Suppose further that one of the ways you could demonstrate that you have exercised due diligence is by making sure that you get processes in place and that they're followed.
If there's any risk from worker impairment, then putting in place drug testing policies could be one way of demonstrating your due diligence. Heck, the Department of Labour even recommends putting in drug testing clauses where there is risk.
So we shouldn't be surprised if more companies are now requiring drug testing. It's a relatively cheap way for directors to show that they're being all diligent.
I don't like the equilibrium either. But if you want different outcomes, you do better in changing the underlying incentives. I don't see those changing any time soon.Disquiet around creeping drug testing is well placed - @odtnews story shows why we should worry https://t.co/sfYXBvdzPL— NZ Drug Foundation (@nzdrug) December 20, 2015
The ODT quotes Kirk Hardy, Chief Exec of a company running drug tests for firms:
Mr Hardy knows full well drug testing for cannabis cannot establish whether a person was high at the time of testing."Companies are using it for risk mitigation" - entirely in line with my CYA expectations.
And companies know that too, he says.
‘‘Most companies are using it for risk mitigation; not many companies are looking for impairment,'' he says.
‘‘Personal time doesn't really come into it.''
Mr Hardy says employees who work in safety-sensitive industries have no excuse for using drugs.
I wonder how many of those who lobbied for getting tough on companies for health & safety issues really thought through the likely effects. This was entirely predictable.