[Part Time Dweller]

Echo Echo Beep. :roll:

[Useless]

Originally Posted by Part Time Dweller

Echo Echo Beep. :roll:

Quite an attitude for an 11 Post Wonder. Anything of substance you'd care to add!!

[kc0iv]

Originally Posted by Myth_Buster

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

Myth_Buster The case you refer to was not case law. It was a ruling BEFORE THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION with a reference to another ruling by them IL-2004-02 16-USO769. This is not case law like your example of Roe v Wade.

Since this ruling was only signed on Jan 3, 2007 and WEST AGRO, INC. has 20 days to petition for reconsideration the final outcome is yet to be determined. In addition WEST AGRO could go to court and challenge this ruling. I doubt this would happen being the amount is only $6,500. Not a large amount seeing the size of WEST AGRO, INC. Who I use to work for their parent company DeLavel a division of Alfa Laval a multi-billion dollar company.

So Myth_Buster if you are going to cite case law then quote case law not some ruling by FMCSA. Or maybe you don't know the difference. In that case I suggest you talk to one of the many lawyers at FMCSA and have them explain the difference.

kc0iv

[glasman2]

Originally Posted by Myth_Buster

glasman2:

What if your employer asked to take a drug test because you slipped and hurt your leg? The carrier wants to know if drugs contributed to the accident?

Is slipping and hurting your leg justification for doing a D & A test?

What if the test came back positive for morphine because you went to the emergency room immeadiately after the fall and received medication that contained trace elements of morphine?

What if the employer fired your sorry azz because you tested positive, then reported to DAC you tested positive?

PFM, offer some friendly advice and azzhats here want to moan and groan.

Don't read the post folks, move on.

Be safe.

First off, I don't care if they test me. It's the company dime and I would get paid an hour to do nothing but pee, 2 hours if I couldn't pee at the time.

He wouldn't fire my sorry azz because "I DON'T DO DRUGS"!!
Also in the line of work I did, I hope they catch people doing drugs because I DON'T WANT TO WORK WITH THEM.

If you look at my name it sums up what I did for a living. I was a glazier ( glassman) I don't want to be on the other end of a big sheet of glass with someone stoned out of his gourd. In fact ... one time I was driving down the road with a fairly new employee and he pulled out a pipe and started smoking some pot. I pulled off the freeway, opened his door and told him to get the F out of my truck.

I have NEVER worked for a company that tested you because you slipped and fell, not saying it couldn't happen, but hasn't. Also If I fell and went to emergency and got "doped up" I would not return to work, that's called using your head and not getting hurt or hurting others.

I did not moan and groan I gave an honest answer.

And as for calling me a "sorry azz" Look in the mirror dork butt.


Have a good day................

[glasman2]

Originally Posted by Myth_Buster

What if the test came back positive for morphine because you went to the emergency room immeadiately after the fall and received medication that contained trace elements of morphine?

Forgot to answer this...
IT WOULD BE DOCUMENTED THAT A DOCTOR GAVE ME MORPHINE.

That was a really stupid example. :lol:

[Part Time Dweller]

Originally Posted by Useless

Anything of substance you'd care to add!![/color]

You first :shock:

[Myth_Buster]

Kc0iv:

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.

I would not have mentioned the FCRA if it was not relevant. This topic is on driver’s rights, therefore, the Fair Credit Reporting Act is a relevant issue:

§ 613. Public record information for employment purposes [15 U.S.C. § 1681k]

(a) In general. A consumer reporting agency which furnishes a consumer report for employment purposes and which for that purpose compiles and reports items of information on consumers which are matters of public record and are likely to have an adverse effect upon a consumer's ability to obtain employment shall

(1) at the time such public record information is reported to the user of such consumer report, notify the consumer of the fact that public record information is being reported by the consumer reporting agency, together with the name and address of the person to whom such information is being reported; or

(2) maintain strict procedures designed to insure that whenever public record information which is likely to have an adverse effect on a consumer's ability to obtain employment is reported it is complete and up to date. For purposes of this paragraph, items of public record relating to arrests, indictments, convictions, suits, tax liens, and outstanding judgments shall be considered up to date if the current public record status of the item at the time of the report is reported.

(b) Exemption for national security investigations. Subsection (a) does not apply in the case of an agency or department of the United States Government that seeks to obtain and use a consumer report for employment purposes, if the head of the agency or department
makes a written finding as prescribed under section 604(b)(4)(A).

The scope of my duties have required I expand my knowledge base into OSHA, EPA, INS, and NTC territory. It's difficult to advise people of their options if you don't know the sorce.

Useless:

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!!

The post started with ”What if”, the question was asked to reiterate the importance of drivers to know their rights.

Kc0iv:

Myth_Buster The case you refer to was not case law. It was a ruling BEFORE THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION with a reference to another ruling by them IL-2004-02 16-USO769. This is not case law like your example of Roe v Wade.

Since this ruling was only signed on Jan 3, 2007 and WEST AGRO, INC. has 20 days to petition for reconsideration the final outcome is yet to be determined. In addition WEST AGRO could go to court and challenge this ruling. I doubt this would happen being the amount is only $6,500. Not a large amount seeing the size of WEST AGRO, INC. Who I use to work for their parent company DeLavel a division of Alfa Laval a multi-billion dollar company.

So Myth_Buster if you are going to cite case law then quote case law not some ruling by FMCSA. Or maybe you don't know the difference. In that case I suggest you talk to one of the many lawyers at FMCSA and have them explain the difference.

kc0iv

The decision was made by the Chief Safety Officer after hearing the attorney’s objections to the case. The CSO sets case law for the FMCSA.

Glasman2:

Forgot to answer this...
IT WOULD BE DOCUMENTED THAT A DOCTOR GAVE ME MORPHINE.

That was a really stupid example.

No, the example provided a situation where a driver could tests positive and without the safety net provided by the FMCSR a driver could be terminated for a drug test when the drugs were prescribed.

Folks, I’ll leave you with this. The topic is real, the call was real, the situation is real, I provided a shorter version of the message to simplify the jargon.

For those interested feel free to absorb the material, for the ney sayers, deal with it. You don’t have a clue of what happens in the industry on a daily basis. Drivers frequently complain they received an unjustified negative DAC Services report. This post is one of two post that discuss the legal issues of employer’s releasing information when unauthorized.

The other topic is here on this forum DAC Services and Part 391.23

Be safe.

[glasman2]

My answer is still "don't do drugs problem solved"
As for getting fired because you went to emergency and got doped up from a DOCTOR, it would never hold up. Sure they could fire me, but I would own 1/2 the company.

Get over it....

You don't know me and I don't appreciate being called a sorry azz.

[kc0iv]

Originally Posted by Myth_Buster

Kc0iv:

I would not have mentioned the FCRA if it was not relevant. This topic is on driver’s rights, therefore, the Fair Credit Reporting Act is a relevant issue:

The scope of my duties have required I expand my knowledge base into OSHA, EPA, INS, and NTC territory. It's difficult to advise people of their options if you don't know the sorce.


Kc0iv:

The decision was made by the Chief Safety Officer after hearing the attorney’s objections to the case. The CSO sets case law for the FMCSA.

Glasman2:

No, the example provided a situation where a driver could tests positive and without the safety net provided by the FMCSR a driver could be terminated for a drug test when the drugs were prescribed.

I would not have mentioned the FCRA if it was not relevant.

Well OOIDA would love to have won their lawsuit against DAC but it didn't happen. Seems the courts don't agree with your interpretation. But I'm sure you are right and the court was wrong.

The decision was made by the Chief Safety Officer after hearing the attorney’s objections to the case. The CSO sets case law for the FMCSA.

I hate to bust your bubble Myth_Buster (really I don't like to) there is no such thing as [u]The CSO sets case law for the FMCSA[\u] setting CASE LAW. Case law is determined in a court of law. Either by civil or crimial law. Now the CSO might rule by previous rulings and some also base these ruling on previous court ruling but it is NOT case law. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_law for a clear understanding as to what is case law. Or http://www.answers.com/topic/case-law Or yet another found at http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/case+law

case law n. reported decisions of appeals courts and other courts which make new interpretations of the law and, therefore, can be cited as precedents. These interpretations are distinguished from "statutory law" which is the statutes and codes (laws) enacted by legislative bodies, "regulatory law" which is regulations required by agencies based on statutes, and in some states, the Common Law, which is the generally accepted law carried down from England. The rulings in trials and hearings which are not appealed and not reported are not case law and, therefore, not precedent or new interpretations. Law students principally study case law to understand the application of law to facts and learn the courts' subsequent interpretations of statutes.

How many more examples do you need?

In your responce to Glasman2

No, the example provided a situation where a driver could tests positive and without the safety net provided by the FMCSR a driver could be terminated for a drug test when the drugs were prescribed.

There is no law that restricts an employer from reporting a failed drug test by any additional test which the employee failed. The test you refer to is just one point of the rules as set forth by FMCSA.

You really should limit yourself to the portions where you have some knowledge and leave the other areas to others. These truckdriver CB lawyer really make the balance of your post look dumb.

kc0iv