The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Pittsburgh Local Agrees to Random Drug Testing
PITTSBURGH - Pittsburgh's firefighters have agreed to random drug testing for the first time in city history, as part of a policy in which firefighters can be fired for a second drug offense.
The testing agreement was announced Monday as part of a new five-year contract approved by the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 1 on Friday.
Under the new policy, firefighters who fail a drug test will be place on a "last chance agreement" under which they can be fired for a second failed drug test. The decision on whether to fire firefighters over a drug test will also be handled by neutral arbiters instead of a trial board consisting of three other firefighters.
The trial boards will still be used to review possible firings for other offenses.
Related
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
The testing agreement was announced Monday as part of a new five-year contract approved by the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 1 on Friday.
Under the new policy, firefighters who fail a drug test will be place on a "last chance agreement" under which they can be fired for a second failed drug test. The decision on whether to fire firefighters over a drug test will also be handled by neutral arbiters instead of a trial board consisting of three other firefighters.
The trial boards will still be used to review possible firings for other offenses.
Related
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Shaw on
-
This is an interesting labor development. First because unions in general have fought against random testing, but also because the public perception of such a fight is overly anti-union.
With anything random, there is an immense potential to be misused by management. The union really has to keep an eye on this truly being random. When you look at other jobs, mostly in the transportation industries, these tests are becoming the norm.
However, drug use being illegal, and alcohol use being restricted, test like these are coming into more workplaces. We also know more now, then we did years ago about the effects of these substances. Objecting to these tests, even on solid ground like due process issues, as most unions would, is often misconstrued as being pro-drug.
-
Permalink Reply by lutan1 on
-
If you have nothing to hide, then why should members be concerned about it?
I expect to come to work knowing that my colleagues are fully capable and functioning to do their job properly, including looking out for me.
-
Permalink Reply by Oldman on
-
"why should members be concerned""It`s a safety thing"
It's a trust thing.
We can no longer trust the people we work with.
I have absolutely no problem with drug tests, but if we cannot trust our partner, crew, or chiefs then there is a bigger problem. Let's see. Drugs, Arson, Theft, Animal cruelty, Cheating on tests....
Nope, I don't see trust anywhere.
-
Permalink Reply by Allen Wahlstrom on
-
We have had random testing as long as I have been on the job (1987), and I am totally for it. I am also a union member.
We have had in the past year lost a firefighter to drug abuse, and he had way more than one chance. A total waste of his career, and he is still using! another firefighter lost his job 1 year from retirement to alcohol abuse. And again was given many chances to get clean... the department even sent him to rehab and paid for his meds to lose him 3 months later.
We can not as a fire service condone the use of drugs, or alcohol (when it affects duty) in any way shape or manner.
I applaud the Brothers and Sisters of Pittsburgh Fire
TCSS
Wally
-
Permalink Reply by SHAWN FORINGER on
-
I'm a vol. fire fighter and I think vol . should have to do the same .
-
Permalink Reply by Rusty Mancini on
-
A firefighter depending on drugs, when I'm depending on him to watch my back! Not a good thing! It's a good policy to have. I'll echo Oldmans statement, it's about trust.
If you have nothing to hide, then it really shouldn't matter. If they cry about their rights, then I would cry, I should have the right to know that the brother working next to me is drug free!
-
Permalink Reply by Andrew on
-
There is a huge different between the use of drugs and arson, theft, animal cruelty, ect.
For one, the use of drugs are not a violent crime, and take no immediate effect on other people. I do not condone the use of drugs prior to going to ANY emergency scene.
Personally, as long as the firefighters don't mind the random drug tests, then there is no problem. It was put into a contract in which the firefighters acquired more money to allow this testing to go on.
If there was no additional money or anything like that, then I believe there would be a problem. But in this situation both parties are happy, so we have a successful compromise.
Personally I believe drug testing is against individual civil liberties. What you do in the confinement of your own home OFF DUTY is your business, and your business only. As long as you're not physically, psychologically, or cognitively impaired, I don't see a just reason to drug test firefighting, law enforcement, or medical personnel.
-
Permalink Reply by Doug on
-
Sadly, not all of this happened in the confinement of their own home(s) or while off duty. There has been a drug problem within The City of Pittsburgh's Bureau of Fire for some time now. There's much more to this story, just Google it, or something.
But, I'm glad they've come to a compromise with which both sides seem to be happy.
And still, I fully support The City of Pittsburgh Bureau of Fire and their members. It's a kick-ass department, cutting edge, progressive, etc., etc. Many systems and strategies we have in place today across the country were originated in Pittsburgh. The PASS, Two In - Two Out, RIT, different ways to rehab(PBF in conjunction with UPMCs Institute for Emergency Medicine), just to name a few.
-
-
It's easier to say that everyone should be drug tested, but it's not the way the United States works. Everyone has rights that cannot be infringed upon.
It's like the justice system in this country. Yes, there are people that get off in technicalities, but the justice system works to ensure that we get the maximum amount of people convicted for their crimes while also keeping the innocent safe as well.
Another example if the fifth amendment right against Double Jeopardy. It would be easier to say that we should incarcerate someone for committing a crime while we have overwhelming evidence pointing at them for committing it, but they cannot be prosecuted twice for the same crime to keep the innocent safe.
It's complex, but it's necessary in today's world to ensure that everyone still has their rights in place. Especially since the government is getting more secretive and creating more and more laws, while the average Joe's and Jane's rights are being minimized for the "greater good".
-
-
It's easier to say that everyone should be drug tested, but it's not the way the United States works. Everyone has rights that cannot be infringed upon.
And there comes a time when one has to quesiton those rights.
We're potentially talking about someone watching yours or my back who may not be physically or mentally capable due to drugs...
-
-
Andrew, Being new to the service you will realize in due time, you will be trusting that the brother or sister that's watching your back, would be drug free. You have to trust that he or she will be there for you if something goes wrong.
Would you want a brother driving a rig that was under the influence while your ridding in it? No of course you wouldn't. You will come to understand that this job is about trust.
It's like Lutan said, There comes a time when one has to question those rights
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
Andrew;
Random drug testing as part of a department's policy is not unconstitutional nor does it necessarily require the approval of membership. Its inclusion may be a bargaining chip for increased pay or other benefits. Furthermore if it were illegal do you really think the union would allow it?
Importantly it is not a policy to determine religious affiliation, political ideology or sexual preference (protected by the constitution) but rather the use of illegal substances (legally enacted laws per the constitution). Any policy set forth with clear guidelines that follow the law is acceptable. A firefighter that breaks the law off duty opens him or her up to questioning how reliable or trustworthy he or she may be on duty.
I direct your attention to this link - http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-04/24-drug-testing...
Taken from the text is this -
Drug Testing.—In two 1989 decisions the (Supreme) Court held that no warrant, probable cause, or even individualized suspicion is required for mandatory drug testing of certain classes of railroad and public employees.
and this -
...the intrusions on privacy were termed "limited." Blood and breath tests were passed off as routine; the urine test, while more intrusive, was deemed permissible because of the "diminished expectation of privacy" in employees having some responsibility for safety in a pervasively regulated industry.314
Given the tasks at hand and the responsibilities that go with our job, it is incumbent upon the employer to ensure that employees are not under the influence while at work, which would put at risk co-workers, the successful completion of the job as well as civilians. I would think that that is why firefighters (as well as LEO's and others) are required to submit to drug testing.
With regard to fifth amendment rights: double jeopardy is being charged twice for the same crime. That does not appear to be the case in random drug testing. No one is being prosecuted twice as a result of the testing. You might be fired as a result of the drug testing but that is not prosecution; Self-incrimination is another aspect of the 5th and is more likely what you were thinking of. One could, I suppose, refuse to take part in the random drug test but in doing so you violate the terms of your employment. Not to mention that Supreme Court rulings allow for them, so really, self-incrimination is moot (or mute). I suspect that for you the issue may be one of bad laws rather than law breaking. Breaking a 'bad' law is still breaking the law.
Comments about the government "...getting more secretive and creating more and more laws..." is a non sequitur in that it isn't relative to this argument, moreover, to make that statement you really need to show your work with examples and cite references.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
