[ Home | Contents | Search Q&A | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: g woodall
Password: orange
Date: 12 May 2008
Time: 15:27:44 -0700
Remote Name: 199.227.125.3
I believe it helpful to understand why employers are doing the dual testing. Simply put: Attorneys are currently gunning for trucking companies as easy prey. (Many drivers will no longer stop as witnesses to a crash because their name simply appearing on the report generates litigation. Three sympathy-generating and injured passengers will say "the truck forced us over," in contrast to the one truck driver who says he didn't. ) Any accident gets extreme scrutiny and a positive drug test is a gold mine. The DOT makes it difficult to do a stand down (after a result before MRO report), and this leaves a window of extreme liability. Companies fear driver reprisal less than they fear accident litigation. Holding a driver out under company policy for a non-DOT quickie on-site test pending lab confirmation on the DOT test begins to make some sense albeit not without a set of its own problems. Not confirming the non-DOT on-site test (used as a presumptive and flawed start) and then when complete accepting the DOT GC/MS test as final is not logically or forensically unsound. You can buy a lot of drug screens and some time off with a small portion of a multi-million dollar settlement. I predict most large trucking companies will move their headquarters to Mexico over the next five to seven years where it's easier to escape liability. In Mexico, they can perhaps just fold and re-emerge later under different name.