Rise in businesses using drugs tests to sack staff without redundancy pay

As reported in The Guardian, charity Release has recorded a four fold increase in the number of calls it receives regarding problems with drug testing in the workplace.

"In the first quarter of 2008, the team received 493 calls, with just 31 (6.2%) related to testing at work. In the first three months of this year, 548 calls were received with 145 (26.4%) about this issue."
The Guardian

We really should have learned it by now, but here's yet more evidence that some employers are more than prepared to use sly underhand tactics, placing more value in the bottom line than the welfare of their employees.
You might have thought that in such economic times, with unemployment currently up 10%, that management in these companies might have taken some pity on those who have to be sacked so that the business may survive. Unfortunately not.

I'm in no way saying that people who use drugs on the job should not be fired, but the fact is almost everyone I have ever met has used some illegal drug on occasion, or quite regularly. As long as it does not interfere with their performance at work business has no right whatsoever to sack these people on the basis that they still have drugs in their systems.

This is not business clamping down on drug use at work (otherwise every sales person/telemarketer i have ever met would have been fired), this is business using recreational drug use as an excuse to save money in redundancy packages.

The cynical nature of it makes my blood boil, there should be legislation in place that only allows business to take this kind of action if there is a clause in the employees contract stating that they cannot ever use drugs and are subject to drugs tests at any time. As it stands most standard contracts only state that you can be tested for drugs when there is reasonable grounds to believe you are intoxicated in the workplace. Business using that clause in this manner should be made illegal.

My suggestion, if you should be asked to take a drugs test at work is that you refuse, for the reason that you should be made aware of any reasonable grounds for making you take the test.

Michael Martin steps down as Speaker of the House

So Michael Martin steps down as Speaker of the House due to this expenses debacle. I guessed it would happen as the long knives have been after a head for a while now. Fact is though, this man is just a scapegoat to shift blame from the MP's who VOTED FOR this expenses system in the first place.

When someone figures out a way to scam the benefits system do we prosecute the person committing the scam or the head of the home office who is ultimately in charge of the benefits system?
If a manager scams an expense system that he helped implement, do you fire the manager or the person who was charged with overseeing the expense system?
The whole expense system for MP's is broken, a system they voted for 5 years ago. This is an exercise in attempting to placate the layman of politics into thinking that the problem is solved. A new speaker will "be able to lead us (the MP's) to a fairer more just political system" to paraphrase what a number of MP's have said. This is utter rubbish, as if the MP's need to be "lead" to what is fair and just then they do not deserve the position they hold. It makes me so angry that what appears to be a snake like maneuver to save their collective reputations will almost certainly be accepted by the majority of the populace. But hey, politics has always been like that. Since the first shaman blamed a tribal loners bad mojo for the failure of his spells to bring rain, there has always been a fall guy.

I believe that the police need to be involved in an investigation of all MP's expenses going back to the new legislation. All politicians found guilty of cheating the system should pay all money back and be removed from their position.

A new expense system should be put in place whereby MP's who do not already have the means (unlike say David Cameron who is sickeningly rich) should receive allowances for a second home when their constituency is outside London.
MP's should be given an allowance for staff which cannot be used to employ family members, and must disclose the qualifications of those they do employ.
Finally they should be allowed to make expense claims in line with any other business person for things like subsistence and travel as laid out by the Inland Revenue. Trust me, the IR is far from generous with expenses.

Atheism too controversial to advertise?

I saw this story a couple of weeks ago & my first thought was that it was an over reaction on the part of the bus company to a perfectly legitimate add. I imagined an evangelical christian management outraged with the idea that someone might attack their religion by suggesting a person can be good without the threat of an omnipresent God. After all, what's in it for them? Then I thought that maybe it was a business decision based on the idea that people may boycott their buses if they saw the add on the side. Not a great business decision really. Having been to America myself I can say that you get nowhere fast without a car. If you have to use the public buses you get the first one that comes or risk death by ice age before the next one shows.

Satisfied that my first assumption was probably correct, I waited for the inevitable legal action & inevitable decision that the bus company could not refuse to run the ads. The inevitable happened. The bus company is now stalling, calling a "board meeting" saying they will run the ad campaign after a visit from Pres. Obama, whom they don't wish to offend.

They've been ordered to run the ads, yet are now choosing the time to do so. Supposedly in order not to upset a president who is obviously tolerant. I'll see if any more gets reported. It's freedom of speechish I suppose.

This MP's Expense Rubbish & Outline for the Future

First ever post in this new blog. I hope in time to link this to both my twitter account & to you tube videos, giving my thoughts & opinions on all issues & topics that come to my attention which i feel the need to express myself over.

So, this expense rubbish that has been flying around the last few weeks. It seems more than obvious to me that the speaker of the house Michael Martin is NOT responsible for the excesses in claims by some of our public representatives.

The latest guidelines for MP's expenses were voted for by the house of commons in 2004. They were voted for by all MP's, NOT JUST Michael Martin. The problem as i see it was for the most part with the scope of the allowances MP's were able to claim for, NOT in the regulation of the claims which Michael Martin can be held responsible for.

This attempt by some MP's to generate a vote of no confidence in the speaker of the house stinks of scapegoating. They are trying to shift the press attention and public outrage from themselves onto Michael Martin.

Let me explain my thought process in as clear a terms as possible.

Our MP's voted in a weak system for expense claims and allowances which was easily abused. Therefore they are collectively responsible for the abuses carried out by a number of MP's. Michael Martin as an individual is not.

Simples.