Overdrive

July 2017

Overdrive Magazine | Trucking Business News & Owner Operator Info

Issue link: http://read.dmtmag.com/i/845079

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 9 of 71

Voices 8 | Overdrive | July 2017 Recent news has shown senators press- ing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to issue technical guidance for hair-sample testing. It's a required first step, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, in FAST Act-mandated permission for such testing as an acceptable alter- native for drug tests by urinalysis, the currently allowed method. Other news showed congressional representatives endorsing a request from a cohort of major carriers to be allowed to hair- test exclusively. While such testing has long been sought by a variety of mostly large fleet interests, a majority of Overdrive readers oppose the move, objecting to the privacy intrusion they believe it represents. The polling here was accompanied by commentary in support of (41 percent) and against (53 percent) the move toward allowing hair testing to satisfy the random drug testing requirements in the regulations. Many in the majority, opposing the move, echoed the sentiments of Bob Walker, who objected to what he saw as a more-intrusive test, given hair analysis can show a longer history of usage than urinalysis. Growing social and legal accep- tance of marijuana is bound to create problems with hair tests, Walker ar- gued. "Oh, I thought this was about safety on the highway. I did not know the government needed to know what you did a month ago at your home." He also referenced the possibil- ity of passive contact with certain substances. Go to a party where someone is smoking marijuana, and "this could have happened a month ago, and it will show up," says Walker, who adds that he stays away from such parties. "There goes your driving record." Other commentary against hair testing was more measured, worrying over the potential of it to introduce inconsistency into the federal drug testing protocol. One commenter asked how prospective employers will be expected to interpret hair test results (and what window of time would be analyzed) in relation to those from the urine tests required today. Answers to those questions might well come with the technical guidance senators want DHHS to issue. If not, they'd certainly come up in rulemaking the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration says it ultimately will pursue to allow the method after necessary guidance. Agreeing with the sizable minority of Overdrive readers who saw no prob- lem with hair testing, some readers centered on the practicality of the test and its collection procedures instead of broader implications. "No- moredriving," commenting under the poll at OverdriveOnline.com, noted "I can supply hair on demand much easier than [urine]." "Bigrphillips," noting collecting a hair sample might not be as simple as it seems, quipped: "I'm bald, so they'll have to get a butt hair." Reader majority opposes hair-sample testing Should hair-sample testing be allowed to satisfy federal drug testing requirements for drivers? No 53% Source: OverdriveOnline.com poll I don't know 6% Yes 41% I'm one of the few guys who will get out and talk to the shippers – we know the shippers are paying $3,000 for a load of tomatoes, for instance, and the broker comes to us and says, 'Man, all I've got in it is $1,900.' Ask one for a rate sheet or transparency now, and know what they'll tell you? 'You have a good day, sir.' — Owner-operator James Woods on what he sees as the growing need to rein dishonest behavior at many brokerages with greater transparency Transparency now, transparency forever

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Overdrive - July 2017