Anti-depressants allowed? Employment discrimination?

Heck....if it wasn't for meds, I'd have run over half these SOBs YEARS ago!!

 

Get over yourself and take the tin hat off. It is completely understandable that in an industry that has very strict regulations regarding pharmaceutical products to ask whether or not one could be discriminated against because they take a certain type of legal drug.

I, for one, am much more interested in the professionalism of an individual who wants to ask questions and get answers regarding their potential for employment rather than a sneering wannabe who is threatened by someone who they have never met.

And, age discrimination is another reasonable question to ask. Aspects of the industry are physically intensive and certain companies could potentially, whether they would officially recognize it, wary about hiring an older individual. The older driver's get, often their health insurance premiums increase.

 

With as 'sue happy' as this country is these days, when someone starts bringing up 'discrimination' it makes it sound like they are just looking for an excuse to go after a company. It's a good idea to learn the regulations, and there is a list of medications available at FMCSA's website. Whether a drug is legal or not, if it's banned, you won't get hired if you're taking it. You also have to keep up with medications, as sometimes a medication will get approved only to be banned later. Chantix is a prime example of one of those medications.

Then we have the ones that come in here asking about the drug testing methods in a way that just sounds like a user wanting to beat the system. There are enough black marks against this industry as it is, earned or not, we don't need anymore.

 

Reasonable to a certain degree, however, I believe the inclusion of the word "discrimination" in thread titles is not indicative of an individual being a con-artist.

This industry, like many other's, is not past bigotry and prejudice, and questions of discrimination ought to be met head-on rather than with skepticism and conspiracy. Any thread about newbies and wannabes who are anything less than a complete affirmation of the male hetero-normative social structure is evidence enough to show how far behind our industry is in regards to tolerance.

Is this individual seeking out companies for an easy lawsuit over discrimination? I can't answer that, but, until I see a smoking gun indicating this I will give the OP the benefit of the doubt that he is simply looking for the best company for himself, one that won't look down upon him because he has more years behind him or because he is on an approved anti-depressant.

And a question or two about "discrimination" in an industry with an appalling record of tolerance is no smoking gun.

 

I take I call them my happy pills. The only adverse side effect they have is they keep me from killing people that other wise I would really like to. They give me patience that I wouldn't have other wise. To the person that posted that no one using that kinda of med. should not be allowed to drive. That statement shows your ignorance on the subject. You might want to learn about the subject that you talk about before you speak on the subject.

 

Discrimination is discrimination. Alcoholism is a disease. That is a medical fact and a legal fact. You need to educate yourself about the facts of the case before you say it's wrong. The trucker in this case went to his employer and asked for help and they fired him, not for drunk driving but for admitting he had a disease he could not control. They can't do that. If they could, then nobody would ask for help and there are thousands of them driving out there right now that need help.

 

You are so right. There is a tremendous amount of bigotry and hypocracy and discrimination and plain ignorance in this industry from top to bottom. Too many drivers have no problem with it until it affects them personally. Discrimination in all forms should be exposed and expelled and like it or not the most effective way to do that in the good ol' U.S. of A. is through lawsuits. This country was founded on a lawsuit against the King of England.

 

It's called the Declaration of Independence.

 

Incorrect. Any job that is considered a 'safety sensitive' position (like moving 80,000 lbs of truck and cargo down the public highways, flying an airplane, etc.) is not subject to the ADA rules.

Would YOU want a mentally unstable, possibly suicidal driver operating a loaded truck on the same highway that you are driving on?

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

 

There is a huge difference between a driver taking DOT allowed meds and a mentally unstable, possibly suicidal driver. There is no comparison. I've met plenty of mentally unstable drivers that aren't taking meds, that should be. Your discriminating yourself when you catagorize all drivers taking meds with such a blanket statement.. The point I was trying to make is that trucking companies are not allowed to set their own arbitrary rules and conditions when it comes to medical issues because then they are discriminating based on their own prejudices, not DOT set standards for a CDL. Truck drivers have the same protection under ADA as anybody else. Also, as a retired police officer I can tell you that the 'safety sensitive' argument does not wash either. There are plenty of cops and firefighters taking some of the same meds we've been talking about still on the job today. It is not up to trucking companies to decide what is prohibited when it comes to a driver's meds, as long as the driver meets DOT standards. Admitted alcoholic truckers are even protected from discrimination under ADA (see EEOC vs. Old Dominion). Just because a prescribed medication 'might cause drowsiness' does not give the trucking company the right to prohibit their drivers from taking it. Under that logic, eating a big meal before driving could be prohibited because that WILL cause drowsiness.