[4tokin]

Finally something good has come out of FWA in regards to employment drug testing.
There have been several recent cases where FWA has found urine testing invasive and has recommended if drug testing is required it should be confined to oral sampling.

https://www.fwa.gov.au/decisionssigne...2fwafb4998.htm

[OldSkoolKlein]

Yeah the big problem I have with pot testing is for the most part, they test for presence, not effect. But that's the problem with pot as opposed to alcohol, while grog is in your system it's usually affecting you, and there is a standardised way they can test for the effect that can be written into law.
Pot, unfortunately, doesn't play that way.

[Penguin59]

Lol exactly right, OldSkoolKlein!

I hate when people just apply alcohol or other drug principles to cannabis. "Oh well it's still in his system so he must be high as a kite...book him". Textbook ignorant thinking.

Penguin

[Terroir]

Yeh it started back in 08 or so. i posted this back a soon as this was released. Since then quite a few other cases have gone to court.

from 08 A decision handed down In the Australian IRC on 25/08/08 could bring about the end of urine testing for drugs and alcohol in the workplace in the near future (Shell Refining Australia pty ltd -v- CFMEU), if the reasoning of SDP Hamburger is adopted by the full bench of the AIRC or the Federal Court.

In his decision , he rejected the reasoning in a 10 year old often cited precedent decision of the WA IRC in the BHP Iron Ore case. In that deceision WAIRC found that a random testing program using urine samples was justified on safety grounds and was both fair and reasonable. In this case, SDP Hamburgerfound that in the last decade, oral fluid (saliva) testing has become availableand an Australian Standard for this testing has been developed. He found that it would be unjust and unreasonablefor the company to implement a urine based random testing regime at its Clyde refinery. with its wide "window of detection" and all that implies for interfering with the private lives of employees. Inhis view a more focussed method (saliva testing), is available where a positve test is far more likley to indicate actual impairment.

This conclusion was based on eveidence that drugs can be detected in urine well beyond the time the drug is having a significant biological effect. For example, the detection time for cannaboids in urine is 3 to 28 days, whereas for saliva it is up to 12 hours. For Meth, the detection time in urine is 2-5 days and only 24 hrs in saliva.

The decision was subject to 2 qualifications:

(a) Firstly, at this stage, no laboratories have as yet been accreditied under the relevant Australian Standards for saliva testing. It is understood this will change in the relatively near future.

(b) Secondly, there are drugs that the company may wish to test for (such as benzodiazapans) for which the Australian standard does not contain target concentration levels. The company should not be expected to implement a saliva testing regime until it has the agreement of the union and the testing lab on what other drugs it wishes to test for and what would be an appropriate target concentration level.

Once these 2 qualifications are satisfactorily resolved, the commission indicated that any random drug testing should be using saliva. Until then, it would be reasonable for the company to implement a urine based testing program on an interim basis only.

SDP Hamburger rejected much of the expert evidence led by shell, relating to the unreliability of the saliva test results and the data indicating a high level of false positives and false negatives for cannabis in saliva testing. Instead, he prefered the expert evidence led by the CFMEU, the the effect that saliva testing in the laboratory brings about accurate results.

In coming to the conclusion he has, SDP Hamburger has also effectivley rejected submissions put by shell that "acute impairment" within a short period after ingestion or consumption of a substance should not be the only matter of concern for employers. It was also argued that the "hangover" issue is significant. If there is chronic use of drugs or alcohol, the argument was put that the employer should be interested in this aswel, as oposed to being only interested if the employee is affected by drugs or alcohol. Other wise from a risk management point of view, the apprach would be very superficial. The rejection of this admission is a significant one for the all employers who operate workplaces where employees involved in substance abuse can lead to significant health and safety consequences.

The decision will cause angst for all employers who currently have a random urine testing regime in place. Once the 2 qualifications outlined in the decision are satisfied, employers can expect a rush of applications to the AIRC seeking findings that developments in technology now mean that their existing testing regimes have now become unjust and unreasonable.

In summing up the panel found that

" The employer has a legitimate right (and indeed obligation) to try and eliminate the risk that employees might come to work impaired by drugs or alcohol such that they could pose a risk to health and safety. Beyond that the employer has no right to dictate what drugs or alcohol its employees take in their own time. Indeed it would be unjust and unreasonable to do so. "

[High Country]

Don't lose sleep over it mate...I get tested for this shit all the time. I've given up worrying about it.

[Onemancrew]

Originally Posted by High Country

Don't lose sleep over it mate...I get tested for this shit all the time. I've given up worrying about it.

? Do you pass them all the time after smoking buds? If so why have you given up worrying? What's the secret?

I would be stressing out hard if i was ever forced to take one...

[Goldust]

speaking of which i have to do a pre employment medical tomorrow oh joy!

[Crocodile OG]

From what I understand piss tests are looking at THC metabolites not THC itself.

Thats why the tests are unfair. And a positve doesnt equate to actually being high.

Try getting a judge or cop to believe that though.

[Goldust]

got a phone call today lost my job as i failed medical and no reason as the ones telling me were my temp agency

[4tokin]

Originally Posted by Goldust

got a phone call today lost my job as i failed medical and no reason as the ones telling me were my temp agency

Testing sucks.
I have recently tested +ve in a zero tolerance workplace.
My boss was good about it and I was offered the system, but at my age and track record I said thanks but no thanks.
Finally a big fuck you to the man for his arcane laws.