Comments on: Employee Testing http://www.masstransitmag.com/interactive/2007/08/10/employee-testing/ Mass Transit's editor, Fred Jandt, speaks weekly on critical issues facing the public transportation industry. Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:26:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Norman Mars http://www.masstransitmag.com/interactive/2007/08/10/employee-testing/#comment-1100 Norman Mars Fri, 17 Aug 2007 13:49:25 +0000 http://www.masstransitmag.com/interactive/2007/08/10/employee-testing/#comment-1100 As an operator of transit buses, school buses, and interstate coaches, we are required by DOT and many state regulations to perform pre-employment, random, post accident, and reasonable suspicion testing for alcohol and controlled substances. Additionally, many states require us to perform drug screens as part of the annual pysical exams required of school bus drivers. Although the percentage who fail is low, weeding out even one impaired driver BEFORE an accident and potential tragedy occurs, I believe is worth the cost. What always surprises me is the number of applicants, who are clearly informed during their interviews that drug testing is a required part of the qualification process, waste their time and our money going through the drug screen and test positive. Again, it's worth the expense. These people should not be entrusted with the safety of our passengers. As an operator of transit buses, school buses, and interstate coaches, we are required by DOT and many state regulations to perform pre-employment, random, post accident, and reasonable suspicion testing for alcohol and controlled substances. Additionally, many states require us to perform drug screens as part of the annual pysical exams required of school bus drivers. Although the percentage who fail is low, weeding out even one impaired driver BEFORE an accident and potential tragedy occurs, I believe is worth the cost. What always surprises me is the number of applicants, who are clearly informed during their interviews that drug testing is a required part of the qualification process, waste their time and our money going through the drug screen and test positive. Again, it’s worth the expense. These people should not be entrusted with the safety of our passengers.

]]> By: bo pena http://www.masstransitmag.com/interactive/2007/08/10/employee-testing/#comment-1015 bo pena Sun, 12 Aug 2007 20:28:16 +0000 http://www.masstransitmag.com/interactive/2007/08/10/employee-testing/#comment-1015 We dont test for drugs. We at Gigital Workshop LA, believe that drug testing erodes the freedoms we enjoy under the first ammendment. If we observe an individual whose performance sems to be declining we will interview the individual. If he/she volunteers that they are involved with drugs we try to get them help. (we have an employee social liason for those and other employee matters) If their performance cant be improved and they arent able to carry their work load they are then let go. bo pena We dont test for drugs. We at Gigital Workshop LA, believe that drug testing erodes the freedoms we enjoy under the first ammendment.

If we observe an individual whose performance sems to be declining we will interview the individual.

If he/she volunteers that they are involved with drugs we try to get them help. (we have an employee social liason for those and other employee matters)

If their performance cant be improved and they arent able to carry their work load they are then let go.

bo pena

]]> By: Patrick Murphy http://www.masstransitmag.com/interactive/2007/08/10/employee-testing/#comment-980 Patrick Murphy Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:31:20 +0000 http://www.masstransitmag.com/interactive/2007/08/10/employee-testing/#comment-980 Fred: You have raised an intersting question where the convergence of technologies is obviously a reality. However the civil liberties issues would need to eventually be tested in court. Having to be "cleared to drive" by your own car would never be a popular accessory. Having an airline pilot (or astronaut) be tested is a great idea. Drug testing is expensive even on a random basis so an enterprise wide solution would have to incrementally cost less and have the same effectiveness. Even the random feature could still be implemented through simple programming. However, social engineering versus public safety will still be the hurdle. The process would still have to be "voluntary" to allow someone to refuse to be tested. The system's purpose would still remain intact because notification of refusal would occur and the usual human resource action would take place. Random drug testing yields few true positives as a percentage...it's under 1.5%. The bottom line would be the cost. You can't measure the deterrant effect with any real confidence either so again, the concept may be great, cost-justification and the civil rights aspects will be the ultimate challenges. Pat Murphy President LPT Security Consulting 281.370.1569 Fred:
You have raised an intersting question where the convergence of technologies is obviously a reality. However the civil liberties issues would need to eventually be tested in court.

Having to be “cleared to drive” by your own car would never be a popular accessory. Having an airline pilot (or astronaut) be tested is a great idea.

Drug testing is expensive even on a random basis so an enterprise wide solution would have to incrementally cost less and have the same effectiveness. Even the random feature could still be implemented through simple programming. However, social engineering versus public safety will still be the hurdle. The process would still have to be “voluntary” to allow someone to refuse to be tested. The system’s purpose would still remain intact because notification of refusal would occur and the usual human resource action would take place.

Random drug testing yields few true positives as a percentage…it’s under 1.5%. The bottom line would be the cost. You can’t measure the deterrant effect with any real confidence either so again, the concept may be great, cost-justification and the civil rights aspects will be the ultimate challenges.
Pat Murphy
President
LPT Security Consulting
281.370.1569

]]>