Drugs - part of society, but not part of employment?

I read this story this morning with some horror. Not only does it show how the financial barriers to access drugs are becoming lower - 20p a hit is around the same price as a cigarette; plus the tragic loss of life. It also shows how "accepted and normal" the whole drug taking culture has become amongst the young: this woman had taken it as far as a mail-order business.

When I worked with Dow Chemicals in the 1990's, the worlds second largest chemical company, there was a standard form you had to sign even as a contractor when visiting any of their sites, be they production locations or offices. Effectively it said in the interests of Health and Safety, you could as a visitor be taken aside at any point and tested for drugs, or be ejected from site for no apparent reason at any point, and may be banned for life. Having agreed to always be accompanied by a safety trained Dow employee, it also said that if the site blew up, you accepted it wasn't necessarily their fault, but you could elect to leave an address where your remains when they became accessible could be sent. I didn't have a problem signing the form, as I was clean of drugs, never drank before going onsite, and had signed similar but less dramatic forms when entering sites for both BP, Shell and Unilever. The form came in a five page copy pack, and you got one of the copies as a co-signatory, and on one occasion my father - who was the addressed person my remains were to be sent to - happened to see his name on the copy and read it. After gulping a bit at legalise, he asked "is this legal, and necessary?"

As a contractor/visitor, it was freely your choice to enter these sites, and if you disagreed with these rules you were free to say no - and subsequently not do business with them. However, as an employee, do you have to abide by the same rules; and as an employer, when is it reasonable to ask employees to accept testing for drugs?

Lets take the employer first. The biggest leverage for drug testing is pre-employment - its one of the reasons that pre-employment medical screening is increasing. However, should a trace test prove positive for something, where does it become reasonable to refuse employment? This is not a legal commentary, and as legislation and case law changes continually, it is always recommended that you take advice on such matters from a suitably qualified HR lawyer. But, in summary, in the case of the young lady above, GBL is a legal drug - and hence it would seem over zealous to stop employment in such cases; however, if large traces of alchol were found, and the job required skilled machine operation or driving, a reasonable no employment case could be constructed. Illegal drugs are a different case, and even if your normal work doesn't involve chemical handling, a heavy cocaine user would seem a brave choice. However, in all positive cases whether the element found be legal or illegal, my personal feeling is to offer the candidate a second chance - that way, if they know they are a regular user, most likely they will withdraw their application over forcing you as the employer to send them a legal "no thanks because" letter.

What about employees in employment? Once past the trial period, then the case has to be handled via the disciplinary procedure. Whatever the outcome, it should be pointed out that most charities which support the rehabilitation and recovery of both drug takers and alcohol abusers, supported by many employers groups, can show that in the cases where employers provide support systems to aid employee recovery that previously good employees after recovery return to be great employee's. So, its not always a case of sack them being the best or most economic answer.

In the case of the employee or candidate applicant, be aware that many more employers are applying compulsory pre-employment medical screening. If you take drugs or like to party on alcohol - lets be honest, when you are young who doesn't drink excessively at times; then I suggest that if you are planning a period of job seeking that you lay totally off the drugs and keep the alcohol consumption down for at least a month before your first interview. If you want a mental check level, then ask yourself could you legally drive a car at this moment - that's the level a modern trace element tester can test for, over a six month history period. The potential employer should make you aware of their application and employment process, and every modern application process will have either a compulsory or optional "at our discretion, we may ask for your medical records or for you to attend a medical check" clause in the application document. If you have existing medical conditions, then do yourself a favour and state them - once you have put them on the application form, you can't be excluded from the applications process under the Disability Discrimination laws

Now, lets say like 99% of people, you pass the employment process and are employed. But, like most you suffer some form of incident, and happen to start over em-biding on drugs or alcohol. Unfortunately, this de-gradates your performance, and your boss notices, and asks for a meeting where he suggests you take a company sponsored drugs test - what can you do? Firstly, unless its a Health and Safety matter in the care and undertaking of your job - in which case, often medical checks are a regular and routine/periodic matter - ask them to put the request in writing. Take that letter to an employment solicitor, and ask for advice - please, be totally honest with your legal representative, they can help you. Normally you will be asked subsequently by the HR Department to a formal interview, where legally you can ask a friend to attend with you - make that your legal representative. You may not be able to keep your job, but you may be able to exit with a relatively clean reference on your performance up to the incident; or may be able to negotiate a period of suspension where by your problem can be address through an agreed and employer monitored program.

Drugs are personally not my thing, but when employers are faced with a shortage or skilled talent and more competition for good people, an acceptance of modern drug culture and an adult address of usage in both applicants and employee's can bring about a more enthused and encompassing group culture if problems are tackled sympathetically. Employees but particularly applicants should be aware of modern processes and procedures with regards employment, ceasing their drug taking and monitoring their alcohol intake during the employment process - its your life, your career and hence your choice: but if you really want that job, you now know the price.

Drugs, football – and succession management

The US sprinter Antonio Pettigrew was in court in San Francisco last week, in the trial of athletics coach Trevor Graham, who has presently denied charges of lying to US federal authorities. The court heard Pettigrew testifying that Graham encouraged him to inject human growth hormone and EPO, both banned substances, from 1997. Pettigrew testified he soon began buying the drugs from Angel Heredia, an admitted steroids dealer, and his performance showed a remarkable improvement as a result:

I was running incredible times as I was preparing for track meets," Pettigrew said during 30 minutes of testimony. I was able to recover faster.

So, from Pettigrew’s statement we have further confirmation that drugs are in sport, and that they enhance performance. And what does Pettigrew do now for a living – he’s a coach at the University of North Carolina.

I have always been a believer in the trickle-down theory of education and management: that staff will learn from their managers, and act/react in the same way as those above them. In psychology, this is called “soldiering.”

In football last week, Sir Alex Ferguson won his second European Cup, what is presently known as the Champion’s League. But although that now means he is just one win away from Bob Paisley’s record, could Ferguson’s long term legacy be even greater?

Shankly raised Paisley to be a better manager than himself; Paisley in turn raised Ronnie Moran (best forgotten), but also taught Kevin Keegan, Graeme Souness, Phil Neal and Emlyn Hughes, who all went on to be managers – none though with much success.

Ferguson has so far taught Carlos Queros, who in his single season at Real Madrid failed miserably by their high standards – he’s now back as Ferguson’s side, and most likely to succeed his boss. But more remarkably, of Ferguson’s playing side Mark Hughes, Steve Bruce and Roy Keane are presently Premier League managers, while Steve Coppell was until two weeks ago. Paul Ince – who played for both Ferguson’s United and Roy Evan’s Liverpool – is presently the most sought after manager in the lower English leagues.

So, what will Antonia Pettigrew’s legacy be to his own athletics students – could it be “take drugs, run faster – cause that’s how I did it;” or will it be “don’t take drugs, or like me you’ll end up in court and have to probably give your medals back.”
Often, companies when they recruit miss two things – what they are recruiting (not just a set of skills, but an investment in their own future. Look for skills plus potential coach/managers); and the most obvious – why are they recruiting? Vodafone today took one of the bravest leaps, by announcing the promotion of Vittorio Colao to succeed Arun Sarin as CEO - a job he was passed over for when Sarin originally took the job, and was then rehired after two years away from the company. If your company needs a skills leap or change, then external candidates make sense – but just another piece of muscle for the sales team or the board room really sounds like there’s a poor coach at the centre of the team: and then you really ought to be looking to hire there first, not elsewhere to cover up that person’s failing as a coach for the next generation, and the companies future.

Online social networking - costing UK companies £6.5M AND as unstoppable as gravity?

From the recruiters stand point, I have watched the debate on online social networks with some interest.....

It's the bain of corporate life - sucking precious hours from the day, and distracting employees to a 24hr water cooler conversation

It's an essential of modern life - as much part of life as texting, pop music and fast food

For the recruiter, its a godsend! As this article suggests, ANY employer who now doesn't Google all applicants is missing out on essential information. I interviewed a guy a few months back, who on his CV and a few background checks seemed a 10 out of 10 applicant - however, his MySpace page suggested he enjoyed a regular joint and the odd bit of white powder: oh, and an active social life at the local swingers club.

I personally still believe that all should have the right to a private life, and what goes on behind closed doors/in the bedroom is your choice as a consenting adult. But if you plaster it all over the web, what would you do if you were the employer?

I pointed out to my interviewee that there was much information on him in the public domain, and much as though drugs were more acceptable and part of modern life, the employer I was searching for as a result of their customer contract required all employee's and hence applicants to under take a drug test on application, and then after at the customers behest. This generally meant that applicants would need to be drug free for at least three months prior to the test - could he make that standard? He understood the requirement, and withdrew his application.

I think employers blocking social networks is quite a childish and naive manner in which to address something which is quite essential to the lives of those under 30. I remember when internet access first became widely available to all employees in my former corporate employer, and they introduced a "key word" blocker which meant that (for instance) search strings associated with sex were blocked. My innovative group of engineers found that searching on related words they found in Roget's Thesaurus allowed to still access such sites - not that they wanted to, they just wanted to prove it could be done.

Today, the number of young people coming into the market is reducing, due to a highly decreased birth rate. Hence, employers wanting new recruits need to take broader attitudes to attracting and retaining employees - cellphone bans in entire campuses, lunching at desks (because there's no where else to go), and bans on social networking sites all add up to signs of an oppressive/control freak employer. Getting employees to recognise the problems of ringing cellphones to customers and their work mates, providing some form of rest area or access to online entertainment/education, advising on monitoring of networks and expecting employees to only use social networks and MSN messenger during break times - are all signs of an employer trusting employee's to be adults and make sensible choices. Happy employees attract more happy productive employees, and put recruiters out of a job (Ha - if only! Its interesting to think I have a job because of a low birth rate, and people wanting career development...)