editorial comment Why would Europe follow the "lead" of the country with the highest drugs consumption?

YOU'VE made it through the final round of interviews and that dream job is almost in your grasp. But you are asked to take a drugs test at the last minute - and a cold remedy could spell failure.

Some companies are turning to drugs testing as part of their standard recruitment process along with interviews and reference checks.

A study of companies in 13 countries by human resources consultancy DDI found that 38% used drugs tests in the final stages of their hiring process.

Lucy McGee, a director of DDI's UK arm, says: 'These tests are more common in the United States, but Europe often follows where America leads.

'Recruiters want to know that people who present themselves for interview are what they say they are. 'Testing at the point of entry can be helpful to employers. They want to avoid the cost of dealing with a person whose performance is affected by what they do in their spare time.'

Firms that used drug tests did so where people were being submitted for general medicals, effectively once they had already been hired. But Hugh Robertson, head of health and safety for the TUC, believes the tests are inaccurate and most sensible employers in this country have rejected any pressure to introduce them.

'The tests can be misleading,' he says. 'Someone could take an over-the-counter flu remedy containing codeine and they would subsequently test positive for opiates. Equally, a test might show a person has had contact with a drug in the past three days, week or month, but that doesn't indicate whether their performance was impaired in the way that a test for alcohol might. It's also an issue of natural justice. Unless a drug test is applied to a safety-critical job, that information is none of the employer's business.'

Jim Donaghy works for a manufacturing firm in Belfast and, as a union representative for Amicus, has seen people fall foul of drug testing. He believes it is often faulty and can be maliciously administered. 'This type of policy is intimidatory and can cause huge upset and embarrassment,' he says. 'If the test is not handled properly, people can be penalised with little or no justification. It's a process that's wide open to abuse.'

Guidelines on drug and alcohol testing were published in December by the Information Commissioner, the data protection authority.

The report advises employers that drugs testing is justified only to ensure safety at work rather than to reveal the use of illegal substances.

Robertson says: 'These tests don't reveal when a person has taken drugs or whether someone is under the influence. It's a nonsense and unjustified.'

back | to top | full article >>