Pennsylvania Truckers Back Database of Drivers’ Drug Test Results

April 18, 2006

  • April 18, 2006 at 4:48 am
    truck ins says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This is why all trucking company employment apps should include the last 5 employers, and the company should actually call these references. Too often, the trucking companies ignore the past history because they need someone in the seat to haul the load.

  • April 19, 2006 at 8:09 am
    Ray says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Let me see, 44% of the time the truck is at fault and 89% of those time the driver is at fault comes out to 40% of all truck/car accidents the truck driver is at fault.

    That being said, we really are talking a rather small percentage of those accidents where drugs or alcohol is involved. Don\’t we see this stuff show up on the drivers motor vehicle record?

    But – I do support some sort of database that would include positive random screenings.

  • May 6, 2006 at 4:55 am
    .......... says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    If you think theres a driver shortage now, keep drug testing. Not only that, but most disqualifications are for marijuana. According to Ken Edgell
    ex-Director of Drug testing for the USDOT, the test for marijuana is not due to a fear of impairment. Many truckers can pass a roadside test with 1 \”dirty\” metabolite per billion in their urine. The reason for the medical disqualification due to a positive urine test for pot is simply due to the fact that pot remains unlawful according to fed law. Its actually a silly deal. Medical marijuana users in 10 states are not struck from the road due to high metabolite urine tests. They are simply instructed not to smoke in a moving vehicle. The California Highway Patrol, by order from Gov Arnold S, cannot confiscate less than 8 OZs of medical pot at traffic stops. A trucker with a State Recommendation to use pot can bring 8 OZs of pot with him through the State -run scales throughout California.

  • June 13, 2006 at 2:08 am
    jen says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    My husband was recently dismissed from a job because he was in an accident while driving a stright truck. Yes, the accident was deemed his fault, but after being sent to the post-accident drug test, his results came back positive. Was he high at the time of the accident? NO! In fact, the test was proven to be a false positive! They tested him three more times within the next week and each test came back negative. In the meantime, he was fired and a new driver was hire to take his place. When he tried to get his job back, he was told \”Sorry, we have hired someone else.\” We tried to fight it legally, but because he was within his 90 days probabionary period for new employees, they used the excuse that the accident itself was grounds for dismissal. My point is, if positive drug test results would be on a PennDot driving record, my husband would never get another driving job. Empolyers need to do a through past employment check. We have actually had to call this employer and make sure they are giving the correct employment reference from their large human resource department who only knows my husbands name from a social security number. The problem is, the number of false-positive drug results is astounding! Do a little research and see for yourself that the \”post-accident\” drug test is a joke in itself. It sure proved to ruin my summer.

  • January 27, 2007 at 6:35 am
    mike says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    all for drug tests of drivers ,as for accident percentages that drivers cause high or not we are on the road 40 to 60 hours weekly .we are higher at risk for something to happen , as for the morning and afternoon drivers to a from work sometimes in a hurry not to be late drive like moorons give us a break TEAMSTER DRIVER

  • January 28, 2007 at 3:44 am
    ................. says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Sat, December 30, 2006

    Up in smokeMan suspended by company after testing positive for marijuana use is filing a human rights complaint

    A man suspended from work after testing positive for pot has filed a human rights complaint, claiming his boss refused to let him see the company drug-testing policy.

    Stephen Shorten, 46, says he suffers from chronic pain and smokes a nightly joint – paired with ibuprofen – to ease the discomfort.

    His arms were broken after they got caught in a machine at the Layfield textile plant in April, and he only returned to full-time status in October.

    Shorten said he and eight other staffers were told to provide urine samples for marijuana testing on Dec. 6. He tested positive and was immediately suspended.

    Over the nearly five years Shorten has worked at Layfield he said the company has turned a blind eye to recreational pot use, so long as staffers showed up for work sober.

    But in November they beefed up the policy to no longer tolerate pot use of any kind, he said.

    \”They never told us of the change. I didn\’t find out until after all this happened,\” he told the Sun.

    \”I don\’t have an issue with obeying the new policy. But when I asked to read it (a supervisor) told me I couldn\’t.\”

    He said he submitted to a urine test under duress.

    Shorten was first prescribed morphine for his pain, but after consulting with a physician he switched to marijuana.

    \”If I\’d been told, or allowed to read the new policy against pot use, I\’d have found another drug or gone back to morphine. But they didn\’t even give me a chance to do that.\”

    The Alberta Human Rights Commission monitors court cases of allegedly unjustified drug and alcohol testing in the workplace, and is investigating Shorten\’s complaint.

    An Ontario court recently ruled that random blanket drug testing is discriminatory because it does not reflect actual or future impairment on the job.

    \”Unlike a breathalyzer, drug testing does not prove impairment,\” said Alberta commission director Marie Riddle.

    \”Some drug and alcohol users have a disability. Firing them because they test positive can be discrimination.\”

    Shorten doesn\’t see himself as having a disability, but \”didn\’t expect the company I broke my arms for to be so eager to suspend\” him.

    \”Co-workers asked me how I dealt with the pain and I told them quite honestly – a joint and an ibuprofen. It\’s not like I\’m a pothead,\” he said.

    The Layfield Group refused comment yesterday.

    If the human rights commission investigation finds Shorten\’s complaint sound, a quasi-judicial panel will hear his case. If unresolved it could be handed over to the courts.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *