other staff could also be tested if there was reasonable cause to suspect they were impaired, the draft said.

Reasonable cause included outbreaks of violence in the workplace, but also excessive lateness, changes in personality or appearance, bloodshot eyes or intense anxiety or panic attacks.

Those failing tests would continue to be tested at random over the next year, and further positive tests - or more serious misconduct such as possession of drugs in the workplace - could lead to dismissal.

The policy would also allow the search of private property on council premises in some circumstances, and the use of covert electronic surveillance to catch those in breach of the policy.

Potential new recruits could also be tested as a condition of employment, with any job offer conditional on a clean result.

Refusal, or a positive test, would "impact on a manager's decision to offer employment".

DCC drug habit

Who in the DCC instigated this American paranoid idea?

Is there a real problem?

All this makes one wonder if there is actually a real problem with substance abuse at the DCC to warrant random testing? If so, there may be no choice, as undesirable as it is to subject people to such measures.

Solution looking for a [drug] problem

Is there reason to believe that the stupidities launched at us by council employees and all too often OK'd by our elected representatives were down to drug and alcohol abuse? Could there be some other reason less amenable to a quick-fix solution?

Testing should be carried out only where there are grounds to suspect that drugs are the problem, not other factors such as uncontrolled ego, contempt for other people and/or rules, poor training, lack of sleep or simply not being up to the job.

Look at people as individuals, and look at all the reasons for poor performance. If people are performing well and they use some substance(s) that remain detectable through into working hours, does it matter? If they perform ineptly but use nothing stronger than decaf coffee is that OK?

Heaven help any employee who is dealing with serious illness in the family, the death of a loved one, sudden betrayal by a partner, or a depressive illness. They may become moody and anxious, cry till their eyes are bloodshot, and then whoopee, some clipboard noddy will add to their troubles by deciding they're probably using drugs.

If drug testing and electronic surveillance were not so cheap and easy to use now, would there be this eagerness to get into the lives of employees? Is there a demonstrable real problem or is this a grab for excessive power?

In view of  some of the OK's given by mayors and councillors in the past, why not try the testing first on our elected representatives to ensure that what they do to our city and our wallets is not influenced by mind-altering substances? [Abridged]

Violation

Drug testing at the workplace is a violation of our citizens' privacy.
We did not vote this council in to start a paternalistic and patronising mayorality and council.
Please wake up - this police state you are all colluding with is dangerous.

Why implement a draconian and paternalistic system?

I would like to know why the DCC finds it necessary to spend ratepayer's money on what is effectively a draconian and paternalistic regime which shows a lack of trust and respect for staff.

It is already acknowledged that there is not believed to be a problem with intoxication within the workplace at the DCC. For the very small number of staff who may be suspected of being intoxicated at work, there are many simpler and more human measures that could be taken instead of the Orwellian option of forced tests.

Staff can be talked to by management. It should be fairly easy to distinguish whether someone is drunk or high or not.
Systems like this are a symptom of the dehumanising of our culture.

Are management now so thouroughly disconnected from their staff that they cannot a) detect and b) deal with intoxication in the workplace?

I thought...

...they wanted the staff to be happier...

ODT/directory - Local Businesses

CompanyLocationBusiness Type
Lake Wanaka LodgeWanakaLodges
Balance Therapy and HealingQueenstownAlternative Health Services
Placemakers AlexandraAlexandraBuilding Supplies
Dr. Kumari Fernando (Clinical Psychologist)DunedinClinical Psychologists