Do companies in Ireland do drug tests?

Katunga · 24-12-2012 04:08PM

If you work in the aviation industry it would be common practice to carryout drug tests.

lightspeed · 24-12-2012 04:20PM

Deleted User wrote: »

What's the problem with the drug test?
If you're taking illegal drugs and then working for that company they have a right to know.
Drugs such as alcohol and cannabis fair enough but I wouldn't want to be working beside people coming into work after taking a load of xanax or snorting a few lines.
Few enough jobs going without getting on your high horse over a drugs test.

The problem i have is that there is a difference between doing drugs at the weekend than doing them during work or just prior to beginning your working day, not that i do any drugs. Although i would have no problem admitting that i did if i did use recreational drugs. These drug screening tests dont take that into account so they are just silly. If someone is doing drugs and its affecting their work then why would an employer need to know the reason? Could you not just reprimand the employee for their poor performance?

Based on the current drug testing schemes being mentioned, it appears that if you had a perfectly functioning employee that helps contribute to the functioning of the business and smoked some weed or did a few lines at the weekend, and then failed a drug test, this employee could be given his P45. So can anybody explain why would that make sense or be in the best interests of a business?

Spunge · 24-12-2012 04:32PM

mathepac wrote: »

I wasn't aware that smoking cannabis was legal in one part of The Netherlands, but as the thread is about drug-testing in Ireland I don't see the relevance.

oh its completely relevant. because your point was that anyone who has taken drugs is supporting criminal gangs, but if you smoked it in a country where it was legal, then came back to ireland, and failed the test, your argument doesnt really hold water anymore.

MadsL · 24-12-2012 04:58PM

Spunge wrote: »

oh its completely relevant. because your point was that anyone who has taken drugs is supporting criminal gangs, but if you smoked it in a country where it was legal, then came back to ireland, and failed the test, your argument doesnt really hold water anymore.

The US now have an interesting situation. With two states now legalising, imagine the confusion about drug screening. You can use a drug now legal in your state, and fail a drug test and be fired because you used a drug illegal at federal level.

There will be court cases. Watch this space.

InTheTrees · 24-12-2012 05:23PM

MadsL wrote: »

The US now have an interesting situation. With two states now legalising, imagine the confusion about drug screening. You can use a drug now legal in your state, and fail a drug test and be fired because you used a drug illegal at federal level.

There will be court cases. Watch this space.

Well its much more of a contractual thing and actually always has been.

Weed has been legal for a month now here in Washington and there's a fair amount of confusion.

If you sign an employment contract with a company and agree not to smoke or drink then they can test you and fire you if you fail to comply.

Some companies deny smokers, because it affects Health Insurance premiums, thus you can be terminated for smoking a cigarette. This has nothing to do with legality; it is a matter between you and your employer and the contract you signed.

Now that marijuana is legal, it would be treated the same as tobacco, as far as company prohibitions.

And its treated the same way as alcohol as regards turning up to work incapacitated in some way. Show up to work wasted on anything and it will be a problem right?

"Federal" jobs would be slightly more formal but the results would be the same, termination.

InTheTrees · 24-12-2012 05:28PM

... and I've worked in the computer industry in the USA for twenty years and have never encountered testing for anything.

Strawberry Fields · 24-12-2012 05:31PM

interesting thread, I was sacked after a christmas party once, large American mnc. I am alcoholic with 4 years sobriety. That night was a blackout, still thought it was harsh I'm not dangerous. Though I probably look on drugs. Never been drug tested in any place but did have it in my contract in one place though they never invoked it.

MaxSteele · 24-12-2012 05:38PM

A company, no matter how big, shouldn't feel entitled to dictate your social and private life so long as it has no negative impact on your job responsibilities.

Personally I'd be gone in a flash if an employer began listing do's and don'ts outside working hours.

Auldloon · 25-12-2012 12:18PM

Strawberry Fields wrote: »

interesting thread, I was sacked after a christmas party once, large American mnc. I am alcoholic with 4 years sobriety. That night was a blackout, still thought it was harsh I'm not dangerous. Though I probably look on drugs. Never been drug tested in any place but did have it in my contract in one place though they never invoked it.

So what reason did they give for sacking you? It can't have been for being drunk at a party!

Strawberry Fields · 25-12-2012 12:34PM

they wouldn't give me one. Hard to know what you did when it's a blank.
My behaviour could have been ridiculous, but they went out of business soon after, they were all laid off. I was laughing into my newspaper.

smcgiff · 25-12-2012 01:11PM

Against human rights to be drug tested by an employer - you must be having a laugh.

But, it does go to prove how very very important it is to get an employee to sign as extensive a contract as possible.

In my opinion there is no level of recreational use of class A drugs and even cannabis that doesn't affect performance. Even if you are a great employee, it's likely you'd be even better if you were not taking mind altering substances. Your employer is paying for and deserves your best.

Randy Anders · 25-12-2012 01:57PM

smcgiff wrote: »

In my opinion there is no level of recreational use of class A drugs and even cannabis that doesn't affect performance. Even if you are a great employee, it's likely you'd be even better if you were not taking mind altering substances. Your employer is paying for and deserves your best.

I disagree to some extent

Especially when it comes to the likes of LSD and a lot of psychedelics

I don't have tome to go into a long post now as its xmas day but I will tomorrow! It's a fascinating drug which can help people in ways you wouldn't believe

I have used most recreational drugs and will admit that abuse of the likes of MDMA and cocaine can slow you down a bit if over used but Psychs are a completely different ball game which can really better a person

Odysseus · 25-12-2012 02:24PM

I am against drug testing even in the clinics where I work but that is a different topic. One of the things of testing by private companies I dislike is when it is used as a way of getting rid of a person. If tested and the results are positive the person should be offered help and support.

The distinction between drugs and alcohol is even worse, you see this with the denfense forces and garda. I have work with a number of people from both camps over the years; if it is alcohol that is fine they will pay for the best treatments, however, once drugs are mentioned it is a different story, the person will loose their job.

Bluefang · 25-12-2012 02:26PM

If it states in a contract of employment that random screening is a condition of employment, then yes - an employer can submit you to testing BUT it must comply with fair and transparent procedures including the right to challenge/appeal the findings.
This was bourne out a few years ago at the Labour court where an employee was summarily dismissed for gross conduct after a sample was found to have very borderline indications of a prohibited drug.
a case was brought by the employee's trade union and the company were directed to reemploy them as it had a zero tolerance policy that did not take account of the possibility for false positives - the safe guard against which should have been the guideline that any samples deemed to be positive had to be over a certain threshold, so the company lost on the basis of having a zero tolerance policy that defied this requirement.
Do a search of Labour court site if any of you are interested, it was considered to be a landmark case at the time although it received very little media attention, which perhaps explains why so many companies are not more cautious in their approach to testing. Bottom line - an employer can become a cropper if they don't comply with fair and proper procedures.

Coeurdepirate · 25-12-2012 03:07PM

mathepac wrote: »

How I might sound to you isn't of the slightest interest to me.

If you want to comment on the content of my posts do so; ad hominem remarks directed at posters personally are not allowed here.

It's after hours would you lighten the fúck up.

Solair · 25-12-2012 03:30PM

Whatever about the rights/wrongs of it, I wouldn't like to be the company or HR department that eventually mixes up the results and disciplines the wrong employee!

Lawyers would have a field day.

Odysseus · 25-12-2012 03:37PM

Solair wrote: »

Whatever about the rights/wrongs of it, I wouldn't like to be the company or HR department that eventually mixes up the results and disciplines the wrong employee!

Lawyers would have a field day.

Correct procedure would have the testing done by an external lab, who are generally on the ball. I have seen mistakes though.

BrokenArrows · 25-12-2012 03:47PM

Id agree with drug tests for staff who are causing problems at work. Ie. Being late or just being **** at their job.

Random tests are pointless. You will probably just end up firing good staff who like to indulge from time to time.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 25-12-2012 05:32PM

We have random testing in the Defence Forces ~ tbh I think its a good thing.

As an member of the Irish Judo Association I can be tested outside of competition too.

LiffeyValleyB · 25-12-2012 06:08PM

Randy Anders wrote: »

I disagree to some extent

Especially when it comes to the likes of LSD and a lot of psychedelics

I don't have tome to go into a long post now as its xmas day but I will tomorrow! It's a fascinating drug which can help people in ways you wouldn't believe

I have used most recreational drugs and will admit that abuse of the likes of MDMA and cocaine can slow you down a bit if over used but Psychs are a completely different ball game which can really better a person

Strange you mention acid, have you ever actually taken it? SWIM done pure mdma/weed/K before, and been fine a day or 2 after. However they did a 200mcg blotter of acid and it screwed SWIM up for around 3 months. Despite being a generally good trip, it makes you confront feelings/emotions/fears you thought were sorted out. It can take you to the deepest darkest thoughts in the back of your mind and you can't just close your eyes and hide from them. Took SWIM a long time to get over and turned them off the drug for life. In fact I think it should be legalized to terrify the crap out of people who are interested in doing drugs.

Odysseus · 25-12-2012 06:29PM

LiffeyValleyB wrote: »

Strange you mention acid, have you ever actually taken it? SWIM done pure mdma/weed/K before, and been fine a day or 2 after. However they did a 200mcg blotter of acid and it screwed SWIM up for around 3 months. Despite being a generally good trip, it makes you confront feelings/emotions/fears you thought were sorted out. It can take you to the deepest darkest thoughts in the back of your mind and you can't just close your eyes and hide from them. Took SWIM a long time to get over and turned them off the drug for life. In fact I think it should be legalized to terrify the crap out of people who are interested in doing drugs.

All drugs effect people in different way, it is very subjective, but with acid it really is a case of all bets being off.

However, if you are using terms like SWIM you would know this surely?

How did SWIM know it was 200mcg? I have never heard of anyone knowing the strenght of the acid they took.

mathepac · 26-12-2012 08:10PM

Rothmans wrote: »

... Forcing someone to submit to a drug test is undoubtedly an unjustified breach of private life, and could also be considered degrading. It would also probably be considered wrongful/unfair dismissal under domestic law, provided the employee hasn't expressly breached his contract. ...

No-one in Ireland gets "forced" to take a drug screen or a drug test.

Even a suspected drunk/drugged driver can still refuse a test but faces penalties for refusal.

The rest of the content of your post is such utter ill-informed rubbish that it doesn't even warrant comment.

Lucy and Harry · 26-12-2012 08:13PM

I never got one but a few lads got caught in work and got sacked as they were operating heavy machinery.They can send you for a medical after the interview sometimes also.

mathepac · 26-12-2012 08:14PM

Spunge wrote: »

oh its completely relevant. ...

Only in your imagination I'm afraid.

mathepac · 26-12-2012 08:24PM

MaxSteele wrote: »

A company, no matter how big, shouldn't feel entitled to dictate your social and private life so long as it has no negative impact on your job responsibilities.

Personally I'd be gone in a flash if an employer began listing do's and don'ts outside working hours.

The don'ts

Don't show up for with traces of illicit drugs in your system - you are a law breaker
Don't show up for work intoxicated or under the influence
Don't drink alcohol or consume drugs during working hours or when on call
Don't bring illicit drugs or drug paraphenalia onto company property

The dos

Do inform us immediately if you need to take prescribed medications
Do ensure you have a current prescription for any drugs you have on your person / in personal work area or vehicle

Simplez

mathepac · 26-12-2012 08:31PM

smcgiff wrote: »

... In my opinion there is no level of recreational use of class A drugs and even cannabis that doesn't affect performance. ....

What do you mean by Class A drugs? How in your opinion does cannabis differ from these Class A drugs?

mathepac · 26-12-2012 08:32PM

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

It's after hours would you lighten the fúck up.

The topic is pretty serious even if the forum seems to be the wrong choice. Thanks for your insightful post.

mathepac · 26-12-2012 08:33PM

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Id agree with drug tests for staff who are causing problems at work. Ie. Being late or just being **** at their job.

Random tests are pointless. You will probably just end up firing good staff who like to indulge from time to time.

Nonsense

Ben Hadad · 26-12-2012 08:41PM

mathepac wrote: »

Only in your imagination I'm afraid.

Can you please show some humanity and treat the valid point he made.

Laws are relative not absolute. Some people need to stop reading the Old Testament and try and integrate into modern society.

Rhetorically, and as an aside, people who use the term "simples" when completing their argument, only serve to make everyone involved in the debate absolutely hate their guts.

Tea_Bag · 26-12-2012 08:45PM

again, not a drug user, but know a few perfectly acceptable employees who get by just fine despite using recreational drugs. if anything, me showing up hung over is more of a hindrance than them after a night out.

get off yer high horses lads. cannabis is being legalized all over the world at the moment.

Do companies in Ireland do drug tests?

Comments