The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Florida Union Opposes Drug Tests And Physical Exams
St. Petersburg Times
When people call 9-1-1 for help, they expect emergency responders to be physically and mentally ready to perform all tasks the call requires. But when it comes to St. Petersburg firefighters, residents may wonder. The fire union opposes Mayor Bill Foster's demand that firefighters submit to random drug tests and yearly physical exams. Those are reasonable requirements that would be in the best interest of firefighters and the public.
The issue is preventing the union and city from reaching accord on a new contract, with only days remaining on the current contract. Foster said firefighters shouldn't fear the drug testing "unless they have something to hide." He wants the physicals done to ensure that firefighters won't "stroke out" during a rescue or while fighting a fire. St. Petersburg police agreed to the both drug testing and physicals.
The city's current fire union contract allows drug testing only when supervisors see signs the employee is under the influence of drugs or alcohol. But those aren't always easy to see. And it is important that firefighter/paramedics, who have access to powerful drugs at work, know they could be tested at any point.
The current union contract also provides for mandatory physicals, but firefighters have found a way to avoid them. They refuse to sign the release of liability that medical providers now require any time they are going to disseminate patient information. City officials say they don't get employees' medical information, just a notice that the firefighter is or isn't fit for duty. But doctors have refused to perform the exams when patients won't sign the form.
And an arbitrator ruled the city can't discipline firefighters who won't sign, thus providing a loophole for those who want to avoid exams.
A union official said firefighters are suspicious the city could obtain medical information to use against them in workers' compensation cases.
The union's concerns can be overcome. They don't trump the need to ensure that firefighters, for their own sake and the public's, are fit for the job. And city firefighters should not be treated differently from police officers.
Related
St. Petersburg firefighters should have drug tests and physicals
Copyright 2010 Times Publishing Company
All Rights Reserved
September 27, 2010
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on
-
Boston Fire Department just started doing their drug testing.
Some of you may recall that, a few years ago, they had a double LODD. According to what I read, one had drugs in their system and one had alcohol. It created a fire storm. So; do you think THAT had a bearing on Boston deciding to do them? You bet it did.
With regards to "false" positives due to poppy seeds; the creatinine level and specific gravity of the specimen will rule poppy seeds out. The threshold level is there because of such things. Just like second hand smoke. The level is set to allow for it, so unless you are standing directly over the bong and inhaling, you are not getting enough exposure to test positive.
You're right; what you do on your own time is your's. But when what you do has a residual effect on you and places you or
people around you at risk, it is no longer your "right".
And yes; alcohol is just as insidious as drugs when we talk about public safety, so save your breath.
We don't have to be saints, but we need to do our howling in a responsible manner.
And it is also true that unions can legislate the introduction of drug testing of their members.
What is curious is that some locals allow for it while others fight it.
What is the international's take on it?
-
Permalink Reply by Vic Silverfish on
-
American's hostility to unions never ceases to amaze me, but that's a discussion for a different day.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Art,
The "specific gravity" didn't help someone I knew who self-reported secondhand smoke, was sent for testing, showed a trace positive less than the margin of error of the test, was fired, had a hair follicle test at his own expense with negative results, and still lost his job based on bad science.
Blind trust of scientific accuracy can cost the employee their job despite no wrongdoing on their part.
-
-
Ben:
I have been involved with employee drug testing policies for almost twenty years.
There are four ways that I know of to test for ILLICIT drugs in the system; saliva, urine, blood and hair follicles. Each is more accurate than the other; hair follicle being the most accurate and the one that can capture usage well beyond the 3 to 7 days that you would get with saliva or urine.
Regardless; we had many employees who claimed that they had a "partner" who smoked dope and they got it second hand. Sorry; not possible. The limits are set high enough to allow for it.
There is an extensive process in place that goes to great lengths to prove the INNOCENCE of employees. The goal is not to separate for a positive, though that can happen. The goal is to identify a problem and get it fixed, including getting the employee help. Yeah; we can even help them with their "poppy seed" addiction.
Also; if your friend was exposed to a smoky environment while on duty, then why was there a test done? An employer only has a right to the drug screen on a limited basis.
I don't understand why he was tested in the first place.
And again; even with zero tolerance, threshold limits are set by "science" and not by the company. In some cases the body has an ability to produce very low quantities of certain metabolites. But again; they are well below the set limits.
If your friend did not smoke a drug, but was exposed to the drug's smoke, then there was a screw up somewhere. And if it was a flawed test, then why didn't we go to something more reliable like hair follicle?
I have seen thousands of results.
This one you describe baffles me.
But, there is always the one exception, I guess.
-
-
Art,
Bad management using bad science explains it.
The employer eventually settled instead of losing in court.
As stated in my post above, the employee DID have a hair follicle test - at his own expense - and it came up negative. He still lost his job.
Management stupidity combined with bad science can equal bad - and patently unfair - results.
Just standing up for the science doesn't guarantee fair and accurate results.
Then there are issues with lab machinery calibration, lab employee accuracy, etc.
There is ALWAYS room for human error in any kind of lab testing.
There may be an extensive process in place that goes to great lengths to prove employee INNOCENCE in your experience, but there are other places that do things differently; including using questionable or downright inaccurate means to make the employee "guilty until proven innocent".
"Regardless; we had many employees who claimed that they had a "partner" who smoked dope and they got it second hand. Sorry; not possible. The limits are set high enough to allow for it." By whom? The lab? The employer? A neutral third party?
Regardless, those limits are not necessarily the same limits used everywhere else.
What works in your experience may be completely inaccurate in another set of employment circumstances.
Bad managers can misuse virtually anything to gain leverage over employees. Drug testing programs are no exception.
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
I've read several comments regarding why this is being opposed and how other jobs regularly do this etc. The issue may really not be as cut and dry as one may think here. This IS negotiations going on and as with most negotiations, there is give and take. The union may have asked for stuff in the past or endured cuts etc, and want something back, like say vacation days, etc. Management wants the drug testing and physicals in place, but may not want to make concessions to get that.
This is why you typically see articles like this because the negotiations become public and public pressure then becomes an issue to the union stance. Basically this could be like the Boston negotiations where similar issues were made, but it wasn't the issue of drug testing for the union as it was something the city wanted, but wasn't willing to negotiate.
Overall, my theory isn't so much that the union is opposing this, but it comes down to getting the contract language right and is about give and take.
-
-
Wow; I can't believe I missed that.
So, he didn't want to challenge it in court because of the $$$$$.
Where is he today?
Has his not pressing it caused him any downsides?
Or did he re-shape his life after all the problems with the testing?
With regards to the limits: one; if it's DOT, it is a national standard.
If it is non-DOT, the limits are set where court challenges have basically established them.
I will get to work on Monday, grab a copy of a test result and let you know what those limits are.
And then you can tell me if they are the same or different than your example.
I can tell you that the Medical Review Officer (MRO) that we used is from a lab that is nationally recognized and are used as experts in court where the results from all over are being challenged.
I can tell you that we use a saliva test on employees. If it is a non-negative result, they are sent for a urine test. If it is non-negative, the specimen has been split and will be sent to the lab for analysis and confirmation. I don't know what else can be done.
I don't dispute that there was a problem with your friend's test.
What I am saying is that the process has been built to eliminate "issues".
We don't even let the employee drive themselves to the outside test. We have them transported for safety's sake. That and they can't swing by the store to get an adulterant. Not that they would...
-
-
He did file a suit, but there was (allegedly) a settlement with a non-disclosure agreement for both sides.
He's still working - at a close neighbor to the department that fired him.
A "trace positive" that was less than the margin of error number for the test was reported as a positive. Scientifically speaking, that's not a positive. At best it is an unknown result that creates the need for a re-test.
If the positive was less than the test margin of error, it isn't reliable enough to report a positive.
There was no confirmation testing done - it was a "one and done" administrative decision.
I understand all of the department procedure stuff. Our policy is very similar.
As this relates to the topic, my point is that there are supposedly "positive" drug tests that are not positive at all. It's all in the human interpretation - and sometimes it's all in who spins it how far in what direction.
-
Permalink Reply by Doug on
-
At one point in this country, several decades ago, they served a very valuable service to workers. Anymore, all they do is keep the laziest, most careless and least productive employee employed.
-
-
At one point in this country, several decades ago, they served a very valuable service to workers. Anymore, all they do is keep the laziest, most careless and least productive employee employed.
No, I disagree. Stating unions only keep the laziest, least productive is BS. Now a union isn't needed in every sector and it is up to the employee if they do want union rep, but the public sector is definately a place where unions are needed. It is bad enough to have a union and face the hostilities, perpetuated lies, and falsehoods made against public employees, just to justify saving $$$, let alone without such protection and then being at the whims of many uneducated (to this job) people.
-
Permalink Reply by lutan1 on
-
I've been on different ends of unions- as a member, a shop steward, and a manager trying to work with them.
Even as a representative of the union as a shop steward, I was the victo\im of one of their smear campaigns becuase I was asking pointed quesitons about them, their dealings with us, etc. I've seen firefighters that have been bred lazy, expecting everything handed to them on a silver platter- because the unions have made them that way.
I don't know what they're like in the USA, but I loathe everything about them now. Vindictive, conspiring people to deal with in my experience.
The sooner we rid them, the more productive and efficient this country will become IMHO.
-
-
I was the victo\im of one of their smear campaigns becuase I was asking pointed quesitons about them, their dealings with us, etc.
I loathe everything about them now. Vindictive, conspiring people to deal with in my experience.
And there in lies one of the biggest problems out there is the lumping of all because of the personal experiences of one. I know you can not speak for other unions, only your experience. I will not sit here and say every union is a great place and there is never issues, because that is wrong, but so is comparing one shop experience to another without being there.
I can say that while working in the private sector, non-union businesses, I have known people to be lazy and expected things handed to them as well, but I don't lump all people as such. It isn't just unions that breed such issues, many times there are those who just do enough, but can be in the boss's favor, and just get by, while others pick up the slack. To think such things only go on in unions shops is ridiculous and to think that it doesn't happen in non-union shops is ridiculous as well.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
