I don't understand why people think they can do this

Ok.......I won't "blame" your boss for the driver drinking. I'll blame him for knowingly allowing that driver anywhere near a CMV. If your "Boss" isn't the owner of the company, he/she ought to be fired too!

 

To answer the title.
Because the boss or owner allows that type of behavior.
Owner might need to be a little more proactive with random testing, before he loses his business.

When workers are hearing the whispers of others that are drinking on the job. You can bet an attorney can get those same people to tell it out load in a civil suit.

 

Why do you think the FMCSA tightened up the rules over these last 15 or so years. Everything from the ELD mandate to the clearinghouse and M.E.registry? It gets lost because the average driver does NOT see the big picture. If I took the time to list them I could max out my word limit on one post and make 2 or 3 more listings of all the things that have happened because of drivers being strung out or simply too plastered to drive!

I will list two.

LIMON COLORADO

Pennsylvania


I have reported these stories in these forums and others hundreds of times. There are even some publications for safety personnel that reports these accidents. The FMCSA as well as the US DOT and ALL 48 lower states are being hammered to fix this! From tired drivers to drunk or otherwise impaired drivers, all the same, the carnage is real but again the average driver is not seeing these reports. This situation is not going to just go away either.

This crap is one of many reasons WHY part 391 is being enforced like it is today. People think I am using hyperbole when I say safety critters pee themselves when an FMCSA safety auditor identifies themselves and asked to see the DQFs. I guarantee that @brian991219 will back me up on that! In fact, a number of years ago a safety critter had to be carried via ambulance to the ER just as a safety audit started. Again, the average driver is not privy to this intense pressure.

This is why I get so exacerbated and roll my eyes when I see drivers crying about their history and being advised in these forums and others like them to hide or otherwise obfuscate an application. Thankfully this is getting harder and harder to do. I am not trying to be difficult or to troll these boards. BUT, if you can't safely operate a CMV, give the 21st-century stakes, well maybe you should stick to flipping burgers!

 

Well said @Moose1958 and you are not exaggerating at all. Driver qualification and especially qualification related to drug and alcohol compliance is what worries a safety critter, as you so eloquently call them, the most. This is critical to the defense and continued operation of the company as not only does the FMCSA look closely at these records (almost all of the new enterant audit is focused on the DQ file) but so do insurance companies and in the event of a crash -even one your driver is not at fault for- so do the ambulance chasing trial lawyers. They drool over incomplete DQ files because they can use that information to show disregard for safety on the part of the employer and use the theory that the driver wasn't properly qualified and shouldn't have been on the road, meaning if the driver wasn't there the crash wouldn't have occurred. This results in huge settlements weekly before the case even goes to trial!

Although trucking still has one of the lowest per capitia rates of illegal drug use or alcohol abuse among all industries we do have a problem which is why the Clearinghouse exisits today.

Prior to the Clearinghouse exisiting many drivers that were caught high or drunk would simply go get another job and forget to mention their last employer. Now, if the employers do their part and follow through on reporting these instances to the Clearinghouse the drivers will in essence be red flagged.

Now for the driver in this thread, their career is pretty much over for the next 5-10 years unless they somehow get the DUI dismissed, which unfortunately happens more that it should. Whole law firms have been built around exploiting technicalities in defense of the despicable practice of drunk or drugged driving.

Now, if I were the employer in question I would not have offered to let the driver keep driving until conviction no matter how desperate I was for drivers since once you as an employer have actual knowledge of a substance abuse problem you must remove that driver from service until they have been cleared by a substance abuse professional. Further, since I have an outright hatred for impared drivers, I would have ordered him to report for a reasonable suspicion alcohol test and reported the results to the Clearinghouse so to end his career until he gets the help he so desperately needs.

Not trying to ruin the man but he needs to be removed from behind the wheel of a truck until he gets help. As his employer and given the fact he was a long term employee I would have even paid for the council and treatment to rehabilitate him so he could return to work when he was clean and sober.

 

Sorry 356, from a fleet owners point of view, this is such a lame excuse and a piss poor owner.

Why the heck do you think insurance is so high for all of us?

It is because of this stupid crap, making excuses about looking the other way.

The system is ok, needs to be more of a punishment, like drinking and driving a truck, automatic lose the cdl for life, and do it again go to jail.