search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
BY ELIZABETH MOSS, NATIONAL SAFETY COMPLIANCE, INC.


A Very Reasonable Cause for Concern


When Reasonable Suspicion Testing Saves Lives


One of the worst and most regretable situations to be in as a company, employee, or person traveling our waterways, roadways, railways, or airways is having an impaired person behind the controls of any vehicle or vessel. Whether for the person under the influence, or those surrounding that person when the worst occurs, an impaired driver is a dangerous and, at times, deadly factor within our transportation corridors. While driving impaired is, of course, not 100% preventable, the federal Department of Transportation (DOT) has created and passed rules to help identify and detect impairment of those subject to the rules using several testing situations specifically for DOT-regulated employees and their employers. Tis testing is not intended to accuse or harass those at the controls of these transportation vehicles, but is instead intended to be both a deterrent for the operators and also a preventative measure for companies to keep those under their control safe, along with those of us traveling with or around them.


Deterring Drug and Alcohol Use


Te myriad DOT drug and alcohol testing circumstances for employers and those subject to the rules include unannounced random testing, post-accident testing, and also the regretably least-tested reason


“reasonable suspicion/cause,” to name a few. Random testing, when done correctly following the rules, is a very strong deterrent for those subject to the rules, as the testing must be performed randomly, unannounced, and spread reasonably throughout a calendar year without any detectable or identifiable patern. Of all the testing circumstances, however, there is another very strong deterrent employers have at their disposal: reasonable suspicion testing. Even with required training and the extreme importance of these determinations, this testing circumstance remains one of the least-performed tests. Reasonable suspicion testing is required to be performed when a supervisor(s) makes a determination, based on their federally-required training, that suspicion exists to take an employee for drug and/ or alcohol testing to rule out use as a cause for what was witnessed. In a perfect world, this determination to test is made prior to performing any safety-sensitive function when it is determined to be a possible contributor to what was witnessed, and before injury or death occurs due to substance or alcohol use. Unfortunately, many times the determination to test is done aſter an accident occurs, or while an employee is actually performing safety-sensitive functions rather than before, as it should be. Potential drug or alcohol use should be uncovered or discovered while closely monitoring the employees and as a part of a supervisor’s routine duties and oversight.


www.datia.org


datia focus


19


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48