Should employees be tested for drugs?

Testing employees for drug use does not send a negative message to staff, say half of employers in a new survey.

Though very few firms test employees for drug use, four out of five employers are prepared to and only a third saw any conflict with human rights.

The inquiry team had particular concerns about drug misuse in London's financial district where many American firms insist on testing.

Should employers have the power and the right to test workers for drug use? Is it worth carrying out tests if it lowers morale and creates mistrust?

---

The following comments reflect the balance of views we have received:

This debate is now closed. Read your comments below.

Your reaction:

I'll do the "drug test" if they do the "fat cat overpaid test". Fair, I think!
Neil D, Netherlands / Ex - UK

It should only be used to determine if an employee is under the influence at work David, UK

Drug testing employees should be strictly regulated. It should only be used to determine if an employee is under the influence at work to the point where they could be a danger to themselves or others. It should not be used, as it is in the USA, to prevent recreational drug users from getting a good job. Remember, an employee sacked on Monday for smoking a joint at the weekend runs a very real risk of changing from an employed contributor to society to a disaffected burden; with increased pressure to take desperate measures to survive. No good can come of it!
David, UK

Absolutely not. What I do on my own time is my own business and my employer has no right to intrude. If my performance was affected or if I were taking drugs at work then disciplinary procedures should be taken but drug testing in the work place is an invasion of my privacy.
Anonymous, UK

If the people I know, all of whom do many different types of work, are a reasonable representation of society, then I can see the workforce dwindling by around 70%. Rather than take the American example, i.e. paranoid, I think we should all carry on as we are. When a company realises that its going to have to sack the majority of it's workforce, then I think they might have to re-evaluate the benefits of drug testing, not to mention having to do an embarrassing U turn on their drug policy.
Andy, UK

Why on earth would employers want to sack an employee who is doing a perfectly good job because of something they do in their own time? And since when have employers become a police force?
Katherine, UK

It's just a job and doesn't mean a single thing. There used to be a time when every single resource on this planet was free of charge, and a job is nothing but poor compensation to help me get food and drink. If I want to go home and smoke a joint then it's no one's business but mine.
David, Glasgow, Scotland

I don't take drugs, but if my (American) company insists on me taking a drugs test I will quit! What I do outside of work has nothing to do with my job if my performance levels are satisfactory (or above).
Chris, UK

An employee should be purely judged on their performance Dave, UK

Forcing employees to produce evidence against themselves is a blatant violation of human rights. If someone gets stoned at the weekend or even in the evening, it is their choice and a matter for the police (though I'm sure they have other things to worry about). An employee should be purely judged on their performance.
Dave, UK

I work so that I can live, I don't live so that I can work. I see this as another example of corporations treating their employees as "property" (enforced overtime, work-related calls at home). What I do on my own time is my business, and if I have to lose my job by standing up for my principles, then that will just reassure me that I am not another office drone willing to sacrifice the joys of life just to get higher on an imaginary ladder. Amazing how many people are for this - sad to see people willing to give up freedoms for a job!
Douglas, UK (ex-USA)

Anyone who is responsible for the safety of others such as buses, trains and planes are all routinely subject to random drugs testing for obvious reasons. But what justification is there for testing say an office worker. If you are doing a good job for your employer why should they be interested if you take drugs?
Danny, UK

I think employers should be able to test there staff for drugs, and the only people who have anything to fear are the ones that will get caught out by this. Taking "recreational drugs on the weekend" will never get cut out of society, but if it is affecting your "performance" at work, then you should be dealt with. Your boss is paying you to work, not sleep!
Andy, Birmingham, UK

And while were at it why don't they enter our homes and check for stolen goods, pirated CDs and kidnapped children, this is a ludicrous idea that implies the employer is in someway an authoritarian figure who has control over the employee. They do not - working is about cooperation not coercion. Besides, with cannabis use rife they would end up with very few employees at all.
Baz, uk

An employee should be judged entirely on their performance at work, and not on the pleasures they enjoy outside of it Jon Hawkins, Oxford, UK

This is an argument I had with my uncle who employs around 100 people in the USA and introduced drug testing several years ago. As a result he dismissed two perfectly good workers simply because they enjoyed a joint after work while keeping on several alcoholics, one of whom crashed a company vehicle several weeks later killing an innocent person and costing the company a large amount in compensation. An employee should be judged entirely on their performance at work, and not on the pleasures they enjoy outside of it.
Jon Hawkins, Oxford, UK

Yes all employers should have the right to test employees for "Illegal Drugs". It's no good worrying about lowering morale or creating mistrust (tell that to the police at the roadside if one is caught drink driving). Why should anyone want to employ a person who is under the influence of drink or drugs? We have plenty of proof that it impairs judgment: So get those tests up and running and weed out the users.
Kevin, USA

I'm surprised at the volume of high handed moralising responses to this item, no doubt including some from the "cool brigade" who think it's 'de rigueur' to drink themselves to a standstill within 10 yards of leaving the office in the evening and then take a sick day to recover. Or those who consider an excellent holiday pastime is to spend 2 weeks abroad drinking, drugging themselves into oblivion. At the same time the guy who has a "pie and a pint" for his lunch is seen as someone with a problem.
Paul B, UK

As someone who's never taken drugs I still say the answer is no. For jobs where drug/alcohol abuse are dangerous there are laws about that, in all other cases this would allow employers to inflict their beliefs on the personal lives of their employees. A step towards the Victorian/American models of life, and one we shouldn't take.
Dave, England

I am relocating from the Netherlands to the UK and obviously looking for work. I applied for a position and was turned down because I'm a smoker. I told the interviewer that I don't smoke at work as this is generally not acceptable. The reply was that drug testing is done by the prospective employer and that no smoking - even on my own time - was acceptable. Bit extreme and certainly a rights violation I think.
Rick, Netherlands

The employers should be tested too Fiona, Scotland

Yes! Employees should not complain about being tested for recreational drugs which can make them work less efficiently. But the employers should be tested too. The MD of the company I work for a very clever man, who is also an alcoholic. I, and all of the rest of the staff, are sure, that if he could be weaned of alcohol, he's stop making the occasional irrational decision which harms the company's profitability..
Fiona, Scotland

If an employee takes a drug in their own time, and the effects of that drug have worn off before they start work, then whilst it may be a matter for the Police, it is definitely not a matter for their employer.
Lawrence Brown, UK

I would only tolerate drug testing if it was used in response to poor or dramatically deteriorating performance on the part of an individual employee. Testing all employees as a standard procedure smacks of Big Brother and should my employer introduce such a scheme I would fight this as being an infringement of my human rights.
Kate, England

I already have sufficient powers to deal effectively with this issue - I don't see the need for testing in my workplace John, England

If one of my employees is found to have taken an illegal drug whilst at work I can sack them, and report them to the police. If one of my employees' performance suffers as a result of drug use (either legal or illegal) outside the workplace, I am contractually entitled to discipline them. I already have sufficient powers to deal effectively with this issue - I don't see the need for testing in my workplace.
John, England

No problem, so long as its applied fairly to all grades of staff and to office locations as well as operational sites. Recreational drug users can be a danger to other workers. Yes, alcohol should be included as well. I think this should be decided strictly on health and safety grounds, not human rights concerns.
Malcolm, UK

Yes. I worked for a large investment bank in the city and just got fed up of speaking to incoherent fellow employees - it just wastes my time and ruins work. I don't know how many times I had to go and wash my hands or brush the back of my skirt after sitting on the edge of a desk and getting dusted with cocaine. Or bumping into someone in the elevator and finding it incredible that people don't realise that it's not obvious what they've been doing when they're wired up, their eyes are wide open, they're sniffing all the time and there's white powder on the end of their nose! Yes - test them, kick them out and give the job to someone who wants to work properly.
Catherine L., UK

With alcohol being the biggest single cause of lost productivity in Britain, why should we bother testing for any other substances? Building trust between employers and employees without creating a witch-hunt culture is far more beneficial in the long run to both parties. Managing performance and employee problems proactively allows employers to retain key skills and knowledge and can help to identify issue such as stress before they become a problem.
Steve, Scotland

I do not want to work with or do business with people who find it acceptable to break the law Steve Johnson, England

Absolutely. Drug taking, or at least the activity surrounding it is a criminal offence. I do not want to work with or do business with people who find it acceptable to break the law. They should be exposed for what they are, parasites fuelling a dark economy that undermines society, and dealt with accordingly.
Steve Johnson, England

I use no drugs other than alcohol and anything prescribed by my doctor. I would flatly refuse to take any drug test at work on the basis I do not see it as relevant. If my company is unwilling to trust me I would have to ask why they hired me. If use of illegal drugs is so widespread I would have to point fingers at management for creating an environment where so many felt they could not cope. Incidentally, I work in the City myself.
John B, UK

Absolutely. It's a great idea and long overdue for the UK. And for all those people worried about false positive readings, they know whether it was a poppy seed muffin or a shot of heroin, or a gin and tonic or a snort of cocaine. Not only am I for this as a screening mechanism for new hires I'm all for random testing of the existing workforce, and for people in command of vehicles such as buses, trains, planes, and others they should spot check and routinely screen for alcohol.
Tim, USA (from UK)

My private life has a greater value than my work life Brendan MacLean, Birmingham

If my professional performance remains consistent, and I am not intoxicated at work, then no employer has the right to test me for what I might do outside work. Also, my private life has a greater value than my work life. I am not convinced that many employers could afford to buy my private hours.
Brendan MacLean, Birmingham, UK

Absolutely not. As long as you perform your job to an acceptable standard that should be enough. When employers pay us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, then we can consider allowing them to tell us what we can and can't do on a 24/7 basis.
Paul Bristow, England

Performance depends heavily upon the working environment, conditions and culture of the company. In blame cultures, most employers would love to shift the blame onto employees. Instead, employers of that mentality should be lobotomised - it would improve morale and performance much more effectively.
Andrew Hammond, UK

Surely it depends on the type of job you do. If you're a driver or in a position where you are responsible for the lives of other people then, of course, it should be unacceptable for someone to be intoxicated whilst they are working. This should go for all drugs (regardless of whether they are legal or not), as alcohol and coffee are also stimulants that have been scientifically proven to drastically affect an individual's performance. Whilst we are about it why should employers be exempt from drug testing? If most of them think that their employees wouldn't object then they shouldn't mind leading by example? Otherwise what an individual chooses to do outside out of their place of work is neither the concern nor business of any employer or! company and all of us should resist this draconian (and unworkable) attempt by the nanny state to micro manage people's lifestyles.
Jason Mead, Bristol

We already have extensive drug testing in the sports world and we have seen many mistakes made because the tests used are flawed. Certain jobs may be suited to some form of screening but only when such tests are PROVEN to be 100% accurate.
Jason, UK

I currently work in a safety critical role on the railways, where drugs tests are part of the culture Paul, UK

Surely this depends on what the job involves. I currently work in a safety critical role on the railways, where drugs tests are part of the culture, and I fully support having them. However, I've also done plenty of standard office jobs and for these, it is no business of the employer what I choose take in my spare time, since if I am affected, it will show in my performance. For Nathalie in Scotland (below), the drugs test is done via a urine sample, not a blood sample.
Paul, UK

Here in Houston many firms drug test their employees randomly. As a result some people are scared about being in the same room as someone who is smoking a joint. What you do in your leisure time is your business and should only concern your employer if your work suffers - else it's an infringement of your liberties.
Nigel, USA (ex-UK)

Yes of course they should. Drug testing is already carried out in some jobs, and I see no reason why it should not be universal. Positive testing means instant dismissal. Maybe if the price is high enough, fewer people will run the risk of taking drugs in the first place. The testing must be done randomly, without warning or it is a waste of time.
Keith, UK

What has it got to do with my employer if I decide to take recreational drugs at the weekend.. I have been doing this for years and no one has a clue because its not something that I publicise. What I do in my private life is up to me and not my employer.
Jason, UK

Companies increasingly act as if they have a certificate of ownership over their workers Cris Page, UK

When I was driving tube trains for my living, I accepted and understood the need for testing by my employers. But I object strongly to the creeping erosion of our rights as individuals against "legalised assaults" by companies. It is time that employees stood their ground and enforced their rights against companies that increasingly act as if they have a certificate of ownership over their workers rather than a contract of employment
Cris Page, UK

How can we know that the blood sample will be used for drug testing and not something else like Aids?
Nathalie, Scotland

Why not? The company I work for has a strict no drinking policy, in which regular checks are made in the interests of health and safety. Drugs are no different, and are probably worse than alcohol, so testing for them can only be a good thing!
Andy, UK

I have absolutely no objection for this, as long as common sense prevails, and it is illegal drugs that are tested for and not all drugs. Given the total lack of common sense prevailing in this country at the moment, I can imagine people being sacked for having taken prescription drugs that enable them to manage medical conditions correctly.
John, UK

Absolutely not. I went through this in the early '90s when I worked in the US. Drug testing is fraught with problems. For example, gin and tonic can produce positive cocaine results or a joint smoked legally in Holland can test positive two weeks later in London. You can even test positive for hash through second-hand smoke for a few days.
Richard George, England

It'll be genetic tests next Rob, UK

Not unless they are in a job which, if under the influence of drugs, could affect the lives of others - bus drivers, train drivers, etc. Otherwise - no way! It'll be genetic tests next and if you have, for example, a "heart disease" gene, you'll never find employment. I also think that alcohol testing should come before drug testing. Employees drinking at lunchtime is more of a worry than them smoking a joint the night before.
Rob, UK

If I'm not performing on the job I should be sacked. If I am performing on the job I should stay. Why does an employer need a drug test to implement this? What I do in my own time, is up to me.
Simon Soaper, England

If all companies tested their employees and sacked those found with a positive reading then they may wind up shooting themselves in the foot. A friend who works in the city recently told me of an e-mail that was circulated to all traders asking them not to snort cocaine at their desks and to use the toilet instead! This is an acceptance of coke as an essential tool of the job along with a computer, chair, telephone etc.

If a firm finds that their star employee is under the influence - yet performs exceptionally well at his/her job, then a dilemma presents itself. I think providing my performance at work is adequate, it is no business of my employers if I smoke a few joints at the weekend. The only people who profit from drug-testing are the drug-testing companies themselves.
Karl, UK

Will employees be able to demand drug testing of their management!? Two-thirds of employers did not see a conflict with human rights. Employers understanding human rights? I don't think that will ever happen.
Simon Atkinson, UK