Random testing - safety sensitive

Kymm · May 2004

Wondering if any of you have an actual definition of a "safety sensitive" position, as it relates to random drug testing?

MS HR · May 2004

good question.
we (a municipality) consider "safety sensitive" positions to be all employees of the police department and firefighters (and their supervisors) as sensitive positions.

we also test all employees who drive a city vehicle or operate city equipment if there is an accident of any kind, even a minor scrape.

i would be interested in seeing responses from other forumites that are in public entities.

sonny · May 2004

We, to are a municipality and our list is the same as MS HR with the addition of 911 dispatchers.

dolores · June 2004

My municipality includes the following positions as "safety sensitive": Employees who -

a. Discharge duties fraught with risks of injuryto themselves or others or eimiployees whose job responsibilities involve public safetyor the safety of others; or

b. Must use dangerous tools/euipment in the performance of their job duties; or

c. Must perform job duties at heights; or

d. Must perform job duties and use dangerous chemicals; or

e. Routinely operate a vehicle in the course of their job duties; or

f. Must carry a firearm in the performance of job duties; or

I think you need to be prepared to explain in detail why certain jobs are considered "safety sensitive" in case of court challenge. So far we've been lucky and haven't had to face that issue yet.

Don D · May 2004

I would encourage you to not restrict your program to the jobs you identify as safety sensitive. Regardless of the industry, any employee in any occupation is liable to cost the company money and productivity if under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The stoned 'girl' at the front desk can run over the mailman in the parking lot just as easily as the zonked electrician call fall off a scaffold.

Leslie · May 2004

Unless of course you're a fireman in the city of Mesa, AZ, where the AZ court ruled unanimously in favor of the firefighters that random testing was an invasion of their privacy. I believe the Supreme Court is going to be hearing this one.

Don D · May 2004

But the court finds no fault with these same firefighters being required to pass annual physicals and hold to a weight standard and take periodic competency tests?

Kymm · May 2004

We are a hazardous waste recycling facility and randomly test ALL employees in AZ, WA and OR. However...I am being told that we should NOT test ALL employees in CA - Only "Safety sensitive" - (Those operating equipment and handling chemicals, etc.) We do have many employees who are responsible for making the decisions on what can/cannot come into the facility... the wrong decision could cause major problems and could be dangerous for all. Wondering if those "office" people making those decisions would be considered "safety sensitive".?

Don D · May 2004

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 05-29-04 AT 07:23AM (CST)[/font][br][br]Your post glaringly highlights the insanity of California regulations and the insanity of the Ninth Circuit. The woman sitting at a dispatch desk, the guy snatching a mechanic's wrench or pulling the night shift on the fuel island are just as liable to make a disastrous decision as a driver, perhaps even moreso.

(edit) Here might be the answer to your question. Ask yourself if, given conditions in America at this moment, would the Department of Homeland Security view as safety sensitive the jobs of people who control the access, egress and movement of 82,000 pounds of loaded hazardous freight on our highways, including the movement of those shipments into crowded areas, around water systems, near power systems and nuclear facilities and national landmarks. Tom Ridge will gladly sign the opinion letter. I think we just trumped the California court system.

TN HR · June 2004

>Unless of course you're a fireman in the city of
>Mesa, AZ, where the AZ court ruled unanimously
>in favor of the firefighters that random testing
>was an invasion of their privacy. I believe the
>Supreme Court is going to be hearing this one.

To further convolute the situation the 9th Circus Court of Appeals would get it first (I think AZ is in their jurisdiction)

System · June 2004

This is a current project of mine. Under our policy, we conduct pre-employment, post-accident, DOT random, and reasonable suspicion. We will be adding random for all employees in security and safety sensitive positions. We received caution about 'stretching' the definition of 'safety sensitive' to include clerical employees who do not have access to confidential records nor perform safety sensitive tasks. It then becomes a privacy violation. Of 140 employees, that leaves 2 who fit that exclusion.

Our other question is 'what will we test for?' Is testing for steriods a privacy violation? My research in underway. Feel free to jump in!

Leslie · June 2004

Our random testing is just that...random...for all employees. Nobody is excluded, no matter the job. DOT employees undergo DOT testing - everyone else is a 12 panel - testing for alcohol, amphetamines, barbitureates, benzodiazepines, cocaine, marijuana, methadone, methaqualone, opiates, phencyclidine, propoxyphene, and oxycodone. Your state law may govern what you can and can't test for, but in AZ as long as we're not testing for substances that will give us health information we have no business having, we're good to go. Never had any reason to test for steroids, though.

TN HR, we are in the 9th, but I swore I heard the case was going to the Supreme Court, not Circuit Court. Could be wrong though - but it would be the first time x;-).

earlru · June 2004

The best definition of Safety sensitive function that I know is found in the DOT regulations 49 CFR 382.107 under definitions, this is the controlled substance and alcohol use and testing section for the DOT. The actual text of the regulation can be found on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Website.

[url]www.fmcsa.dot.gov[/url]

gab · June 2004

We are defined by the FAA so mechanics and flight crews are subjected to safety sensitive. However, we have random testing for everyone the only exception is safety sensitive gets tested for alcohol.

Balloonman · June 2004

I guess the concensus is that it depends on your industry..........
My $0.02 worth!
DJ The Balloonman

chelseab · July 2004

We are regulated by DOT and RSPA so we separate our ee's into 3 random pools: (1)RSPA(pipeline reg) test 25% but no random alcohol testing, (2)DOT/CDL holders test 50% for drugs and 10% for alcohol, and (3)all other ee's 25% for drugs. This is all done randomly by generating a monthly report. The DOT explaination of safety-sensitive positions is very easy to understand and lays it out in black and white. The biggest problem I run into is people selected for a random being out of the office or on vacation. At that point they remain on the testing list for 3 months until they are tested. If 3 months passes, their name automatically drops from the list. Using random testing is a good deterrent, but it is extremely important to relay the drug policy to all new hires and have them sign that they received the policy and understand. What a headache, huh?!?!

marc · July 2004

Welcome to the forum Chelsea. What the heck is Zen drywall finishing?

Change Is Good · November 2004

Thanks for sharing your % selected for random testing. We are a wholesale distributor in NC and we currently have 2 random pools - 1) DOT/CDL at 50% for drugs and 10% for alcohol and 2) all other employees (including executives) at 10% for drugs (5 panel). We are considering raising the % for the "non-DOT" pool - perhaps to 20% - to raise the visibility of the random drug testing process (it is intended to be a deterrent, after all, and 10% doesn't seem to be quite visible enough).

I'm curious what random selection percentages other companies use. Anyone willing to share?

Shadowfax · July 2004

While I enjoy as much aas anyone (wel, maybe not quite as much as Don) having a bit of fun at the expense of our good friends in Ca, the problem with random testing, in the case of municipalities, is that the Supremes have already declared that a governmental employer is bound by the 4th A, and therefore unable to random test - unlike private employers, who are not bound by the 4th. So, while the 9th is generally way out there, they are supported, at least on this issue, by every fed circuit. So, I am guessing that the Mesa firefighters case may have been decided on this well established basis, and unless the facts are particularly egregious, don't count on any change from the Supremes.

Random testing - safety sensitive

Comments