User Tag List

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #21  
Old 10-30-2007, 02:47 PM
kc0iv's Avatar
Senior Board Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 1,147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

golfhobo,

Did you notice the part?
Quote:
We noted that, essentially for this reason, the Department’s own internal drug testing program stood down some employees (e.g., air traffic controllers) in some circumstances following a report of a confirmed positive laboratory test.

kc0iv
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-30-2007, 03:45 PM
golfhobo's Avatar
Board Icon
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: the 19th hole / NC
Posts: 9,647
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kc0iv
golfhobo,

Did you notice the part?
Quote:
We noted that, essentially for this reason, the Department’s own internal drug testing program stood down some employees (e.g., air traffic controllers) in some circumstances following a report of a confirmed positive laboratory test.

kc0iv
Yes, I DID. Did you notice it was past tense? And did you notice the reference to the CURRENT policy?

I believe if you look at the whole discussion that Fasttruck quoted, you'll get the understanding that this WAS the policy of some employers, has been CHANGED to a new policy, and that the MRO can no longer notify employers of a failed test until AFTER it has been VERIFIED (which includes talking to the employee FIRST) because it was found to stigmatize employees when they may have had a good reason.

In investigating the concerns of BOTH employers and employees, they found that this stand-down HAD in fact, been done once by the DOT (quite some time ago, IIRC,) to some of its OWN employees. And that they had done so for precisely the reason that they discussed as the rationale for the OLD policy. However, they've determined that such rationale UNDERCUTS the purpose of the verification process, AND has no measured effect on safety.

[this is all based on analysis of the portion that Fasttruck posted. I'm SURE you'll investigate further, and if you find I am wrong, please let me know.]

And, if you look at 40.327, you'll notice that the MRO can report the info, without consent, AFTER the verification process.

40.129/131/133 ALL indicate the steps an MRO MUST take (including notifying the employee first) before verifying a positive test and informing the DER of it.
__________________
Remember... friends are few and far between.

TRUCKIN' AIN'T FOR WUSSES!!!

"I am willing to admit that I was wrong." The Rev.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-30-2007, 07:21 PM
kc0iv's Avatar
Senior Board Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 1,147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by golfhobo
Yes, I DID. Did you notice it was past tense? And did you notice the reference to the CURRENT policy?

I believe if you look at the whole discussion that Fasttruck quoted, you'll get the understanding that this WAS the policy of some employers, has been CHANGED to a new policy, and that the MRO can no longer notify employers of a failed test until AFTER it has been VERIFIED (which includes talking to the employee FIRST) because it was found to stigmatize employees when they may have had a good reason.

In investigating the concerns of BOTH employers and employees, they found that this stand-down HAD in fact, been done once by the DOT (quite some time ago, IIRC,) to some of its OWN employees. And that they had done so for precisely the reason that they discussed as the rationale for the OLD policy. However, they've determined that such rationale UNDERCUTS the purpose of the verification process, AND has no measured effect on safety.

[this is all based on analysis of the portion that Fasttruck posted. I'm SURE you'll investigate further, and if you find I am wrong, please let me know.]

And, if you look at 40.327, you'll notice that the MRO can report the info, without consent, AFTER the verification process.

40.129/131/133 ALL indicate the steps an MRO MUST take (including notifying the employee first) before verifying a positive test and informing the DER of it.
if you look at § 40.7 you will see there are exemption (to the current policy) that can be applied to the D and A testing rules. This very will be how the FAA was able to Stand-Down these employees.

As I said before there are pages of rules that apply to the whole D and A testing process. Having read these many times I think I have read all I want to read on this subject. Since none of these affect me any longer I'll leave it to others to do the research.

The one thing that drivers should know for the most part employees are at will employees and as such the employer can terminate the employee for any reason.

kc0iv
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-30-2007, 10:39 PM
unkut2003's Avatar
Board Regular
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Between Da Sheets
Posts: 262
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

I've been on Fioricet w/ Codeine for a couple years now. Never really looked into if it was "D.O.T." approved becasue personally, when I take it I can function normally, but not safely..... and I know this, therefore I don't mess with it during work hours! Now when I get home..... that migraine thats put me damn near to my knees all day gets a killer dose and is gone in minutes!!!
Reply With Quote
Reply






Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 05:51 AM.


User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.