Qantas drug-test plan
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After being involved with a pilot for a great number of years, I've been under the impression that there's a huge alcohol culture in the aviation industry.
His last transgression was to ring me up pissed at 3.20am on the day he was due to sign on at 6.30am.
Luckily he decided not to show up.
His horror stories alone would fill a book.
His last transgression was to ring me up pissed at 3.20am on the day he was due to sign on at 6.30am.
Luckily he decided not to show up.
His horror stories alone would fill a book.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: planit
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alcohol is by far the most widespread/abused drug taken. Know of several hundred pilot alcoholics, however all show up fit flight.
As fit as they will ever be. Also know of several dozen that smoke a little cannabis, same thing, no problem - fit for flight.
Cardiovascular conditions are screened at medical examinations.
Airlines are better off spending money developing health and fitness programs for many of the fat monkeys that are likely to croak it one day on short finals, by far the biggest concern.
As fit as they will ever be. Also know of several dozen that smoke a little cannabis, same thing, no problem - fit for flight.
Cardiovascular conditions are screened at medical examinations.
Airlines are better off spending money developing health and fitness programs for many of the fat monkeys that are likely to croak it one day on short finals, by far the biggest concern.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The biggest concern for pilots would be RBT at sign-on in the outports especially for the early morning departures. The truth is if you have a big overnight and stop drinking within the 8 hours you have no idea what is left in your system.
Guest
Posts: n/a
"I think all drug users should be shot" -Frank Zappa.
Just for the information of all in 'Nam the rule is 8 hours for booze if a "small" amount is consummed and 16 hours prior to sign on if "more than a small amount" is involved. "Small" is not, however, defined...Personally, in an industry that demands a high level of reliability from staff, I think that is reasonable to require a drug-free workforce. There could be some pressure from insurers on this one too. I couldn't imagine many companies spending money on testing voluntarily.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Wanna Be Up There...
Age: 53
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
An employer may implement any policy that it wants at any time. The issues witht he drug and alcohol testing policy are as follows:
a) Have all employees been widely educated as to its content, effect and implementation,
b) Has it been/ Will it be implemented consistently accross the workforce,
c) Is it justifiable and fair - this one is easy to justify and if it applies equally to all employees it is fair,
d) What guarantees are provided that the "chain of evidence" is uncontaminated. This refers to the sample that is taken and who has access to it at any time before the tests are concluded (more simply, can it be tampered with?).
The history of implementing these type of policies is quite interesting reading, mainly because of the resistance towards them from the employees. This is easy to understand when you read earlier posts that mention such things as civil liberties etc. But the fact of the matter is that there are no civil liberties in the employment relationship.
The comments made earlier regarding the inability of an employer to forcibly restrain an employee are quite correct, but then force is not necessary when you realise that the employer only has to say "stay where you are or you will be fired".
It is the same with this policy. If the employee wants to retain their job then they must comply with the policy. They will be told in no uncertain terms that if they fail to comply (provide samples etc.) then they will lose their jobs. Who needs physical force?
In the end it will come down to the industrial muscle of the employees concerned. Either they have the strength to stand up to the employer and say no, or, the employer will say this is the rule take it or leave it. With war around the corner and with little opportunity for other work, can anybody truly say they would refuse???
As for the reason for implementing the policy, well who knows, but if you, as an employee, were looking at two unsavoury issues, one of which was accepting a less than excellent Certified Agreement and the other was battling to the death over an objectional (but completely legal) policy, which would you agree to first?
a) Have all employees been widely educated as to its content, effect and implementation,
b) Has it been/ Will it be implemented consistently accross the workforce,
c) Is it justifiable and fair - this one is easy to justify and if it applies equally to all employees it is fair,
d) What guarantees are provided that the "chain of evidence" is uncontaminated. This refers to the sample that is taken and who has access to it at any time before the tests are concluded (more simply, can it be tampered with?).
The history of implementing these type of policies is quite interesting reading, mainly because of the resistance towards them from the employees. This is easy to understand when you read earlier posts that mention such things as civil liberties etc. But the fact of the matter is that there are no civil liberties in the employment relationship.
The comments made earlier regarding the inability of an employer to forcibly restrain an employee are quite correct, but then force is not necessary when you realise that the employer only has to say "stay where you are or you will be fired".
It is the same with this policy. If the employee wants to retain their job then they must comply with the policy. They will be told in no uncertain terms that if they fail to comply (provide samples etc.) then they will lose their jobs. Who needs physical force?
In the end it will come down to the industrial muscle of the employees concerned. Either they have the strength to stand up to the employer and say no, or, the employer will say this is the rule take it or leave it. With war around the corner and with little opportunity for other work, can anybody truly say they would refuse???
As for the reason for implementing the policy, well who knows, but if you, as an employee, were looking at two unsavoury issues, one of which was accepting a less than excellent Certified Agreement and the other was battling to the death over an objectional (but completely legal) policy, which would you agree to first?
Last edited by notmyC150v2; 18th Mar 2003 at 04:21.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the end it will come down to the industrial muscle of the employees concerned. Either they have the strength to stand up to the employer and say no, or, the employer will say this is the rule take it or leave it. With war around the corner and with little opportunity for other work, can anybody truly say they would refuse???
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Breath testing for alcohol will not solve the problem. It may help, but there are significant effects from alcohol intake, long after the blood alcohol has returned to zero.
The vestibular system is affected for up to 36 hours after a decent night, predisposing to spatial disorientation. Alcohol disrupts sleep for a number of reasons, and also has been shown to degrade performance in reaction time, decision making, etc. These effects are most pronounced in non-routine (ie. emergency) situations.
So lets be a bit responsible here, and not concentrate on just not getting caught.
The drug testing issue is a little more difficult. It can be difficult to relate cannabis use a few weeks previously, to a performance degradation on the day. Having said that, there is a lot of evidence of performance impairment and long term health issues from a whole range of drugs, both legal and illegal.
The vestibular system is affected for up to 36 hours after a decent night, predisposing to spatial disorientation. Alcohol disrupts sleep for a number of reasons, and also has been shown to degrade performance in reaction time, decision making, etc. These effects are most pronounced in non-routine (ie. emergency) situations.
So lets be a bit responsible here, and not concentrate on just not getting caught.
The drug testing issue is a little more difficult. It can be difficult to relate cannabis use a few weeks previously, to a performance degradation on the day. Having said that, there is a lot of evidence of performance impairment and long term health issues from a whole range of drugs, both legal and illegal.
