Sample Sidebar Module

This is a sample module published to the sidebar_top position, using the -sidebar module class suffix. There is also a sidebar_bottom position below the menu.

Sample Sidebar Module

This is a sample module published to the sidebar_bottom position, using the -sidebar module class suffix. There is also a sidebar_top position below the search.
images//issue1-2024.jpg
Alcohol and drug programs are stricter than ever. Maybe they should be broader.

THINK OF THEM AS THE RULES designed to keep truck drivers on the straight and narrow, emphasizing the straight. Cross-border drivers have since 1996 been blowing into Breathalyzers and peeing into bottles after accidents, because of reasonable suspicion, or when allowed to return to work in the wake of a positive test. Sometimes it’s the luck of the draw. Regulators also require carriers to test half a randomly selected driver pool for drugs, and 10% for alcohol.

No legal challenges have been able to stop them.

It’s been a decade since a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal heard the landmark case of Salvatore Milazzo, a bus driver fired after testing positive for cannabis. There, tests were upheld as a “legitimate way to promote road safety” and deter employees from using alcohol or other drugs in the workplace. It didn’t matter if the tests were effectively discriminatory. Even if drug tests couldn’t prove that someone was impaired at a specific moment in time, they did raise a red flag, the tribunal found. The related policy which emerged from Canada’s Human Rights Commission in 2009 set the stage for companies to screen any employees in safety-sensitive positions, as long as those who test positive and have an addiction are treated rather than being fired.

This ruling actually gave all Canadian fleets -- including those in domestic operations --the chance to introduce policies which include employee testing provisions, adds industry consultant Barb Butler, one of Canada’s foremost experts in workplace alcohol and drug policies.

North of the border, two pending rulings could affect programs in unionized environments. Suncor Energy is involved in a grievance hearing in a bid to introduce random alcohol and drug screening for workers in the Oil Sands, many of whom serve roles similar to truck drivers when it comes to “high-risk” duties. And late last year, Canada’s Supreme Court heard arguments about whether Irving Pulp and Paper can introduce random alcohol tests at a New Brunswick mill. A ruling on that is expected in the coming months. The question is whether the court limits itself to talking about unionized workplaces or takes a broader look at the issue, Butler says. “That might further open the doors for some of the other motor carriers who operate solely in Canada to introduce policies that include random testing.”

A broader testing regime makes sense when it comes to safety, she adds. “They’re on the same roads the cross-border drivers are on. They do the same work.” Even if Canadian programs do not include random testing, there is certainly room to address substance use in broader safety policies, complete with tests conducted for reasonable cause or as part of an accident investigation.

“Safety-sensitive positions, which go well beyond drivers, should possibly be subject to testing,” says Private Motor Truck Council of Canada (PMTC) President Bruce Richards. “There’s no point having a sober driver if the mechanic who worked on the truck was under the influence of drugs or alcohol.”

But has more than 17 years of testing made a difference in highway safety?

Alcohol-related truck collisions certainly dropped since the tests were introduced, according to statistics from the U.S. Department of Transportation. In 1990, 2.8% of the drivers of large trucks involved in fatal crashes had a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) above 0.08. The number has not poked above 2.0% since 1996. In 2010, almost one in every four passenger car drivers involved in fatal crashes (23.2%) had a BAC above 0.08. “If 2.8% was enough to drive North America into testing truck drivers,” Richards muses, “what does it take to get car drivers tested?”

Fatal collisions involving alcohol have not been the only thing to decline. One of Canada’s largest third-party testing administrators saw positive driver drug tests drop from 2.3% in 1996 to less than 0.5% in 2010. Similar results have been reported for the testing regime as a whole. The U.S. Department of Transportation reports that a mere 0.9% of drivers tested positive in 2011.

The gains have come despite ever-stricter testing requirements. Since first being introduced, guidelines for urine tests have expanded to include more drugs and tighter limits alike. The original package of drugs known as the “NIDA 5” -- amphetamines, cocaine, codeine, marijuana and PCP – has expanded to include ecstasy and heroin. The U.S. is also expected to add four other drugs including a pain reliever known as oxycodone, and expand testing options to include laboratory analyses of fluids swabbed from a driver’s mouth. The latter changes were approved by the U.S. Health and Human Services secretary, but still need to make their way through the regulatory process, Butler says.

While some states are taking a more liberal stand on marijuana, the Department of Transportation continues to take a hard line on that drug. “We want to make it perfectly clear that the state initiatives will have no bearing on the Department of Transportation’s related drug testing program,” Jim Swart, director of the Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance, said in a December 2012 memo. Put another way, Medical Review Officers will not record a positive test for marijuana as a “negative” result just because the driver smoked a joint in a lenient jurisdiction.

“The transportation industry over time has worked hard to reduce the number of accidents and crashes directly related to drug and alcohol use,” reads a statement by U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “Nevertheless, human risk factors remain.” Some employees will continue to use illicit drugs or abuse alcohol, he says. “Employers must also have strong drug and alcohol testing programs.”

It hardly sounds like a regime looking to loosen the rules, and testing has become a way of life for a broad array of industries south of the border, where Wal-Mart’s retail employees face tests just like the truckers who deliver freight to the loading dock.

Granted, there may be additional factors behind the improving highway safety and test results.

Random alcohol and drug tests are promoted as a deterrent, but so are recent increases in the sanctions for drunk drivers in some jurisdictions. Several studies suggest the overall population’s drug use is also on the decline. While 18% of Canadian men used cannabis in 2004, this rate dropped to 12% in 2011, according to the Canadian Alcohol and Drug Use Monitoring Survey.

While Canadian programs are required to support substance-abusing drivers who test positive, offering treatment rather than a job loss, those who abuse alcohol and drugs can opt to leave for domestic jobs or other industries where testing is not required. “Are we creating a Canadian ghetto?” Richards asks, questioning whether the tests are simply pushing substance abuse challenges onto domestic fleets.

Any domestic fleets that want to introduce programs of their own should carefully choose third-party administrators for their testing program, Butler says. The chosen companies need a clear understanding of the U.S. regulations, have a proven random selection system in place, and a wide network of trained collectors along with breath-testing capabilities, she says. Medical Review Officers need to be certified by the American Association of Medical Review Officers or Medical Review Officer Certification Council. Meanwhile, Substance Abuse Professionals who conduct drug assessments are not allowed to offer the treatment programs, Butler warns, adding that she is aware of several locations where this occurs.

Those who want to be proactive and introduce a new program should be working alongside their employees, Richards adds. “It should not be a combative situation. If it’s not reactionary, you have time to sit with everyone and discuss what a sound program might look like.”

Current News

It's well past time the Feds Provinces Territories Come Together to effectively Monitor Commercial Motor Carrier Safety Fitness Rating

The Feds, Provinces & Territories Must Work Together to effectively Monitor Carrier Safety Fitness

 

The System in place currently has been broken for a long time, and solutions offered by Industry have yet to be acted upon

(the below is an exert of a communication that was sent by the PMTC to the CCMTA, Transport Canada & The Council of Ministers Responsible for Transportation)

Currently Commercial Motor Carriers who wish to operate a trucking fleet in Canada must apply for a Safety Fitness Certificate to the Provincial Authority in which they plan to licence their vehicles. If the Provincial Authority of the base jurisdiction approves the application, a National Safety Code (NSC) will be issued to the Carrier. The base jurisdiction is then responsible for monitoring the motor carrier for safety and compliance, based on National Safety Code 14, which is a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) all jurisdictions agreed to several years back. https://www.ccmta.ca/en/national-safety-code 

Read more ...



 

Private Motor Carrier Advertisers