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 Ben Waller on
-
That test is still fallible, and the poppy seeds will show up as an opiate in that test as well.
The blood test has no way to tell the difference between this morning's bagel and last week's morphine residue.
-
Permalink Reply by Vic Silverfish on
-
I'll let you know when that happens, but my point stands: random testing is an intrusion of your privacy. It's not that I have anything to hide, it's that my "precious bodily fluids" are none of your business.
-
-
Because drug screening programs are essentially "guilty until proven innocent". If the union can get their stance into the contract, then that's what will be enforced.
-
Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on
-
I will throw in a couple of points:
Before an employee is hired by our company, they agree to pre-employment, random, reasonable suspicion and post accident drug screens. If they don't agree, they don't get hired. Our DOT drivers get physicals where they are tested for both drugs and alcohol. Thereafter, they are selected randomly on a monthly basis. That is a DOT requirement.
Employers are required by law to provide a safe and healthy workplace free from recognizable hazards. That would include suspecting that an employee is under the influence of drugs are alcohol while at work and failing to do anything about it; thereby endangering fellow employees.
And lastly, if your department receives any federal monies, you have to agree to a zero tolerance drug policy that includes alcohol.
If you don't provide for testing, then how do you know that you have zero?
I'm just sayin'.
Oh; I almost forgot. If you are taking narcotic, prescription drugs, you may be re-assigned until you are no longer taking them. Pain killers for example. We don't want you to be at risk or risking the safety of others. We don't want people who operate power driven equipment if they are taking something that impairs them. Workplace safety trumps anything else.
And it is in the contract with the company that we provide our service to as a contractor.
TCSS.
-
Permalink Reply by Brian Dumser on
-
I don't see the problem. For years my F.D. has required yearly physical exams paid by the dept. They are pass/fail, with no detailed information going to the F.D. As far as the drug testing, we're drug tested if we get into a vehicle accident with an F.D. vehicle. Maybe they've got something to hide in Florida!
-
Permalink Reply by Tony P on
-
You've given me a question to look up Brian. Drug testing after an MVC while on a job? Hmm.
We do go one step further in a way though. An MVC where medical attention is needed by anybody, or any MVC police attend, will have all drivers being breath tested, any person taken to hospital will have a blood test. Of course there are people who don't like that, but it's the law. And after all (here at least) driving a vehicle is not a 'right', it's a privilege subject to various laws.
-
Permalink Reply by lutan1 on
-
In industry I work (Hydrocarbons, Construction, etc) the use of drug and alcohol screening is the norm, post an incident occurring.
Very very common....
-
-
Seems OK to me. Wouldn't worry me, just like stopping for the Booze Bus doesn't worry me.
-
-
There is a difference between post-incident testing and random screening.
I feel it is an invasion of my privacy to constantly need to prove my innocence. I also feel the police have no right to detain me when I have done nothing illegal. At some point you need to start asking exactly what is the benefit. In NSW the coppers RBT something like 2-3 million drivers/year. This in a state of 7 million people. That means on average 1/4-1/3 of the drivers are hassled by an RBT annually. Let's say they grab a false positive .01% of the time (an extraordinary success rate for any scientific device). That means several hundred innocent people get cuffed and brought to the station before a better test (hopefully) clears them.
Not that any of this matters. Precedent and case law have both come down firmly in favour of random testing, RBTs and a dozen other petty tyrannies. We elect our government and we get exactly what we deserve.
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Oomkes on
-
While this is a common thought, it really is an intrusion into one's personal life.
Having said that, drugs are illegal whether on the job or in personal life and we all give up some of our rights\personal freedoms when becoming employed and I see this as one of those rights.
But it is completely voluntary. If an employee chooses to not give up his\her right to be drug tested, he\she can find another job.
This is where it gets sticky. As an employer--because I am paid on call--the employer should have this right to test their employees. They have every right and even a responsibility to make sure the workplace is as safe as possible for all employees.
What happens if a drunk shows up for his\her shift and gets in a wreck and kills another firefighter? Or is high? You know these same firefighters are going to go after the city for not providing a safe working environment. The OIC on up to the chief will more than likely get hung out to dry.
Besides the legalities, is it really that much to ask for an employee to show up to work sober and not under the influence of illegal drugs?
-
-
The issue is not people showing up impaired. There is no excuse for that. I'm talking about two things:
1) what you do away from work is none of your employer's business
2) Since I don't go anywhere near illegal drugs, random testing can only hurt me since it has no impact on my behaviour.
I understand the emotion that goes into drug testing, but to me (and I as I've said elsewhere, the courts all disagree with me) this in an intrusion into our privacy and violates the most basic of civil liberties.
I find this entire topic far more intellectually stimulating than discussing what colour lights are on your POV. It warms my soul to see such a diversity of well thought out arguments,evenespecially those that I disagree with.
-
Permalink Reply by FETC on
-
I agree that everyone should have a physical. I agree everyone should be drug tested. What most of you have missed, and probably becasue you are not in a union, is the protection from most everything that you have been debating. False positives ruin peoples lives, as Ben said, GUILTY until proven innocent, but most do not get the opportunity to prove their innocence... just fired.
On the physical side, they are attempting to protect their medical records, not the fact that it is a pass or fail, but how that information is sent to the fire department. Another valid point to negotiate is no personal medical information is released to the fire chief or department. Just a note with a pass or fail. The detailed medical records can create discrimination once everyone knows about your personal health issues.
As much as some have said the union here looks silly, you are completely wrong. They are NOT hiding from a problem, they are probably NOT unfit for duty.... but when you have negoitated terms in place, and a new situation like this arises, which can be opened for negotiations, why wouldn't you want say in how the process is run. This is what the basis for the establishment of labor and management contracts were started.
If they were saying no physicals without a 10% pay raise, then they would look silly. I am with them, progressive leaders will take their time and agree upon the best terms possible.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
