Comments By Rick S.

https://cdn.truckingtruth.com/avatars/0598155001552753465-250.jpg avatar
  • Rick S.
  • Joined:
  • 12 years ago
  • Comments:
  • 3117

Page 2 of 156

Previous Page
Next Page
Go To Page:    

Posted:  5 months, 1 week ago

View Topic:

How to contact a member

double-quotes-start.png

She says she doesn't DOX........ But if she's a FB Stalker, that may be as bad? I don't know because TT is my only social media.

double-quotes-end.png

Point taken; I'm out if that's what y'all want.

You wouldn't have known about Laura had I not told you. Who got Moe back? I did.

Y'all have fun. I do what I do because I CARE(d.) By the way, punctuation goes INSIDE parenthesis, or ANY other grammatical encapsulates.

Spoke to her today, also. You?

Due diligence..thanks, guys! At least I'm straight up, and just me, wishing to be one of you. Y'all didn't even KNOW what a doxxer was until I told you. I'll miss ya.

Trump is permanently banned from twitter; maybe I'll just go there. Sorry.

The greeter has been asked to leave the building.

And thin-skinned too. Thought you were tougher than that?

Still buying lunch though, right?

Rick

Posted:  5 months, 1 week ago

View Topic:

Has anyone heard?

I'm going to bed in about 15 more minutes if I don't see you, Jammer. Don't know where you are, but my 10 Hour Clock is winding down. The old man sleeps sometimes.

Pictures - or it didn't happen...

Rick

Posted:  5 months, 1 week ago

View Topic:

Trucker's Lifestyle Question 1: Health and fitness

No

Yes

Yes

Improvise

You'll have places waiting to load/unload - sometimes waiting for hours. You HAVE TO BE OFF DUTY for 10 hours a day - so there's that.

TA & Pilot have been adding gyms in some locations - google is your friend.

But as Pack says - truck driving is exhausting. This isn't a "leisurely cruise" down the beach. The "hyper-awareness" and stress that goes along with the job, can be (is) wearing.

Watching what you stick in your belly is the most important thing you can do - especially since you aren't in a position to burn off extra calories on a predictable basis.

Rick

Posted:  5 months, 1 week ago

View Topic:

How to contact a member

Why was instant messaging removed?

Aside from "inappropriate manner" (harassing/spamming/trolling), it was used to ask questions that would be better asked HERE in the forum.

We have MANY MORE PEOPLE that just lurk/read/learn - and NEVER POST. If discussion were held in private messenger, we would be DENYING EVERYONE VALUABLE INFORMATION they could learn from.

And that's THE REASON WE'RE HERE.

I'm not the driver, but still..and again.. NOBODY comes to Ohio ?!?!? Just kidding, y'all. I don't have a dungeon, just a pole barn. SMH. Contact info is in my bio, as well. Be aware, if you friend me on Facebook .. nvm ! Just ask Rick S. << LoL!

Cyber stalker is more like it. Every time I take a vacation from posting, she hunts me down on FB. Do they have "virtual restraining orders"?

My FB contact is in my profile too - I've had people from here approach me for advice elsewhere - and unless it's something embarrassingly personal, I tell them to just post it here on TT.

The COMBINED EXPERIENCE OF THE MEMBERSHIP - can give multiple POV's that you just cannot get from one person. That's why we do things "out in the open" here - so EVERYONE CAN BENEFIT.

Rick

Posted:  5 months, 1 week ago

View Topic:

Companies that don’t use DAC

I still am not clear if OP was still in cdl school or had completed and was with a road trainer. Yes they have camera’s but if he was still in cdl school I don’t know if they have them.

Still more to this story I’m sure.

If he was in CDL School - isn't that separate from Rhoel?

Pretty sure PRIVATE SCHOOLS, don't report to DAC. If he was an Rhoel EMPLOYEE, going through finishing training - finito.

Yeah - there's something more to this than meets the (initial) eye..

Rick

Posted:  5 months, 1 week ago

View Topic:

Companies that don’t use DAC

Back to square one! Better check what they actually put on the DAC once it hits, but they cannot really say that they fired you for running a red light if it's hearsay. They'd be opening themselves up for a lawsuit. Now you will have to wait a little while for the DAC and find another training company. Or do the wise thing and find another career. Go take a medical course or something.

Actually - a company can fire a trainee for any reason whatsoever. Either he blew the light, or he didn't (on dashcam, got a citation, etc) - and it depends on HOW he blew the light - and whether or not he had other things in the course of his training, that led to his dismissal.

Typically, a DAC will only say "safety violations", or "violation of company policy". Neither is "hearsay", and neither is litgatable.

Also - if he JUST GOT FIRED - it's going to take a minute to hit the DAC anyways.

Since we got this as a response form the poster:

Basically I was in training still didn’t completely understand what I was doing and they said that I blew through a red light when that wasn’t the case.

There's still probably a little more to the backstory, than is being disclosed here. Typically, newb trainees are given a little leeway.

But he is STILL GOING TO HAVE TO DISCLOSE his employment with Roehl, that he was terminated (reason for leaving) and Roehl will report (when references ARE CHECKED) that he is NOT ELIGIBLE FOR REHIRE (which is legally/technically all they can say when contacted directly - though we all know they probably say more).

Rick

Posted:  5 months, 2 weeks ago

View Topic:

Companies that don’t use DAC

Hello. I was terminated from Roehl for the reason of Safety. I was still in training and it wasn’t good training. Is there any company that doesn’t use a DAC or one that would hire me with that record?

1 - What specific "reason of safety"? 2 - What specifically wasn't "good" about the training"?

Along with what everyone else said.

Since you were driving for them, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO LIST THEM AS A PREVIOUS EMPLOYER. And any FUTURE EMPLOYER WILL CHECK YOUR REFERENCES - because they are REQUIRED TO BY LAW.

And pretty much every major employer that HIRES TRAINEES (because you never completed training, according to your post) - IS GOING TO USE DAC.

So - how about you come clean with SOME DETAILS - and we can make suggestions BASED ON YOUR RESPONSES...

Rick

Posted:  5 months, 2 weeks ago

View Topic:

MANDATORY HAIR TESTING IS COMING - How Soon? Your Guess Is As Good As Mine...

It just occurred to me about religious belief problems that could be brought about. The male Sikhism followers do not cut their hair or beards, ever , from what I have read in my studies

Had not even considered “religious accommodations”.

Tell you a little story (because you know how much I love to tell little stories - LOL).

We have a company down here, double eagle distributing, they are the distributors for Anheuser-Busch. They deliver Anheuser-Busch products to retailers. So a Muslim gentleman, applied for a job as a truck driver, apparently had a CDL and experience, and was excepted as an employee.

At which point he told his manager, that he could not drive the truck, because his religion forbade alcohol. He was terminated, because who needs a truck driver/point of delivery driver, who cannot touch your product. Now the guy applied and interviewed, knowing this was an alcohol distributor.

Well, he sued for wrongful termination, on the basis of religious discrimination. And he want a large settlement as a result.

So yes, in today’s litigious society, especially when it comes to race and religion, we are going to see a whole lot more weirdness (and that’s the kindest term I can use without it ending up being all ******), surrounding making hair testing mandatory.

Rick

Posted:  5 months, 2 weeks ago

View Topic:

Sap

Got my CDLs and did a lil celebration thought I was clean went for a pre hire got a refusal left the sight of test didn’t know I would get a refusal and took a test and it was positive went through sap now I’m clear and looking for work... any companies willing to hire??

So you got your CDL, WENT OUT AND GOT HIGH TO CELEBRATE - went to a DRUG TEST and couldn't/wouldn't submit a sample for testing? Or you submitted a sample and it came back POSITIVE?

Lemme count to TEN here.

OK - legally - A REFUSAL IS A FAIL.

Typically - if you can't go - you are allowed to sit and drink water for a reasonable amount of time, until you CAN GO. If you REFUSE TO GO (or mess around, until they figure out YOU DON'T WANT TO GO) - THAT IS A REFUSAL.

It's good that you did a SAP (I guess), but as a NEW ENTRANT INTO THE INDUSTRY - your odds of getting a hire ARE NOT GOOD. And the SAP had to be one that was done UNDER THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OF DOT USC 49 CFR Part 40.

Some more info on 7 STEPS TO RETURN TO DUTY FOLLOWING A DOT TESTING VIOLATION

One of the issues with SAP RTD Protocol, that shys companies away - is that the person returning to duty has to be MONITORED MORE STRICTLY - MORE RANDOMS (for a period of time), and a lot of companies just don't want the hassle of an employee that SHOWS UP FOR ORIENTATION AND DROPS DIRTY - especially a NEW TRAINEE.

The other thing you are looking at is - I assume you went to some private CDL School, and got your CDL - but HAVEN'T DRIVEN A CMV? Most companies that hire RECENT GRADS - want the new hires to be RECENT GRADS. That's 30-60 DAYS MAX. So if you got out of school and haven't driven for over 60 days (+/-) - you will have to, AT THE LEAST, go through a REFRESHER - and AT THE MOST - GO THROUGH FULL TRAINING.

Again - a FAILED DRUG SCREEN - EVEN WITH A SAP - MAKES THIS REAL DIFFICULT AS A NEW ENTRANT INTO THE INDUSTRY.

Honestly - it is PRETTY MUCH THE KISS OF DEATH. Not that it isn't RARELY OVERCOME - but it's RARE that a newb actually gets in on a recent SAP.

Now - if an highly experienced and productive (and otherwise trouble-free) driver like, say, OLD SCHOOL - had an OOoooops (yah, I know, that would never happen - just using you as an example here Old Man) - and did a SAP - there's a pretty good chance he could get a RE-HIRE. But HE has a PROVEN PRODUCTIVE TRACK RECORD - and a newbie HAS NONE.

Taking in newbies is a HUGE LIABILITY RISK for companies to begin with. TAKING ONE ON THAT FAILED AN ORIENTATION DRUG SCREEN IS PRETTY MUCH A NON-STARTER.

As a new entrant - filling out an app (online or otherwise) - when you (HONESTLY) answer the question "HAVE YOU EVER FAILED A DOT DRUG SCREEN?" - there isn't a follow-up question that asks "HAVE YOU COMPLETED AN RTD/SAP" - because MOST COMPANIES JUST DO NOT CARE at that point.

APPLY EVERYWHERE - but EXPECT DISAPPOINTMENT, LOTS OF IT. You may find SOMEONE that will hire you - but the ODDS ARE INCREDIBLY STACKED AGAINST YOU.

Keep us posted on your progress. IF YOU DO GET A HIRE - LET US KNOW WHERE - so we can advise others that find themselves in a similar situation (and we get 3-4 a month on average), where they might apply...

(gets CDL - goes and gets high to celebrate and drops dirty - FACEPALM)...

Rick

Posted:  5 months, 2 weeks ago

View Topic:

MANDATORY HAIR TESTING IS COMING - How Soon? Your Guess Is As Good As Mine...

"the racial disparities of minorities failing more frequently due to the difference in hair texture"

I am so sick and tired of this racial bias bullsh** used to excuse peoples behaviors and actions

WTH does hair texture based on race have to do with anything? Complete garbage. If anyone of any skin color is smoking weed, then they have no business being behind the wheel.

I was taking a timeout before I responded to that one - because my initial response would have been very similar to yours.

It seems that "racial disparity", "institutional racism" - and other "dog whistle trigger words" are thrown around so much - that as soon as we hear one, we just shut down. Which does not (necessarily) make US RACISTS - but the second you disagree with ANY OF THE PREMISES - you are labeled one anyways.

AMEN (NOT Awomen) - which is HEBREW for "SO BE IT". Or the even more insane: "unconscious bias training" - so I don't KNOW CONSCIOUSLY that I am biased - but I need training to remove it?

OK - back on topic here.

There IS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that different textures or hair, and darker colors might yield different results in hair screens. This isn't necessarily limited to minorities either. A light skinned caucasian with dark hair, has similar melanin content on their hair, as a dark skinned hispanic does. And my dad had hair just as course and wiry as any black guy out there

Drug particles clinging to minority peoples hair MORE than white peoples is a crock of crap. Especially if you WASH IT ONCE IN AWHILE. As I mentioned in another thread, you'd have to be living in a closet with Bob Marley in order to have your hair absorb enough THC to throw a positive. PLUS - THE TEST IS NOT ONLY FOR THC - IT IS FOR THC METABOLITES (that is - what the BODY EXCRETES after it processes the THC in your bloodstream).

And much has to do with METABOLISM TOO. Hair tests are "supposed to be" the closest 1.5" from the scalp - as the "average person" grows .5" per month and the test is looking for 90 days. Now I get my hair cut once a month - and I'm closer to an inch of growth in that time period.

There was also a study done on URINE TESTING (I posted it here - not going digging for it) - that found (on one hand) that minorities FAILED DRUG SCREENS more often that non-minorities. But on a STATISTICAL LEVEL - the difference WAS NOT ENOUGH TO INDICATE A RACIAL BIAS IN TESTING.

But we're dealing with SCIENCE VERSUS POLITICS - and any time SCIENCE CAN BE SKEWED TO FURTHER A NARRATIVE (and today's happens to be INSTITUTIONAL RACISM - and anything you can attach to it gets you MORE PRESS).

A recent study has show (however) than on a per capita basis - more black americans have a biased against white people - than the other way around.

So on SCIENTIFIC BASIS - if there are biases in testing BASED ON HAIR COLOR/TYPE - than threshold adjustments will be made.

BUT THE FACT REMAINS - IF YOU ARE USING DRUGS AND YOU STAY OFF THEM FOR 6 MONTHS MINIMUM - YOU WILL PASS ANY DRUG SCREEN OUT THERE. IF YOU ARE USING ILLEGAL DRUGS (that is drugs you don't have a scrip and a doctors letter to back it up - or even a scrip for THC based products) YOU ARE GOING TO FAIL A SCREEN AND WILL BE DISQUALIFIED FROM HIRE.

There's NO GREY AREA HERE (or white/black/brown either).

And nor should anyone be cut any slack - because of "perceived bias".

Rick

Posted:  5 months, 2 weeks ago

View Topic:

Dot tests and regulations

Hello all, I apologize for hijacking this thread but I found this thread and wanted to ask a question that was in the same ballpark instead of making a new thread.

I'll get to the point, I'm planning on getting my CDL later this summer, but for now I only needed a DOT medical card to drive my company's truck. I went to get a DOT medical card and made the mistake of admitting past marijuana use in the last 2-3 years in the questionare form. Because of this the doctor could not give me the physical and told me I would have to complete a SAP before I could take the physical. I never took a drug test and very much could pass a urine/hair test as I've been clean for at least two years, I just made the idiotic mistake of admitting past use.

I've read up on Clearinghouse and FMCSA and am wondering if I take this SAP to then pass my DOT physical, will this show up on my record when I eventually apply for a CDL/and or try to become employed?

All I did was admit prior use (which was extremely dumb) but I never failed any test and I know for a fact I will pass in the future, I just want to know if this will be a permanent etch on my record that will make it diffulct to become gainfully employed.

Any help is greatly appreciated, thank you.

Depends on whether or not the Doc submits your exam and long form as a FAIL.

That being the case (and depending on HOW LONG AGO you admitted to use) - you would have to wait out that time period, until you can HONESTLY ANSWER NO.

SAP is used for a Return To Duty Protocol - AFTER A POSITIVE DRUG/ALCOHOL SCREEN. I see nothing in the regs that says it is required after admitting use within two years. In fact - it is NOT AN AUTOMATIC FAIL to admit use within 2 years - it is AT THE MEDICAL EXAMINERS DISCRETION. And I honestly think your ME got this one WRONG - unless he just has such a hardon for weed smokers. And FAILING A DRUG SCREEN doesn't affect your CDL OR MEDICAL CARD - just that a COMPANY CANNOT LET YOU DRIVE UNTIL YOU COMPLETE THE RETURN TO DUTY PROTOCOL.

The questions on the DOT Medical Exam Long Form:

31. Have you used an illegal substance within the past two years?

32. Have you ever failed a drug test or been dependent on an illegal substance?

And if you were clean for "at least two years" - I am NOT SURE WHY YOU ANSWERED YES TO #32. What did you give for an EXPLANATION TO #31? If you answered something like: "I quit smoking weed 23 months ago" - then you could go back in two months and honestly answer NO to #31 and you should be good to go.

Did the doctor GIVE YOU BACK THE FORM WITH THE "Does Not Meet Medical Standards" section filled out? What was the reason for denial?

Which leads to another grey area at the top of the form - "Has your USDOT/FMCSA medical certificate ever been denied or issued for less than 2 years?". Now - since you WERE NOT EXAMINED, you might be able to answer NO - but the safer answer would be NOT SURE.

DOT Medical Exam Long Form

ME's are required to report results to FMCSA - used to be you could "Doctor Shop" until you found one that would issue a card.

I'm not trying to sound accusatory here - but this just sounds a little WEIRD - like there's something missing to the story here. And you don't say WHERE you are from - a marijuana legal state (for example), or held a Med-Weed-Card - where you quit a few years ago? We've just heard some REALLY WEIRD STORIES here through the near 12 years I've been here.

Again - the FORM SAYS TWO YEARS. It's a FEDERAL FORM so marijuana IS ILLEGAL as far as the form says - though it may not be in the next year, then they'll have to CHANGE THE FORM AGAIN.

Kind of like ATF Form 4473 (application for firearm transfer) - where it asks the question about "illegal drugs" - and then reminds the applicant that weed is STILL FEDERALLY ILLEGAL, regardless of state laws. Stoners answer YES and are denied the firearms purchase - or answer NO (and the feds/locals see they have a Med-Weed-Card and lied on a firearms form - 10 years/$250K - NOT GOOD EITHER).

OK - back to YOUR situation. Much hinges on WHAT YOU ANSWERED on that question in the box below. Much depends on whether or not the ME ACTUALLY FAILED YOU. NOTHING IN THE REGS suggests a YES on #31 automatically triggers a RTD/SAP - since you NEVER FAILED A SCREEN.

I would find ANOTHER MEDICAL EXAMINER and ask him about this. And if you HONESTLY ANSWERED #31, and said you haven't used in OVER TWO YEARS - then you ANSWERED THE QUESTION INCORRECTLY.

But again - yes on 31 - is AT THE ME'S DISCRETION - AND NOT AN AUTOMATIC FAIL. Now - if you admitted to SHOOTING HEROIN, that would be another story.

The confusion and ambiguity around weed, is just getting plain old DUMB. And federal legalization/decriminalization, is only going to INCREASE THE AMBIGUITY in certain professions.

Rick

Posted:  5 months, 2 weeks ago

View Topic:

Dot tests and regulations

Hate to tell my friend I can't hang out any more sorry.gif

How about you ask your friend not to smoke in your presence?

Rick

Posted:  5 months, 2 weeks ago

View Topic:

Dot tests and regulations

double-quotes-start.png

Okay, sorta hijacking this thread, but still related. I don't and won't ever partake, but a couple of times in the past 3-4 months I was in a friend's house that does quite a bit. Can second-hand smoke give a false positive?

double-quotes-end.png

In a urinalysis, not likely. Hair follicles, it's possible.

Actually - that's kind of a myth. You'd have to be locked in a closet with Bob Marley and never wash your dreads to pickup a contact hair positive from external exposure. Likewise for (supposed) "contact highs" or positives from being in the same room as people smoking - unless they're using vapes and fogging the entire room.

The test of for metabolites in the BLOOD - that get excreted INTO THE HAIR VIA THE FOLLICLES. There's also a threshold that the machine is set for, to ignore anything UNDER that, as a false.

There are also foodstuffs and meds that can throw a false. These usually show up in urine, but can show up in hair also.

Not saying YOU DO - but typically, people that fail - just don't want to admit they used.

We did have a guy in here - that (claimed) he was "dosed unaware" with an edible by a friend (SOME FRIEND) at his "going away party". He obviously FAILED.

If you're sitting around while your friends burn - and they burn a lot - there's a slight chance of getting a contact exposure - like REALLY SLIGHT.

Nothing is impossible in todays world - and it's not fun trying to "explain away" a failed test. But if you are legitimately NOT USING, and you're not hanging out in a grow house, or a rastafarian temple - you should fall under the threshold for a positive.

This is obviously going to get even more problematic for folks, as more states legalize it - and more people who don't even partake are going to come in "casual contact" with people that do.

Rick

Posted:  5 months, 2 weeks ago

View Topic:

Dot tests and regulations

So what I posted was accurate.

In researching for another post - I came across THIS: 49 U.S. Code § 31306.Alcohol and controlled substances testing

(B)The regulations prescribed under subparagraph (A) shall permit motor carriers—

(i)to conduct preemployment testing of commercial motor vehicle operators for the use of alcohol; and

(ii)to use hair testing as an acceptable alternative to urine testing—

(I)in conducting preemployment testing for the use of a controlled substance; and

(II)in conducting random testing for the use of a controlled substance if the operator was subject to hair testing for preemployment testing.

--------------------------------------

So - I may in fact - be INCORRECT about hair being reportable to the FMCSA Clearinghouse. It happens once in awhile (Rickipedia being wrong).

I was under the impression it was NOT an acceptable method.

Rick

Posted:  5 months, 2 weeks ago

View Topic:

MANDATORY HAIR TESTING IS COMING - How Soon? Your Guess Is As Good As Mine...

Transport Topics News: ATA Meets With OMB to Discuss Hair Sample Testing Rule

Probably one of the more FREQUENT QUESTIONS we get here on TT - is "Which Companies Do Hair Testing?"

Well - pretty soon, we won't have to answer that question any more - IT WILL BE ALL OF THEM.

This was mandated in the FAST Act [Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act of 2015] - which shows you how the wheels of government grind EVER SO SLOWLY. 5+ years, and they still haven't figured out how to implement it.

Debates between industry groups. Debates on hair color (and probably texture - in todays "race sensitive world").

At any rate - it appears from articles I've perused, that OMB is getting ready to publish in The Federal Register soon - and after the "mandatory comment period", it will become LAW.

So NO MORE URINE TESTING - ALL HAIR TESTING.

And regardless of the rumblings of "federal legalization of marijuana" (more like the decriminalization, but I digress), and the removal of weed as a Schedule I Narcotic, it will STILL NOT BE LEGAL for people in "safety sensitive positions".

Without getting too far off topic: Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act. One of the KEY FEATURES of the act - is A TAX ON WEED SALES (bet you NEVER SAW THAT COMING). Another feature is assistance in getting "minority businesses" INTO THE WEED BUSINESS. As well as creating a mechanism to EXPUNGE previous weed-related convictions (not necessarily a BAD THING). And it also dedicates TAX DOLLARS for a number of other "pet projects" related to the weed industry (supposedly from $$ derived from the weed tax - but we know congress spends more than they tax on a GOOD DAY).

I've read the ENTIRE BILL:“Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act of 2020”. It contains the usual amount of "woke racial reparations" language. It's a hoot actually.

OK- back ON TOPIC.

I'm making this post, as this came up in another discussion here - where the poster passed 2 urines and failed a hair test. The poster (a newbie) was terminated, and can't get a hire because of the failed hair test. They claim to have quit using in Sept - but, as experience here has shown, you might need up to 6 months to be clean enough to pass a hair test (especially with today's extra strong weed) - THEY WERE NOT. There is some debate, whether or not a SAP will get them behind the wheel. But as a new entrant/trainee - we all know the likelihood of getting a hire after failing and orientation screen - is NOT GOOD (OK - next to IMPOSSIBLE)

AS OF NOW - URINE TESTING IS THE ONLY DOT APPROVED METHOD OF DRUG SCREENING - and therefore - THE ONLY TEST THAT CAN BE REPORTED TO THE FMCSA CLEARINGHOUSE (the MANDATORY FMCSA DATABASE for drug/alcohol screens).

What's interesting though is that USC 49 31306US Code Title 49 - 31306 b(1)B(ii) says: (ii)to use hair testing as an acceptable alternative to urine testing.

So I may be INCORRECT in my assumption that Hair Testing is NOT a "DOT Acceptable Method" for testing. Even Rickipedia can be wrong once in awhile.

This will be changing soon - and then the answer for the all-too-frequent-question, and the list we (try to) maintain of which companies do hair or urine WILL BE MOOT.

THEY ALL WILL.

And any legalization of weed on a federal level, is NOT GOING TO CHANGE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY - though we are likely to see some lawsuits trying to - IT WILL ALWAYS COME DOWN ON THE ASIDE OF PUBLIC SAFETY - and NO ONE WANTS TO RISK STONED TRUCKERS/PILOTS/TRAIN ENGINEERS.

Rick

Posted:  5 months, 2 weeks ago

View Topic:

Dot tests and regulations

So what I posted was accurate.

Well - we could split hairs here:

There is a national database that tracks individuals that failed drug tests. Thus keeps applicants from going to a different company and not disclosing the failed previous tests.

The "national database that tracks individuals that failed drug tests" - is the FMCSA Clearinghouse. HireRight DAC is an employment background checking site - that trucking companies report employees TO, and check for potential employees previous work history.

There IS A DIFFERENCE (again, splitting hairs, pardon the pun). Since hair tests are NOT DOT drug screens (YET) - they would not be reported to the FMCSA Clearinghouse. If they were, they could be disputed - since it is NOT A LEGAL DOT SCREEN - and companies know this - even if they might erroneously report it there ANYWAYS.

"Technically" (under federal employment and privacy laws) - a previous employer is ONLY supposed to relate dates of employment, and whether or not the employee is eligible for re-hire. If a company says that you were NOT ELIGIBLE for re-hire (and under FMCSA regs, potential employers are supposed to actually check references/previous employers). So if a company told another you failed a drug screen - they would be in violation for disclosing this.

I have only seen MY DAC - which has nothing on it - so I cannot relate FOR CERTAINTY, that "termination for failed drug screen", IS (or is NOT) REPORTED ON A DAC.

But the OP's PASSED URINE - should be reported on the "national database" (Clearinghouse) as a PASS - because both of them WERE. And the hair should NOT - because it is not a DOT accepted testing method.

Wasn't trying to slap you down there Pack - just trying to give accurate information as it relates to FMCSA Regs.

This will all change as soon as they get off their fat government butts and make the rule. When they DO - HAIR TESTING WILL BECOME MANDATORY - that's right - MANDATORY.

Which means we won't have to answer the question: which companies do hair testing - THEY ALL WILL - BY LAW.

Transport Topics Article: ATA Meets With OMB to Discuss Hair Sample Testing Rule

Keep in mind - the mandatory hair testing, was mandated in the "Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act of 2015", and we all know how long the various agencies and concerned parties can kick the can down the road.

Rick

Posted:  5 months, 2 weeks ago

View Topic:

Dot tests and regulations

You cannot tell the difference between a sari a and indica as both have the in them. The test is for the at large. I believe you are thinking of cbd which is non psychoactive. I have used that as well, stopped just in case it would trigger a positive. Hair follicle tests ARE NOT the most reliable testing. In fact it is proven that they have the most false positives of any other drug screening. Just to put out correct information.

Oh - believe me - I know what I'm talking about. The bill I read, specified sativa - which is weird, because many of the strains out there are indica. My curiosity was, whether or not indica would be included in the removal from Sched I.

The test is for the metabolites left over in the body, after is processes the THC - it doesn't detect THC itself, just what remains after metabolization.

So the data base does track failed results, and a SAP will be required Rick S.?

As I mentioned previously - the FMCSA Clearinghouse tracks failed DOT screens - since hair is not a DOT approved method, it would NOT be on the clearinghouse, though her passed urines may well be.

I was referring to DAC Reports.

As far as the SAP goes - it would be the only way (even if the test wasn't a DOT) for the person to even be remotely considered. But as we all know - failing a pre-employment orientation screen is usually the kiss of death.

Even if the use was "medicinal" (or even prescribed) - because it is still on the Sched I list, as far as the Feds are concerned it is still illegal, and still NO FLY/NO EXCUSES on a DOT Screen (and obviously, on a pre-employment screen).

Regardless of medicinal or recreational use - it's too high a liability risk, for a company to have anything to do with someone who has a history of use. And it will likely NEVER BE OK'd by DOT.

Then again - there are now 56 genders (and counting), so WHO KNOWS WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS.

I can picture climbing into an automated truck, sparking up a blunt and watching a movie while the truck drives...

Rick

Posted:  5 months, 2 weeks ago

View Topic:

Dot tests and regulations

Interestingly - the bill I read will remove Cannabis SATIVA as a Sched I Narcotic (failed to mention good old skunky indica - my personal favorite).

But there will be new regs written for DOT to preclude its use in "safety sensitive positions".

Rick

Posted:  5 months, 2 weeks ago

View Topic:

Dot tests and regulations

As someone who has had to completely change their medications due to quitting cannabis I would appreciate the “lighting up a joint” jokes to not be made. I am now on meds that do not work near as well for what I need them for, all to get “clean” to change my career. As someone who has found cannabis as the ONLY medicine that has been successful, I am rather sensitive on the subject. I do not joke about my cannabis use and would appreciate information without the jabs at my medicinal choices. And as we are in a country where nearly half our states have legal medical cannabis use, I would assume people would start to treat it as it is and not as it has been made out to be.

No one here has any issues with cannabis - and we are aware of the medicinal properties and the fact that it helps many people.

Rumor has it - the incoming administration is going to legalize it - but it WILL NEVER BE LEGAL for pilots, truck drivers, train engineers - PERIOD.

You can get all the sensitive you want - and I'm sorry whatever meds you're on don't work as well and create personal hardship for you.

Sparking a joint - eating an edible - doesn't matter to the industry WHY YOU USED - but - THAT YOU USED.

And if , in fact - the weed worked for your health issues - then maybe this was a blessing in disguise. No matter how bad you want to drive - do you want to be MISERABLE doing it - because your health is suffering?

There are lots of other meds that help people live productive lives - and many of those too - are NOT ACCEPTABLE IN A SAFETY SENSITIVE INDUSTRY.

Stuff like this is why a lot of people COME HERE FIRST and enquire as to what type of testing they can expect with certain companies. Had you done so in FORESIGHT (rather than hindsight) - we would have suggested AT LEAST 6 MONTHS SINCE LAST USE.

Sorry for your bad luck - and sorry if some seem "less than sympathetic" for your plight. In my 11+ years here, I've heard pretty much every story and excuse for a failed test - including LEGITIMATE MEDICINAL USE.

I've shared the facts with you - there's nothing really more I have to say on the topic.

Best of luck to you...

Rick

Posted:  5 months, 2 weeks ago

View Topic:

Dot tests and regulations

First off, thank your very much for the detailed reply. I am all for blunt but correct information. I am confused on part of the response. You said hair follicle tests are not reportable. Then said all tests are now reportable. I am not sure how to understand that. If only urinalysis are reportable, then I did not fail a reportable drug test as both came out clean. I was tested with urinalysis and hair follicle on the same day, passed the urinalysis, given my CLP test, passed that. Then passed the secondary urinalysis. I received my CLP last week and got the word today about my hair follicle. They thought about keeping me so I figured it was a company test and not DOT. Then I found out the second company rescinded. Seems counterintuitive of the trucking industry to have such a high demand for drivers and yet rely on a test that isn’t even technically in their regulations.

What I said was - hair tests are NOT DOT TESTS. They aren't reportable to DOT.

But they are reportable to a company that all the companies use called HireRight - that does background checks for companies and produces a report called the DAC. Terminations for drug screens of any type are likely to show up there. You have a right to get a copy of your report.

How Do I Get A Copy Of My DAC Report?

And because they are regulated under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) you can also dispute entries on your DAC - but the company will likely verify the termination.

As far as "relying on tests that isn't in their FEDERAL REGULATIONS". Anyone can beat a urine - 95% of substances (except weed - ESPECIALLY TODAYS WEED) - 72 hours and you can pee clean from most substances. But you CANNOT BEAT HAIR.

The only reason it's not in the regs - is because, well, governments are slow at doing anything (except TAKING/SPENDING OUR TAX $$'s). The surface transportation act a few years ago - created the law where DOT was supposed to implement hair testing as an official method - they just haven't gotten around to it.

COMPANIES use it for pre-employment testing, because it reveals long term/historical use (even though the amount they test, is only supposed to be a 90 day detection window) - and it is perfectly legal for them to terminate you as AN EMPLOYEE (having zero to do with your CDL - but your EMPLOYMENT) - therein lies the difference between that and a DOT Test. ANYONE CAN QUIT FOR A WEEK TO PASS A URINE - your hair is like the internet - it's (almost) FOREVER.

The devil is in the details, but the results are the same.

If I wanted to go get a driving job now - I WOULDN'T - because I've only been off my (legally prescribed) pain meds for a month - and I don't feel like having to explain myself to some stranger - or create additional scrutiny on my medical history.

Where you are getting hung up is the DAC - and you DO have to report that you were at company #1. And if the app asked if you have EVER FAILED A DRUG TEST - you better be honest, as LYING is as BAD AS FAILING if you are caught. Now - if the question asked: Have you ever failed a DOT DRUG SCREEN - you could honestly answer NO - because LEGALLY YOU HAVE NOT.

And I'm not here to judge or argue - just to give the facts.

What you do with them is up to you...

Rick

Page 2 of 156

Previous Page
Next Page
Go To Page:    

Join Us!

We have an awesome set of tools that will help you understand the trucking industry and prepare for a great start to your trucking career. Not only that, but everything we offer here at TruckingTruth is 100% free - no strings attached! Sign up now and get instant access to our member's section:
High Road Training Program Logo
  • The High Road Training Program
  • The High Road Article Series
  • The Friendliest Trucker's Forum Ever!
  • Email Updates When New Articles Are Posted

Apply For Paid CDL Training Through TruckingTruth

Did you know you can fill out one quick form here on TruckingTruth and apply to several companies at once for paid CDL training? Seriously! The application only takes one minute. You will speak with recruiters today. There is no obligation whatsoever. Learn more and apply here:

Apply For Paid CDL Training

About Us

TruckingTruth was founded by Brett Aquila (that's me!), a 15 year truck driving veteran, in January 2007. After 15 years on the road I wanted to help people understand the trucking industry and everything that came with the career and lifestyle of an over the road trucker. We'll help you make the right choices and prepare for a great start to your trucking career.

Read More

Becoming A Truck Driver

Becoming A Truck Driver is a dream we've all pondered at some point in our lives. We've all wondered if the adventure and challenges of life on the open road would suit us better than the ordinary day to day lives we've always known. At TruckingTruth we'll help you decide if trucking is right for you and help you get your career off to a great start.

Learn More