Employee Testing
Posted by Fred Jandt
Editor, Mass Transit
In the wake of the homerun record being broken and all the talk swirling around that, I got to wondering how often do you test employees in your agency for drugs or alcohol? No, not “performance-enhancing” drugs, more like performance-impairing drugs.
I checked around and most places did the customary testing during the application process. What surprised me was that most, but not all, did random testing. Most places said they relied on their staff to observe whether or not someone was potentially under the influence of drugs or alcohol and then test them. This fell under the classification of reasonable suspicion.
Of course, it was nearly across the aboard that people were tested if they were involved in an accident. And don’t take this as meaning just operators. The policy applied to everyone from the operators to the mechanics and basically everyone else in the agency.
But what if you could test all of your operators before they went out on the road (or rails)? A recent article discussed a Nissan concept car with built-in testing sensors. The car has odor sensors on the driver’s and passenger’s seats that test alcohol levels. The gearshift tests hand perspiration when grabbed. And they even have a dash-mounted camera that measures driver awareness (be it alcohol or sleep-related).
The system sends audible alarms (bells, a voice) to the driver or tightens up the seatbelt if they look like they are not paying attention. It will also lock out the ignition if it senses the driver isn’t fit to drive.
This isn’t the only system like this in place. Volvo has a breathalyzer device built in as part of some of its seatbelts, which the driver has to blow into to start the car.
Any system like this is going to be expensive, but how useful would this be across your fleet? If it could prevent even one accident should someone get behind the wheel without being noticed, wouldn’t it be worth it?
Thanks for reading the MT Position, updated every Friday.
August 10th, 2007 at 10:31 am
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
August 12th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
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
August 17th, 2007 at 8:49 am
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.