Truck Driving Jobs

Useless · Joined: 08 Oct 2005 Posts: 3176 Location: Canyon Lake, Tx.

lonewolf wrote: Useless wrote: lonewolf wrote: Useless wrote: What's with all of these long winded answers to questions that no one ever asked?? :shock:

so,someone has to ask a question before MB is allowed to post,jeez people,he's trying to help you in case you find yourself in this situation in the future,you are neither required to read it nor follow his suggestions,it seems that when MB or Dawn post,,the same people just attack and nitpick every little thing that these 2 have to say,i for one welcome all the help i can receive in understanding some of the more vague regs that we live by day in and day out.

no one driver knows everything there is to know about the regs,every bit of help we can get from the people that are paid to enforce these rules should be appreciated,not scourned and ridiculed

If Dawn or Myth Maker knew what they were talking about, I would agree with you; unfortunately, if you will look through their past threads, a seasoned driver will soon discover that they don't!!

So seasoned drivers (which i happen to be one ) knows more than someone that works for the FMCSA?

MB,evidently some here don't appreciate your help and think they know more about the regs than you do (because they are seasoned drivers,what a joke),if i was you,i wouldn't waste my time here anymore.

you help is greatly appreciated by me and the drivers of the other 2 boards you posted this on,thank you

So, you think that because he is a cut and paste bureaucrat that he necessarily knows what he's talking about??? :shock:

I'd put my money on guys like Yooper and The Rev; I may not always agree with them about everything, but both of them know more than Myth Maker!! :P

Dawn · Joined: 31 Oct 2006 Posts: 323 Location: Indianapolis, In

lonewolf wrote: Useless wrote: What's with all of these long winded answers to questions that no one ever asked?? :shock:

so,someone has to ask a question before MB is allowed to post,jeez people,he's trying to help you in case you find yourself in this situation in the future,you are neither required to read it nor follow his suggestions,it seems that when MB or Dawn post,,the same people just attack and nitpick every little thing that these 2 have to say,i for one welcome all the help i can receive in understanding some of the more vague regs that we live by day in and day out.

no one driver knows everything there is to know about the regs,every bit of help we can get from the people that are paid to enforce these rules should be appreciated,not scourned and ridiculed

Thanks and I am sure some how they will attack me for saying thanks :lol:

Have a great night: All truck drivers know everything so why post questions? Why is this board here, because most come looking for answers get slammed for something or get the copy & paste of the regs (duh, if they understood the book, they would not be here asking).
The regulations of the board did not state you could NOT post facts or opinions on your own. It did not STATE you can only ANSWER QUESTIONS! So if that is the board you want to run here then well let it be but you won't have to many friendly, nice loving relationship going on here!

JUST MHO :lol:

Myth_Buster · Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 1:24 am Post subject:

KC0iv

Quote: WRONG Nothing precludes an employer from reporting any additional information to DAC. What they can't do is replace D.O.T. requirements by using some other testing method. EX. In addition to standard D.O.T. drug testing an employer also requires hair testing. The results of BOTH of these test can be reported to DAC. D.O.T. has no control over DAC.

KC, there would have to be a signed release from the driver for the carrier to release the information to DAC.

Quote: § 40.321 What is the general confidentiality rule for drug and alcohol test information?

Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, as a service agent or employer participating in the DOT drug or alcohol testing process, you are prohibited from releasing individual test results or medical information about an employee to third parties without the employee's specific written consent.

(a) A “third party” is any person or organization to whom other subparts of this regulation do not explicitly authorize or require the transmission of information in the course of the drug or alcohol testing process.

(b) “Specific written consent” means a statement signed by the employee that he or she agrees to the release of a particular piece of information to a particular, explicitly identified, person or organization at a particular time. “Blanket releases,” in which an employee agrees to a release of a category of information (e.g., all test results) or to release information to a category of parties (e.g., other employers who are members of a C/TPA, companies to which the employee may apply for employment), are prohibited under this part.

I haven't seen an employer release statement for DAC; however, if the form did not include a specfic section for releasing information on non-DOT tests then an employee would have a civil case under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

An employer could not release drug test information to DAC services without the employee's written consent. The DOT controls the employer's obligation to safe guard the tests results and not release the data without the written consent of the employee.

Useless, I deal with know it all drivers on a frequent basis. The first words out of their mouth are usally; "Well I didn't know that." "When did the rule change?" or "I've been doing it this way for 20 years and no one has ever said anything before.".

I picture you being one such driver. :twisted:

Despite you and a few others I'll keep pinging away as I know there are some who appreciate the info. :wink:

Be safe.

Myth_Buster · Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 1:26 am Post subject:

For those who thought the original post was too long here is the condensed version.

1. The US DOT only requires the following drug or alcohol tests:

Quote: Subpart C—Tests Required

§ 382.301 Pre-employment testing.
§ 382.303 Post-accident testing.
§ 382.305 Random testing.
§ 382.307 Reasonable suspicion testing.
§ 382.309 Return-to-duty testing.
§ 382.311 Follow-up testing.

For Post-Accident the following conditions require a US DOT drug & alcohol tests:

1. Fatality
2. Tow-away accident if the driver is cited for a moving violation
3. Injury accident if the driver is cited for a moving violation

Any drug or alcohol test requested beyond what the DOT requires must be published in the company’s D & A policy with an explanation of when the tests will be performed and the consequences for testing positive.

Employers can ONLY report positive or refused US DOT REQUIRED D & A tests to subsequent employers.

IOW if a driver has a fender bender with no injuries or tow-away and the carrier ask a driver to take a D & A test, even if the test came back positive and the driver was terminated the employer CAN NOT report the positive test to subsequent employers because the D & A tests was not required by the US DOT. Therefore the employer cannot release the tests results to subsequent employers.

Similarly the carrier cannot use a federal form to collect a non-DOT drug tests.

I don’t believe people who use drugs belong on the road. However, that doesn’t give the employer the right to abuse the employee’s civil rights. Tests the drivers as required, make the system work and don’t abuse the system.

Be safe.

Useless · Joined: 08 Oct 2005 Posts: 3176 Location: Canyon Lake, Tx.

Myth_Buster wrote: Useless, I deal with know it all drivers on a frequent basis. The first words out of their mouth are usally; "Well I didn't know that." "When did the rule change?" or "I've been doing it this way for 20 years and no one has ever said anything before.".

I picture you being one such driver. :twisted:

Myth Maker, I really don't give a rat's ass how you picture me; I wouldn't be where I am today if I had listened to people like you. :roll:

I still get a laugh when I think about how you listed your so-called "qualifications"; ...."been around trucks"........ rode in a logging truck with my uncle when I was 13y/o!!!! DAYUMM!!! That was funny!!!

Despite you and a few others I'll keep pinging away as I know there are some who appreciate the info. :wink:

Oh....take back what I said......you do serve a very useful purpose here!!!!....you just reminded me of something very important...... My can of Bulls&$t Repellent is almost empty.....been using quite a bit of it since you, Dawn, and Radio Ray suddenly decided to grace us with your presence, and turn this into "The Myth Maker and Dawn Forum"!!......Thanks for reminding me!!!!! :P

Oh, Yes!!! And your cut and paste skill are quite excellent, too!! :P :P

Be safe.

I'm constantly perplexed when I look at the times of day that you post; let's see, your last one was at 2:24 a.m. Now, those are not the hours a bureaucrat works.

Leads me to believe that you are either the security guard, or else you are a Custodial Consultant who learned to cut and paste!!!

Part Time Dweller · Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:31 am Post subject:

I see someone finally picked a screen name that describes him to a "T". :lol:

Useless · Joined: 08 Oct 2005 Posts: 3176 Location: Canyon Lake, Tx.

Part Time Dweller wrote: I see someone finally picked a screen name that describes him to a "T". :lol:

A wee bit new here to be making such assumptions, PTD!!! I didn't get to where I am in life by being a "know-it-all; I did it by listening to people who were smarter than me, and more knowledgeable than I am. Quite to the contrary, I frequently paid then considerable sums of dinero to tell me why I was wrong!!!

The one catch was that they had established track records of knowing what they were talking about!!!

In any event, Welcome To The Board :D :rock:

As I stated earlier, when it comes to Myth Maker and Dawns ability to serve as "Cut and Paste" Specialist, I will be the first to say that they are amongst the best!!

When it comes to actually knowing what they are talking about, and being able to properly extrapolate and articulate an issue, there have been too many times when each one of them has been proved dead wrong.

We have quite a few real drivers here who have driven more miles in reverse that either one of these people have ever driven foreword. I'd put my money on them.

Once again, Welcome to the board!!! :D :D

Part Time Dweller · Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:59 am Post subject:

Thanks for the welcome useless. I have lurked here for a while, just decided to join the circus.

Now how did you know I was referring to you? :P

Any ways, I have known Myth Buster on various boards for a long time. He is good at C&P, but what he posts is law, not opinion. whether you want to agree with the law or not, that is your choice. He does agravate some, like you, that would rather hear the truckstop lwyer version than read actual law and make a decision as to how it pertains to them.

Useless · Joined: 08 Oct 2005 Posts: 3176 Location: Canyon Lake, Tx.

Part Time Dweller wrote: Thanks for the welcome useless. I have lurked here for a while, just decided to join the circus.

Now how did you know I was referring to you? :P

Because you are not the first person to suggest that, nor will you be the last!!

Any ways, I have known Myth Buster on various boards for a long time. He is good at C&P, but what he posts is law, not opinion.

The problem is that in all to many cases, Myth Makers interpretation of the law is all wrong. Any poser can cut and paste.

whether you want to agree with the law or not, that is your choice. He does agravate some, like you, that would rather hear the truckstop lwyer version than read actual law and make a decision as to how it pertains to them.

I don't need a truck stop lawyer; I already have two lawyers who I can consult if I need leagal advice. Myth Maker would have us believe that the rules and regs. which are stipulated exist in the form of "Black and White", which is why attorney's love to get ahold of guys like him. They are very easy to discredit!!

kc0iv · Joined: 03 Feb 2005 Posts: 1113 Location: Kansas City, MO

lonewolf wrote: kc0iv wrote: Myth_Buster wrote: Not necessarily, if the tests was done outside the parameters of the US DOT requirements then the test cannot be reported as positive.

WRONG Nothing precludes an employer from reporting any additional information to DAC. What they can't do is replace D.O.T. requirements by using some other testing method. EX. In addition to standard D.O.T. drug testing an employer also requires hair testing. The results of BOTH of these test can be reported to DAC. D.O.T. has no control over DAC.

kc0iv

he was not talking about dac,he was talking about reporting the test results to DOT
Quote:
Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:27 pm Myth_Buster said: "It is imperative for drivers to know their rights and when drug testing is mandated and when carriers have expanded drug and alcohol testing requirements. Test performed outside of the FMCSR cannot be reported as positive to subsequent employers. The same should apply to DAC Services. D & A test results are confidential; any release to an unauthorized party could result in civil action against the offender.

On Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:20 pm Myth_Buster said: "What if the employer fired your sorry azz because you tested positive, then reported to DAC you tested positive?"

Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:15 pm Myth_Buster said:"Not necessarily, if the tests was done outside the parameters of the US DOT requirements then the test cannot be reported as positive."

I know you would like to try to support Myth_Buster but as I have shown you are wrong.

As I said before D.O.T. has NO control over what is reported to DAC.

kc0iv

Myth_Buster · Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 1:17 pm Post subject:

Useless:

Quote: I still get a laugh when I think about how you listed your so-called "qualificatioons"; ...."been around trucks"........ rode in a logging truck with my uncle when I was 13y/o!!!! DAYUMM!!! That was funny!!!

Well, lets just say that having been involved in trucking since I was 13 has given me a vast understanding of how things work. I consider myself a aware of the issues trucking has problems with. I worked my way up from, helper, to logistics manager, to driver, to computer systems, to enforcement, so I know a thing or three about trucking and it's not limited to what the safety department told me about fudging the regs to get by or what another driver told me. :wink:

Quote: I don't need a truck stop lawyer; I already have two lawyers who I can consult if I need leagal advice. Myth Maker would have us believe that the rules and regs. which are stipulated exist in the form of "Black and White", which is why attorney's love to get ahold of guys like him. They are very easy to discredit!!

:wink:

I'd put my cases settled record up against any attorney who have challenged the cases prepared. The cases prepared contain the physical evidence, and applicable cites in the regulations to prove the case.

Docket 22203

The regs have what is referred to as case law. Case law allows the FMCSA's interpretation of the regulation to stand up in court when challenged by attorneys. As an example Roe -vs- Wade is the case law cited by attorneys for women's right to abortion. Please, please don't start a rant on abortion, I'm using the example as I know it is a very familiar case that people will recognize for the discussion offered.

The point is drivers may read the regulations and not be aware of policies and procedures based on case law and the fact the regulation had already been challenged and the court decided the FMCSA's interpretation was factual to the law.

I've said it once and I'll say it again. The information offered is factual, the circumstances are real. People can make a decision on whether or not to use the information to their benefit. The net sayers who bash those knowledgeable in the regulations is irrelevant and the ney sayers are not as well informed as they would like to think.

The point is readers have to make the decision on what to accept. The bickering is moot.

PTD, welcome aboard.

Be safe.

Useless · Joined: 08 Oct 2005 Posts: 3176 Location: Canyon Lake, Tx.

kc0iv wrote: Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:27 pm Myth_Buster said: "It is imperative for drivers to know their rights and when drug testing is mandated and when carriers have expanded drug and alcohol testing requirements. Test performed outside of the FMCSR cannot be reported as positive to subsequent employers. The same should apply to DAC Services. D & A test results are confidential; any release to an unauthorized party could result in civil action against the offender.

On Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:20 pm Myth_Buster said: "What if the employer fired your sorry azz because you tested positive, then reported to DAC you tested positive?"

Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:15 pm Myth_Buster said:"Not necessarily, if the tests was done outside the parameters of the US DOT requirements then the test cannot be reported as positive."

I know you would like to try to support Myth_Buster but as I have shown you are wrong.

As I said before D.O.T. has NO control over what is reported to DAC.

kc0iv[/quote]

Does appear to be slightly contradictory, does it not??

kc0iv · Joined: 03 Feb 2005 Posts: 1113 Location: Kansas City, MO

Myth_Buster wrote: KC0iv

Quote: WRONG Nothing precludes an employer from reporting any additional information to DAC. What they can't do is replace D.O.T. requirements by using some other testing method. EX. In addition to standard D.O.T. drug testing an employer also requires hair testing. The results of BOTH of these test can be reported to DAC. D.O.T. has no control over DAC.

KC, there would have to be a signed release from the driver for the carrier to release the information to DAC.

Quote: § 40.321 What is the general confidentiality rule for drug and alcohol test information?

Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, as a service agent or employer participating in the DOT drug or alcohol testing process, you are prohibited from releasing individual test results or medical information about an employee to third parties without the employee's specific written consent.

(a) A “third party” is any person or organization to whom other subparts of this regulation do not explicitly authorize or require the transmission of information in the course of the drug or alcohol testing process.

(b) “Specific written consent” means a statement signed by the employee that he or she agrees to the release of a particular piece of information to a particular, explicitly identified, person or organization at a particular time. “Blanket releases,” in which an employee agrees to a release of a category of information (e.g., all test results) or to release information to a category of parties (e.g., other employers who are members of a C/TPA, companies to which the employee may apply for employment), are prohibited under this part.

I haven't seen an employer release statement for DAC; however, if the form did not include a specfic section for releasing information on non-DOT tests then an employee would have a civil case under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

An employer could not release drug test information to DAC services without the employee's written consent. The DOT controls the employer's obligation to safe guard the tests results and not release the data without the written consent of the employee.

Useless, I deal with know it all drivers on a frequent basis. The first words out of their mouth are usally; "Well I didn't know that." "When did the rule change?" or "I've been doing it this way for 20 years and no one has ever said anything before.".

I picture you being one such driver. :twisted:

Despite you and a few others I'll keep pinging away as I know there are some who appreciate the info. :wink:

Be safe.

You have now moved outside the realm of what D.O.T. has to say and into the realm of civil law. Dealing with the Fair Credit Reporting Act is best left to lawyers. Of which I'm sure you are not one.

In addition I would first find out just what employees have sign and not signed before you make these types of blanket statements.

I'd suggest you stick with what you know and leave other matters to those that do know.

kc0iv

Myth_Buster · Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 1:29 pm Post subject:

Quote: Does appear to be slightly contradictory, does it not??

Not when taken in text, the point was drivers have to know when the employer can or cannot release the information. The original post offered the applicable regulation and cites of the regulations that applied.

The post offered scenarios of when a driver's rights may have been violated.

The post is correct, the side discussions are relevant to the questions asked after the post were made.

Sheesh, get a grip Useless you cannot take the answer to one question and apply it to the topic as a whole.

Just another attempt to distract from the original post and poke holes based on incomplete data.

Be safe.

Useless · Joined: 08 Oct 2005 Posts: 3176 Location: Canyon Lake, Tx.

Myth_Buster wrote: Quote: Does appear to be slightly contradictory, does it not??

Not when taken in text, the point was drivers have to know when the employer can or cannot release the information. The original post offered the applicable regulation and cites of the regulations that applied.

The post offered scenarios of when a driver's rights may have been violated.

The post is correct, the side discussions are relevant to the questions asked after the post were made.

Sheesh, get a grip Useless you cannot take the answer to one question and apply it to the topic as a whole.

Just another attempt to distract from the original post and poke holes based on incomplete data.

Be safe.

Now, you are talking in circles, Myth Maker!!

One moment, you want to paint your cut and paste quotations as being "Black and White"; the next thing you know, when someone calls a Bull &h*t Alert on you with your own previous contradictory postings, you try to argue that the situation is not always so black and white!!
:roll:

Truck Driving Jobs

Trucking Jobs

Truck Drivers

Trucking Companies

Class A Drivers.com