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 Fabulous Heather Days of Summer on
-
HIPAA
1- (PhD, professor) Dr. So & So at student's medical university... called student's Medical Dr. Thus & Such ... and asked for medical records... and was given them...
2- people got fired
3- medical office and school got fined $$$$$$
Getting a doctor's clearance to perform or not at work IS NOT equal to having all of the details of a person HIPAA protected medical information...
Drug Test or Physical Examinations - can be pass / fail and can reflect doctor clearance only - without detailed medical records.
-
Permalink Reply by FETC on
-
I suspect they (the doctor's office) are asking the firefighter (patient) to sign the dreaded HIPPA form for which we require all of the patient's who ride in our ambulances. The issue probably is - no verbage in the labor contract as to how the "fit for duty" or "not fit for duty" is communicated to the firefighter's supervisor. I have seen some department's sign the release of information form and the doc can send anything he wants to the fire chief. Your personal health conditions, (if any) are protected by rights. The union and the city need to sit down and negotiate the exact information dissemination process.
Otherwise the first time so and so is over heard saying johnny has cancer or another medical condition that could pose discrimination within the workplace, there would certainly be a lawsuit. Especially when the firefighter who failed the exam, never said anything to a co-worker.
So in this case, as much as people probably see this as the union protecting unfit firefighters.... the negotiated verbage protects not only the employee but the employer (or the taxpayer) as well.
-
-
Heather i am not debating your points, which are all correct. In a labor contract environment, union fire department verbage (words) in the contract are the rules for which everyone follows, (both city and the firefighters).
The issue is "management rights" takes over for everything else not covered under specific verbage. Therefore if their is no verbage in the contract pretaining to the actual communication of the physical results, (for which the city paid for, sent to you to on duty, and ultimately makes a decision on behalf of the result of your livelihood) then the fire chief sometimes have asked the doc, more than just YES or NO on the fit for duty. Some have asked, how long will it take, what needs to be done, can he work alternative duty instead of full duty. These are all questions that the chief may feel important to make other decisions on the department operational budget, especially if the department is man for man meaning the entire time a guy is out sick, injured or rehabbing they are paying him straight time and someone else overtime for his injury or disability.
Bottom line is if the doc is not disseminating the actual results as you say, then why the need to sign the HIPPA form and release of information waiver, because the doctor could just send a note on prescription pad paper saying YES or NO when you leave the office.
But the release waiver takes "personal" control of your medical records out of YOUR hands...
-
-
Smart companies - consult with smart lawyers
There can be different forms for different issues. YES - SPECIFIC VERBAGE
One form could solely be: Employment is contingent upon full disclosure of random drug test results being provided to management. Random drug tests will be done yearly and at additional undetermined intervals thoughout the year. The drug test will only identify use of _____,______,______ and _________ substances. If you have doctors prescription for any substances which fall into these categories please take them with you to the doctor at the time of the drug testing.
the release could be customized to a specific piece of information
you get my point
-
-
INTERESTING ARTICLE I FOUND
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/resources/factsheets/504.pdf
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Office for Civil Rights․Washington, D.C. 20201․(202) 619-0403
YOUR RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT
What Is Section 504?
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is a national law that protects qualified individuals from discrimination based on their disability. The nondiscrimination requirements of the law apply to employers and organizations that receive financial assistance from any Federal department or agency, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). These organizations and employers include many hospitals, nursing homes, mental health centers and human service programs.
Section 504 forbids organizations and employers from excluding or denying individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to receive program benefits and services. It defines the rights of individuals with disabilities to participate in, and have access to, program benefits and services.
Who Is Protected from Discrimination?
Section 504 protects qualified individuals with disabilities. Under this law, individuals with disabilities are defined as persons with a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities. People who have a history of, or who are regarded as having a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, are also covered. Major life activities include caring for one's self, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, working, performing manual tasks, and learning.
Some examples of impairments which may substantially limit major life activities, even with the help of medication or aids/devices, are: AIDS, alcoholism, blindness or visual impairment, cancer, deafness or hearing impairment, diabetes, drug addiction, heart disease, and mental illness.
In addition to meeting the above definition, for purposes of receiving services, education or training, qualified individuals with disabilities are persons who meet normal and essential eligibility requirements.
For purposes of employment, qualified individuals with disabilities are persons who, with reasonable
accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the job for which they have applied or have been hired to perform. (Complaints alleging employment discrimination on the basis of disability against a single individual will be referred to the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for processing.)
Reasonable accommodation means an employer is required to take reasonable steps to accommodate your disability unless it would cause the employer undue hardship.
Prohibited Discriminatory Acts in Health Care and Human Services Settings
Section 504 prohibitions against discrimination apply to service availability, accessibility, delivery, employment, and the administrative activities and responsibilities of organizations receiving Federal financial assistance. A recipient of Federal financial assistance may not, on the basis of disability:
X Deny qualified individuals the opportunity to participate in or benefit from federally funded programs,
services, or other benefits.
X Deny access to programs, services, benefits or opportunities to participate as a result of physical barriers.
X Deny employment opportunities, including hiring, promotion, training, and fringe benefits, for which
they are otherwise entitled or qualified....
These and other prohibitions against discrimination based on disability can be found in the DHHS Section 504 regulation at 45 CFR Part 84.
For information on how to file a complaint of discrimination, or to obtain information of a civil rights nature, please contact us. OCR employees will make every effort to provide prompt service.
Hotlines: 1-800-368-1019 (Voice) 1-800-537-7697 (TDD)
E-Mail: ocrmail@hhs.gov Website: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr
Your Rights Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
(H-8/June 2000 – revised June 2006 - English)
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
I would suggest reading this - http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/195/195.F3d.1020.99-1335.html
And this - http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/ada17.html
From the above:
"Title I of the ADA protects qualified individuals with disabilities from employment discrimination. Under the ADA, a person has a disability if he has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity. The ADA also protects individuals who have a record of a substantially limiting impairment, and people who are regarded as having a substantially limiting impairment.
To be protected under the ADA, an individual must have, have a record of, or be regarded as having a substantial, as opposed to a minor, impairment. A substantial impairment is one that significantly limits or restricts a major life activity such as hearing, seeing, speaking, breathing, performing manual tasks, walking, caring for oneself, learning or working.
An individual with a disability must also be qualified to perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation, in order to be protected by the ADA. This means that the applicant or employee must:
* satisfy your job requirements for educational background, employment experience, skills, licenses, and any other qualification standards that are job related; and
* be able to perform those tasks that are essential to the job, with or without reasonable accommodation.
The ADA does not interfere with your right to hire the best qualified applicant. Nor does the ADA impose any affirmative action obligations. The ADA simply prohibits you from discriminating against a qualified applicant or employee because of her disability."
Also from the above:
"In Sutton v. United Air Lines, --- U.S. ---, 119 S.Ct. 2139 (1999)
This theory did not state a claim under the ADA since an employer may lawfully exclude an employee with limited physical capacities from a particular job. "By its terms, the ADA allows employers to prefer some physical attributes over others and to establish physical criteria" even if those criteria would substantially limit a person's employment opportunities if they were adopted by a large number of employers. Id. at 2150-52. It is not enough for a plaintiff to demonstrate that he is regarded as unable to perform a particular job or type of job. Id. at 2151. To be regarded as substantially limited in the major life activity of working, one must be regarded as precluded from a substantial class of jobs.
And this - VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER WITH ASTHMA NOT QUALIFIED FOR CAREER FIREFIGHTING POSITION from here - http://www.fireengineering.com/index/articles/display/59519/article...
-
-
I found this interesting, from here - http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/ada/ch4.htm
"The following is an overview of the current legal obligations for employers and employees:
*
An individual who is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs is not an “individual with a disability” when the employer acts on the basis of such use.
*
An employer may not discriminate against a person who has a history of drug addiction but who is not currently using drugs and who has been rehabilitated.
*
An employer may prohibit the illegal use of drugs and the use of alcohol at the workplace.
*
It is not a violation of the ADA for an employer to give tests for the illegal use of drugs.
*
An employer may discharge or deny employment to persons who currently engage in the illegal use of drugs.
*
Employees who use drugs or alcohol may be required to meet the same standards of performance and conduct that are set for other employees.
*
Employees may be required to follow the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 and rules set by federal agencies pertaining to drug and alcohol use in the workplace.[5] "
and this:
"The ADA provides that employers may:
*
prohibit the use of alcohol in the workplace;[49]
*
require that employees not be under the influence of alcohol in the workplace;[50] and
*
hold an employee with alcoholism to the same employment standards to which the employer holds other employees even if the unsatisfactory performance or behavior is related to the alcoholism.[51] "
-
Permalink Reply by M.J. 6821 on
-
Ok I wonder if all the members believe this or just a select few? I know I don't want to go interior with a guy that might be under the influence of narcotics. I also wouldnt want to go interior with a guy that has cardiac problems or any other medical condition that can cause him to be ineffective it just makes a dangerous job even more so.
-
-
Parts of the ADA are BS it basically takes responsibility off the person and puts it on the employer.
"Good news your addicted to pot and showed up to work stoned, have a good shift let us know what we can do to accomodate your illness."
-
-
Actually, that's entirely incorrect. Check out the links in my previous reply.
An individual who is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs is not an “individual with a disability” when the employer acts on the basis of such use.
-
-
so I can LEGALLY be addicted to prescription drugs and be fine ...
-
-
That may be true but how about the guys that are addicted to pain killers or any other drugs. The point of my post is that we need to take responsibilty for our actions. Not just with Drugs but with our health if we eat poorly and have cardiac problems we cant just expect everyone to make exceptions for us we need to try to work on getting our health back in line not just for our job but our family.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
