Fired for failing breathalyzer from Inhaler?

Wasn't it 0.02... not 0.2?

You make the point of 'if he recorded a 0.019'... well, if he did it wasn't recorded that way. It was 0.02. And is there any way to get the actual measurement, to that accuracy, after the fact?

 

Let's get real for a moment. The chances are that if you are affected by the testing requirements of 49 CFR and you blow almost any level while on duty, chances are you are consuming alcohol. I have asked people like @Concorde trained to administer these tests what is the % of blows that are marginal. Over the years, I have received conflicting answers. I was at the Greenville SC Amtrak station many years ago with a friend. She was waiting on her sister to arrive and did not want to be alone. It seems that the engineer was drunk (drinking). The front of the train was several hundred feet from the station, but I watched several people walking toward the engine. I did not see them test, but I do know they had another engineer on standby, and she took the train toward Charlotte. It guess somebody at the point when they changed crews noticed something and called it in.

The only real difference between Amtrak and Railroad personnel subject to the same 49 CFR and truckers is the Union they are members of.

Personally, I am in favor of ONLY blowing .00 to pass. Blow a marginal amount, and you get blood tested. Nobody with even a marginal amount in their body needs to be operating a Train or driving a 40-ton truck on the highways.

 

"what is the % of blows that are marginal" That would be interesting to know.
Go back and read post #14. Read the link about false positives. If a law firm has that on their website it must be more common than most think.

 

Yes, my error, meant 0.02

 

Of all the random tests I’ve been picked for over the years I’ve only had to do one test for alcohol. I don’t know what everyone else’s experience has been but to me it seems like it’s very rare to get an alcohol test.

 

The "possibility argument" has probably been used 95% of the time by people who WERE consuming alcohol, so it seems corporations just ain't buying that anymore......

There is a world of difference between "disabled" and "having a disability":

"Disabled" is a continuum of reduced ability to work, ranging from minor restrictions to "full and total disability" (which is a rather loosely-defined legal definition) to absolutely, completely disabled. The EEOC requires employers to allow "reasonable accommodations" for those with a disability. However, how you balance that with the regulations for highway safety is a question that has no easy answers. In the past, if you had asthma and were dependent on a nebulizer, sorry, you could NOT drive. No arguments were accepted; this was a hard and fast rule.

"Having a disability" includes everyone who has a chronic condition, a limiting injury, and various cognitive issues (but not small limits on visual or aural acuity).

I myself have a chronic kidney disorder. When my kidneys first 'officially' failed I was legally declared as having a "total and permanent disability". After a year or so of dialysis, I regained enough strength and stamina to return to full-time work, so for a period of 3 years I was still classified as "disabled", and was gradually removed from Social Security Disability funds, depending on the time elapsed and my income.

Once that period ended, I was no longer considered "disabled" by the rules of official Social Security Disability, but i still had a disability, and will always have that. As of now (especially since my transplant), I am limited only by the amount of hours I can physically work, which luckily is still more than 40 hrs. a week. I'm 64 this year, so retirement is only maybe 3 years away, at which point the distinction will be moot, at least financially..

This guy may have a case, IF everything is as he states. However, having dropped his post here then ghosted it makes me wonder if this was just some bored keyboard jockey creating drama.

 

As I stated, I got conflicting answers.

As to the other part. It is CRITICAL to remember DUIs are a criminal matter. Unless the driver was stopped under suspicion of DUI/DWI the testing is handled administratively. Let's make sure we are not confusing these things.

In a criminal case of DUI/DWI the entire process is handled through State Law and Caselaw. Everything from the calibration of the machine to the drivers options are different.

When it comes to testing under 49 CFR the situation is NOT criminal. The driver has very few options. In these boards people keep bringing up things like HIPAA and ADA etc. What they don't understand is federal regulations, especially in heavily regulated industries like Trucking and railroads. heck, even Federal Aviation Admin regulated activities are exempted when it comes to safety.

This is why most of us oldtimers have been preaching to avoid these situations when it comes to drug and alcohol testing. Once you get entangled in this process, it is almost as bad as having children's services involved in your life. They don't quit.

 

Ok. Point I was trying to make is that there are false positives whether that be for a CDL holder or a driver of a 4 wheeler. What we still don't know is if the OP was given a Confirmation Test.
@ Ex-Trucker Alex OP posted a new thread yesterday.
TMC Des Moines