Becoming an O/O with bad past

Before you reply to me again, please press 1 for english.

 

Se Senior!

 

as near as i can tell 'attorney in fact,' simply means you hold someone's power of attorney. in that case, i'm also an 'attorney in fact.'

but that's neither here nor there (moot, as you barristers say) - you could be F. Lee Cochran Darrow: regardless of the circumstances, or how many details this fellow provides, or how few victims, or anything else - FAILING A DRUG TEST IS AS ABOUT AS CLOSE TO A DEATH SENTENCE AS A TRUCKING CAREER CAN GET. thank goodness.

 

Astute observation! However, I am an "Attorney in Fact" who has earned his Juris Doctorate in Law from "Southern Nova University" in South Florida.

And since you seem to want to make an issue of this, lets take one another to task. However, we must first agree on the ground rules. No rhetoric! Any contention either of us make must be supported by a recognized authority, viz, the United States Code, the Code of Federal Regulations and/or any precedent cited by any Appellate Court in the land, including, but not limited to, the State Appellate Court of your choice. I’ll even give you the State Statute of your choice. After you make an absolute statement like "FAILING A DRUG TEST IS AS ABOUT AS CLOSE TO A DEATH SENTENCE AS A TRUCKING CAREER CAN GET", you must cite the legal authority for that assertion. Otherwise we’d be at it, "he said she said", ad infinitum. Agreed? Let’s go!

I assert to you, here and now, that failing a drug test isn’t nearly "a close to a death sentence" in this industry. In fact, I further assert that, other than seeking employment through corporate capacities, viz, Werner, Swift, Wallmart, etc., who have civil reciprocity agreements between one another, failing a drug test will hardly matter even with an insurance company. Being convicted of an offense of Driving While Under the Influence of an Intoxicating Beverage or Controlled Substance, on the other hand, may certainly be fatal to one’s driving career, but even that is not unrecoverable under most circumstances.

What you don’t seem to understand is that failing a companies drug test is not considered a conviction under the State or Federal judicial systems. In fact, its not even considered an infraction of the law, civilly or criminally. When asked on an employment application whether or not one had been convicted of any such behavior, the answer would result in a resounding "No", and lawfully so. Furthermore, the gentlemen in question can contest the results of his previous companies negative drug test results with any future inquirers, even now! That’s because the results of a companies drug test is ambiguous at best, is not a judicial determination and insurance companies are not bound to withhold coverage under Federal or State law on those grounds, and trust me, they love to write policies, especially expensive ones. I’m not saying he may not have more difficulty than the next guy, I’m saying its completely recoverable.

In support of the foregoing, I cite the authority of Title 49, Chapter 311 of the United States Code, "Transportation/ Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety". Nowhere in Title 49 does Congress criminalize, civilly penalize, or even mention for that matter, failing a companies drug testing procedure as any cause of action whatsoever against a commercial driver’s license. The only detriment to one so charged is completely contained within the industry and a matter of corporate policy. Nothing more, and nothing less.

As a final note, insurance companies do not ask prospective policy holders whether they have ever failed a company drug test. Their only concern is with your criminal behavior and they check your history personally. Now, if one were to volunteer that one had failed a company drug test to an insurance company, that might make a difference with some, but certainly not all, and certainly not to the point of absolute exclusion. Your rebuttal! :smt021

 

i said, "about as close."

i also said that with some effort, he could probably find work.

but, unless he does get his own authority, he's pretty well screwed. just a guess, but from what i've observed, he's excluded from 99% of the jobs most of us could 'walk into' tomorrow.

and as far as getting his authority, it has been pointed out here (ad infinitum and nauseum) how expensive the tolls on that road are. more importantly - would that be wise at this moment? failed drug test, obviously in a less than positive frame of mind, company driver 10 years - it just doesn't sound like a classic formula for success. who knows?

however, as far as this not being as 'serious' as he might think (while i don't know exactly what he's thinking) i'm sorry - but you're just dead wrong. this is serious.

on the other hand, you have your own authority and "rig(s)" - put the boy to work.

 

Now your talking my language. Getting his own authority was part of my point in the first instance. Another part of my point was that the corporate employers hang together and support one another to such a degree that they have created a "DAC" employment data base which they share and use against us. So why can't we take a lesson there? I help my fellow truckers in any way I can, with no expectation or recompense. The opposition doesn't. They cooperate together, coordinate together, cultivate us together, and never capitulate. Why not help one of our own who very well might have gotten a bad break. Maybe he smoked a joint on his off duty time and a week later he tested negative for the companies drug test. I don't know. I don't do drugs whatsoever, but a lot of people do... and its sanctioned for the most part. You can ingest the drug "alcohol" on you off duty time, because government permits it (and can tax it). Sober up to legal levels, and drive your heart out! Safely too! Hell you can be a dang alcoholic for Pete's sake. Long as your blood alcohol content remains at legal levels while driving, no harm no foul, as far as the authorities are concerned. Moreover, which is medically more detrimental? Alcohol is! And don't think I haven't worked my fair share of vehicular homicides and seen the mayhem from stupid drivers. But I'll tell you one thing, for every thousand accidents you'll be lucky to find a single trucker at fault. That's been my personal twenty years plus law enforcement experience. I personally know cops who tested negative for cannabis, were suspended for a period of time, went into rehab, and are working in law enforcement today. I think I'd be more concerned if the guy we're talking about wasn't a trucker and was just a guy with an operators driver's license.

Now if you wanna discuss morality you might find me taking a completely different posture. But we're not talking morality here, were talking about a kid with a 10 year work history (presumably with a family to feed) beating the street on a daily basis with a single stain on his... no excuse me, not his... his adversaries employment history of him. I'm not going to sit in judgment of my fellow trucker, especially based on "Swift's" interpretation of him. He didn't drive while intoxicated. He didn't break any laws. He didn't put my family, or yours, in danger, he flunked the dang "company drug test." What kind of drug he tested positive to makes all the difference to me, that's why I asked him. If he responds that he is a heroin addict, or a crack head, I believe my advice would be decidedly different, if any at all. But if he responds that he had cannabis residue in his hair follicles, to be honest, I wouldn't be near so tempted to condemn him, even though I don't agree with doing drugs in any form and as a retired police detective I've spent most of my adult life condemning them in all forms, including alcohol.

In any event, I respect your opinion and I hope you at least considered mine. Right or wrong, I'm gonna help my brothers and sisters at every turn, you can bet the farm on that.

Note: The guy we're talking about probably quit this board and is a dispatcher somewhere now, lol.

 

On this point we have no disagreement. In fact, I once quit a company who, unhappy with my decision to leave, absolutely trashed me to DAC. I did everything (short of hiring a lawyer) I could to clear it - but as we all know, DAC is a stacked deck and USIS is a big casino.

From that point on, I've simply rufused to sign the waiver allowing any prospective employer to report me. I offer to get a copy of my DAC - and show them that - but never will I again participate in the further libeling of my name by anyone. Just my tiny way of saying 'enough.'

So far, so good - haven't had any problem finding work (though I have no idea how many didn't hire me because of it.) And if it ever comes to the point it becomes a problem - I'll go independent - I feel that strongly that DAC is little more than a tool for blackmail.

Though I have no delusions it could ever happen- if we all refused to participate in this system that unjustly hurts many a good person - it would go away quickly. We (drivers) ultimately allow DAC to stay in business. But sadly, as another poster on this forum noted, "truck drivers couldn't organize a picnic lunch."

 

I know someone who says just draw a line throgh that part of it and initial it. Not sure how that would fly with the hiring company though. I guess they could choose not to hire you for not allowing them to use it. I don't know for sure. He used to be a recruiter. He was a O/O with a dozen trucks before that.


This is what he says............The carrier you applied to should also give you a copy if you request one. In fact they should give you a copy or at least review everything in your personal file.

Everyone needs to learn and not forget, the reason DAC has information on you is because your employer gave them your information BASED ON YOUR AUTHORIZATION. EMPLOYERS ARE PAID THREE DOLLARS FOR EVERY TERMINATION RECORD IT RECEIVES FROM EMPLOYERS!

IS YOUR LIVELIHOOD WORTH $3 ???

STOP AUTHORIZING CARRIERS TO FURNISH DAC YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION!
I have no problem with a company checking my background, but I think your missing the main point. The DAC release has a statement that you authorize the carrier to release your information to them so they can in turn pass it on to others.

Why doesn't DAC just simply ask the driver if its okay for them to acquire your information from your company so they can pass it on to others. Why does the carrier have to be the sales representatve for DAC Services?

The reason is if DAC asked drivers for permission than DAC would be out of business in a heartbeat. So they cleverly slip this line in the DAC authorization because they bet drivers aren't going to read it word for word. And you know what, they are correct in their assumption.

I set up DAC for our company and I received all the information from them including the recommended releases all typed up nice and pretty. A carrier doesn't have to do a thing because DAC has already done everything for them.

So carriers typically just photo copy this stuff and get drivers to sign it. I'm not even sure if the OOIDA has caught on to this scheme that DAC has orchestrated so well.

So I'm not talking about refusing to sign the release in its entirety just the one statement in the release. Draw a line through that statement and initial it.

 

Weggie:

Regarding that company that trashed you Weggie, even if the information reported to DAC by your previous company was correct, but negative, DAC affords you the right to submit what they call a "driver rebuttal". A driver rebuttal is essentially your statement of the facts as you see them. This rebuttal will be placed on the report along with the employer's information. You may enter a rebuttal for each entry on your DAC employment report. However, try to use rebuttals sparingly, because to many on a report will raise a red flag to recruiters or prospective employers.

If you don’t mind a little further advice, while you are still driving for a company, you should review your report at least once a year. It is absolutely essential that you know what is contained on their DAC employment report. It is just like a credit report that must be maintained and validated for correct information. Remember, all information put into the DAC system is done by human hands so errors will occur. In addition, DAC takes the position that it is important to maintain a level of fair reporting by previous employers. You, as a driver, must take the time to review your report and make the necessary corrections.

You can you find out what is on your DAC employment report by calling the DAC Consumer Department at 1-800-381-0645 and ask for a copy. DAC also has a web site, at www (dot) dacservices (dot) com (gotta list it that way cause I can't post links till I have more than 20 posts, lol) which can provide information as well, although you will not be able to access your DAC employment report online. Once you have a copy of the DAC, review it. Chances are the information may be correct, but if it is not, it is time to act. If you find incorrect information you should start by contacting the applicable employer and request a correction. Most employer’s will likely be willing to correct any incorrect information, because if they don’t they’re held liable by DAC and subject to civil litigation, should you decide to take that route. It’s called "Defamation of Character".

On a final note, it would be nice for all Truckers to come together in one big cooperative family and I agree, that at this point at least, its not realistic. However, you don’t need the masses to effect changes in the industry. What we do need is for each of us to effect our own individual changes one person at a time. Do that... and watch the masses follow your lead without hesitation. You never know, pretty soon, we might actually start backing each other. And remember, there’s always at least one perfect solution to even the most egregious of circumstances. :smt117

 

Thank you Onexcop-

Excellent advice regarding DAC, duly noted, and already done. And frankly, I'm still ruminating over how far to take my grievance. I do not feel the information the company offered is correct in any sense, but rather a vindictive 'shot.' Naturally, that pisses me off.

On the other hand, I suspect it will boil down to the definition of what 'correct,' is, if you get my drift.

And not to seem lazy or cheap (both probably legitimate complaints against me) but I'm not really sure I need, or am of a mood, to get into a fight that stressful. Also, it's difficult for me to conjure up any serious (legally speaking) damage that has been done because of their actions. Perhaps you see it differently - in which case...I'm all ears.

And by the way - the DAC rebuttal process is a joke. The illiterate clerks in Tulsa put your remarks into their own words - not exactly quality communication, in my humble opinion. And that's being kind. Next topic - the education system -lol.

Thanks again.