Two bills were filed on Thursday, one each with the House and Senate, that would allow carriers to use hair samples for drug testing prospective drivers. Currently the law requires that carriers must use urine analysis tests for pre-employment screenings.
The congressional bill is being proposed by Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) and Sen. John Boozman (R-AR) along with Rep. Rick Crawford (R-AR), and the house bill is being proposed by Reps. Tom Cotton (R-AR), Steve Womack (R-AR), Tim Griffin (R-AR) and Reid Ribble (R-WI). In a statement from Sen. Pryor’s office, the bills, titled The Drug Free Commercial Trucking Act of 2013, would allow the DOT to “to recognize hair-testing as alternative option to give companies greater flexibility when conducting drug and alcohol testing.”
Currently if a carrier wishes to conduct hair follicle drug testing, they may do so, but it does not count as the mandatory drug screening that is currently a federal requirement. This causes companies who wish to be as accurate as possible in their pre-employment screenings to pay for two rounds of drug screenings.
Hair testing is far more accurate and efficient at weeding out potential drug users than urinalysis. According to Sen. Pryor’s office, “urinalysis is often less effective in detecting substance abuse, with only a 2-3 day window of detection, than hair- testing, which provides a 60-90 day window.”
The gap between 2-3 days and 2-3 months makes a huge difference. Between March of 2008 and June of 2012, Schneider National’s urinalysis drug tests disqualified only 120 prospective drivers, while hair sample testing disqualified 1,400 applicants.
Next Story: Fleet Owner Pleads Guilty To FMCSA Bribery
Source: fleetowner
ConcernedCitizen says
I understand the desire and need to keep drugged up drivers off the road, but I do not agree with hair samples. I’ve been subject to urine and hair tests during my non-driving employment career and I find it degrading. My last hair sample test left a bald patch on the back of my head for a long time (months). I like my hair and I don’t take kindly to someone else cutting out swatches of it because they fear I’m a drug addict. Urinating in a cup doesn’t cause any physical damage and can be recovered from near instantly (we urinate all the time). What’s next? Adding blood screening to pre-employment tests? Why not DNA samples so they can check if there’s a match against some government DNA database?
Techslave says
Stop giving them ideas!
Mark says
Valid point. Hair testing can be used for DNA extraction. So if you’re predisposed to cancer, or any other sickness that can be detected through DNA, You may be disqualified by the company. After all, we can’t have those health care costs go up with high risk employees.
Southbound 95 says
…… And yet no one can figure why the heck is driver shortage minus 300,000 !! Go figure , they want cameras , hair sample , can’t do this cant do that !!! And to top everything off truckers pay is less than an average Mc Donald’s employee. ??????!!! Yeah I can’t figure out why there is a driver shortage .
jonp says
If your in a state that allows recreational use of pot will this use during your off time disqualify you from driving a commercial vehicle if you never leave the borders of the state? Will states that allow this now issue special “intra-state” CDL’s for their citizens?
Stephen says
The feds don’t recognize the state allowance of banned drugs. Specifically, driving on any highway or roadway that has used any federal dollars allows the DOT to govern the driver. so it doesn’t matter if the state allows you to use pot recreationally. The DOT doesn’t. And what’s more, employers don’t allow it either.
So any use of pot or any other illegal drug is forbidden in every state. Drivers are subject to dismissal. Period.
If you want to toke, you just can’t drive.
Flower child says
We are giving up all expectations of privacy! You boys be good little socialist and shut up!
Ray says
I guess hair testing is ok. They can test hair from any part of the body. They should make exceptions for drugs that are prescribed though.
Eric says
when I was applying to different places, I was actually disqualified from one because I kept my hair crew cut. I was told I needed at LEAST 2 inches of hair. When I told them I had short hair, they told me they could take it “from someplace lower”….. Ummmmm No.
Research First says
Often hair samples are taken from random parts of the body and can detect drug use/exposure up to a decade prior. This should not be a valid means. What happened 10 years ago should not be declared current evidence and especially if that frame goes into the sealed juvenile records. Prescribed drugs are grounds for disqualification because you can’t take many prescription drugs and drive. So it doesn’t matter if you were in the hospital 2 years ago on a morphine drip from an accident. You have opiate traces in your hair-no driving career for you. This is going to back fire.
gryphon says
Not true.
I worked in the drug testing industry for years and the misconceptions and misinformation, like your post, is rampant.
The longest certifiable detection window when other body hair or finger/toe nails is used is 1 YEAR.
T Owens says
Come on now, just be compliant. Give the hair sample, give the urine sample, offer up the retnal scan, heck do a rectal exam too. Do as the Gov says n don’t resist. It’s all for the good of the people. Submit yourself n don’t be the example. Now we all kno that the gov would never do anything to harm his people’s. they would never illegally tap phone lines or record cell phone conversations or the GPS locations or secretly steal your email and text messages. Those millions of surveillance cameras are there to protect you, not to build evidence against you. They would never harrass innocent people and confiscate your gun collection and ammo (Aka-arsinal stockpile) or sieze your bank account. They would never try to suburbanize the population so they are left totally dependent on the gov. And that thing about racial profiling, it’s just a myth.
Honestly, just be compliant and it will hurt less! Hahahahahahaha
mongoose1 says
well lets see there is a driver shortage they say, and with more regulation comeing down all the time no one will want to drive otr. its a last resort for some who dont really have a trade. lets face it with all the out sourceing of jobs for cheap labor over seas the only jobs left are medical, fast food and trucking jobs. which by the way otr really is a bums job when you think about it. last thing left for the uneducated person. and the pay is not really that good. good luck on more regs. lol
Cliff Downing says
And what of the driver, who may not have been a driver or in a driving position say, 3 months earlier, and was living in an area that legally allowed recreational use of marijuana, now it hair tested for a driver position. The urinalysis is clean, since the driver had not been recently using, yet the hair sample shows he did 3 months earlier. Now he is discriminated in hiring. So, for the desire of the carrier to now become the arbiter of morality in America, a potential driver loses out. I can just see the wheels turning at the law firm of Burn ‘Em and Run. This is a can of worms that need not be opened.
R. Lackore says
Until hair testing can be ‘just’ across the board I can not see the DOT implementing hair testing as standard practice without opening themselves up to a “truck load” of legal repercussion. It has been proven in clinical trials that there are far too many variables in and effecting the rate of hair growth; sex of the person, race, climate, seasons of the year, overall health, diet, age, etc. What may be a 90 day cut off for one may not be the same for another. Does not matter if we are only speaking of subtle differenences the “all for one and one for all” rule must hold true to avoid any hint of discrimination. Also, at what point will hair testing start to infringe upon privacy laws? What one does in their private lives as long as it does not interfer with or have any effect on one’s job performance and is breaking no laws, should not be incorporated into any rule. No entity should have that much power over a civiian and with the country’s attitude and laws changing rapidly on the acceptable use of medical and recreational marijuana the DOT can not hold hostage a group of citizens and hold them accountable to a separate set ot rules/laws.
robin says
I agree with concerned citizens that too many hair samplings and you’re not going to have any hair left.
examiner took one could chunk from the back of my head and I have always had very long hair down below my waist and when I saw that mound of hair in her hand it was like, ALL MY GOD… YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!
This was totally ridiculous.
Picture hair that’s at least 36 inches long and a chunk of about a half inch in diameter and that’s what she took.
One year later, my company wanted another sample and I told him no way in hell are they going to do that to me again.
With the threat of termination, I went in for the exam and told them they could take it from anywhere else in the body but they’re not going to take out chunks of hair again period.
Imagine my anger when the guy told me that the first examiner did not follow the rules and was just lazy as their only supposed to “feather” areas for the samples.
Which brings up another point… if they’re going to start requiring hair sampling they should pass regulations of how many times a year that samples can be taken and also allow the samples to be shared [with your permission of course] with other companies.
I can understand urinating in a cup for a sample… but to cut something off your body… that’s totally asinine!
Ace says
I have nothing to worry about let them test my hair.
I just wish all government jobs of holding public office would require a hair sample drug test once a year. If they fail they lose thier job and pension. Time for these people we elect to practice what they preach!!!!