|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
Ireland: When The Drugs Lose You The Job CORMAC O'KEEFFE Irish Independent Thursday 13 Jul 2000 The Irish Independent Thursday 13 July 2000 When The Drugs Lose You The Job You've got a great CV, the interview went very well, you think you've got the job ... but not if the cannabis you smoked last night turns up in the test results. CORMAC O'KEEFFE reports on drug testing in the workplace. Sarah had all the qualifications for the job. She had a computer degree and four years experience working in a young IT company. After doing the interview in the top US multinational she was informed that she had got the job. All she had to do was complete a medical examination. She duly did the medical and gave a urine sample. Soon after she was notified that she had failed the test and that the job was no longer hers. ``I was shattered, I couldn't get over it. I thought I was perfectly healthy.'' At that stage it dawned on Sarah that it may have been her urine sample. ``I smoke cannabis fairly regularly, every weekend and sometimes during the week, but I wouldn't smoke much. So it must be that, although they didn't say exactly what it was.'' Sarah would not be the first person in Ireland to fail a drugs test at the pre-employment stage. About one in 20 interviewees tested do. Nor would she be the first person not to be told why she didn't get the job. Although there are no national figures, at least 115 companies in Ireland are testing their employees for drugs. Laboratories estimate that about 2,300 workers are being tested every month. That's 27,600 employees every year. And at about pounds 25 a pop workplace drug testing is costing business at least pounds 690,000 per year. This excludes the many companies who do their own tests. It also excludes a significant number of major companies who send their samples to the UK for testing. Around 500 samples are tested every year at Medscreen in London from companies in the Republic and Northern Ireland. Another smaller number test their samples in the US. ``There has been a dramatic increase in the number of tests we are doing since we started in 1988,'' said Anya Pierce of Beaumont Hospital Laboratory. Beaumont conducts about 600 tests per month for about 30 clients, both from the private and state sectors. Claymon Laboratories is the largest operator in Ireland and has in the region of 80 companies as clients. ``We test between 1,200-1,400 samples per month. The vast majority of them are pre-employment tests,'' said Claymon's Conor Hoey. He said the numbers being tested have grown ``fairly strongly'' in the last three years. ``When we started in 1994/95 we had a minimal number of clients. But with foreign investment and more US multinationals the testing ethos came in.'' Blackrock Clinic is the other main testing facility in Ireland and takes about 300 samples per month. ``We have about five clients, large multinationals, mainly in the IT sector,'' said John Fitzpatrick of the biochemistry department. The vast majority of tests in Ireland are done at the pre-employment stage. But tests are also sometimes done following an accident where drugs may be involved or if employers have a `reasonable suspicion' that an employee may be on drugs. Random testing, although unusual, is also taking place. ``I can definitely see random testing growing in the future. It's a better deterrent than pre-employment,'' said Mr Fitzpatrick. ``You can abstain for a pre-employment medical and pass, but with a random test you can't.'' Workers are tested by giving a urine sample, usually to a company doctor. The sample can either be tested there using a quick `dip stick' test or sent on to a laboratory for proper scientific analysis. The main drugs tested are cannabis, cocaine, amphetamine, opiates (including illegal drugs like heroin and legal ones such as morphine) and benzodiazepines (which although legal are often abused). Each laboratory reports that cannabis is the main drug found. ``80% of our positives are cannabis,'' said John Fitzpatrick of Blackrock Clinic. ``Six per cent are opiates, either heroin or methadone; 10% are benzodiazepines, 2% are cocaine and 2% are amphetamine.'' While the widespread use of cannabis may explain why it is the main drug turning up, there is another reason. ``If you smoked once over the weekend, you could be positive three days later,'' explained Mr Fitzpatrick. ``But if you were a weekly user or daily user it could be there for 30 days. There are even cases of being positive 60 or 70 days later.'' Most other drugs on the other hand pass out of the system within a couple of days. People can also legitimately test positive for some drugs, particularly opiates. ``If you took a codeine tablet you would test positive for opiates, so you'd need to do a laboratory test to check for the metabolites. There are particular ones for heroin,'' said Ms Pierce of Beaumont. Figures suggest that up to 5% of Irish workers are testing positive for drugs in pre-employment screenings, although the figure can range from 2% to 9%. But this just includes tests where laboratories are involved. It doesn't include quick `dip stick' tests done by companies themselves, which are not confirmed by laboratories. And it is this trend that is most worrying experts in the field. ``There are companies out there who are using dip stick technology and making their decision solely on the basis of it. This is a cause of major concern,'' said Ms Pierce, who is also Ireland's representative on the European Union Workplace Drug Testing Group. ``Even though these kits are simple enough to use, they may not be used properly and this could affect the result of the test,'' she said. Companies may also not know that positive results can have an innocent explanation, for example if codeine tablets have been taken. Moreover, the tests themselves might be inaccurate. ``There is a question mark over the validity of results in dip stick tests,'' said Mr Fitzpatrick. ``They are not accurate in all cases. You can get false positives. The positive samples have to be confirmed in a laboratory.'' ``The rapid tests give a result in 10 minutes, but they are just an indicator,'' said Conor Hoey of Claymon, which sells such kits. ``If it is positive it doesn't have to be confirmed by us in the laboratory. It is up to the policy of the company. But we advise that positive samples are confirmed by us. Legally for the company they need to have a laboratory confirmation.'' All these laboratories keep additional samples that they can send for GC/MS (Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectroscopy) test if need be. The GC/MS test the ``gold standard'' for testing is not available here and samples have to be sent to the UK. What experts fear is that on the basis of their own dip stick test companies are refusing to hire employees. And while using this as their reason not to hire someone, legal-minded companies will cloak it in other language. ``Companies don't have to say why someone failed the pre-employment. They just say they were unsuccessful,'' said Ms Pierce. The flip side of this is that some people who should be showing up positive in their samples may be turning up negative. Kevin, who also works in IT, said he smoked cannabis the night before he gave his urine sample, but that he passed it. ``I got absolutely stoned the night before, so they either didn't test it or I came up negative somehow. ``There definitely is a group of people who smoke cannabis are who are coming up negative,'' said Mr Fitzpatrick. He said many tests can also be tampered with and adulterated. ``They may add water to it and they may get away with it. A dip-stick test might not pick it up, but a laboratory test would.'' There are also a range of substances which can be bought over the Internet that can mask drugs in the urine. Ms Pierce said the whole area of drug-testing needs to brought under some type of domestic or EU law. ``We in the group are trying to get agreement across the EU to a set of guidelines. This would cover things like: collection of samples, chain-of-custody, types of tests, cut off rates (above which you are positive, below negative), reporting of findings, confirmatory tests, etc.'' She said this would lay down accredited procedures for companies and laboratories to follow. But there is a philosophical opposition to drug testing itself. Civil rights groups point out that the tests may identify substances at insignificant doses (and in the case of cannabis long after the narcotic effect) because of recreational drug use outside working hours and that such activity has no bearing on their performance as employees. ``Apart from the most exceptional situations I can see no justification for drug-testing in the workplace.'' said Donncha O'Connell of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties. He said such a practice amounts to a ``gross invasion'' of the privacy of employees regarding their conduct outside work. ``It would be inconceivable for employers to establish a system of breathalysing workers whom they suspected of drinking the night before. Why then do we find it so easy to imagine systems where employers drug-test their workers? ``The risks in both cases are indistinguishable yet we appear to have a double standard as regards what incursions on privacy are permissible.'' People like Sarah feel it's unfair to discriminate against a worker because he or she takes illegal drugs. ``If it is affecting your work, then fair enough, employers are justified in taking action. But if it doesn't affect your work, and it doesn't affect mine, then it's none of their business. ``It's also crazy to think that I could come up positive for cannabis for a joint that I smoked last week.'' But whatever the concerns, Irish businesses are increasingly going down the road of drug testing. Paul Kelly, a health and safety expert in the employers' body IBEC, said drug screening was a good idea, particularly in ``safety critical areas.'' However, he said that most employers would only be concerned if a employee was ``under the influence in work and at risk to himself or others.'' He said activities outside work are not in themselves of concern to employers. In this context, he believed that random testing could only be used in ``safety critical areas,'' although he stressed that it would be up to the company itself to determine its own policy. He advised companies to draw up a written procedure for testing, which must have the consent of employees. He also encouraged employers to adopt a treatment approach if they find someone with a drug problem. He strongly advised companies not to depend solely on their own rapid tests. ``They may be tempted by quick and cheap tests. But there must be subsequent screening by a laboratory.'' He warned employers that if they did not follow accepted procedures that they could ``leave themselves open to civil suits.''
After you have finished reading this article you can click here to go back.
|
This page was created by the Cannabis Campaigners' Guide.
Feel free to link to this page!