TMC Lawsuit

I personally have never failed one. I had a driver working for me that did. The medical examiner tried to get ahold of him for several days before finally contacting me to report the positive test.

It is my understanding that they are supposed to ask you about medication and such before they file it on your record and notify your employer.

I may be wrong, but that’s how I was led to believe it worked.

 

I’ll just stop engaging with you. You have a tendency to beat things to death. You argue just for the sake of arguing. No matter what is said you choose to take a contrarian view and beat it to death. Just like the other thread about moving over. You offer vague studies and anecdotal evidence but you have no substance. And can’t concede that you may be wrong.

you are the white bread of TTR.
Flavorless, and useless but offer a lot of filler and BS nobody needs.

 

Asking about how they know in the drug test?
Part 382 cover it in detail, I'll go over the highlights as I remember them, but I'm not an expert on that side of things.
Federal Register :: Request Access

Basically a driver fills out a form, gives the urine sample and signs it after sealing. The sample is then sent to a lab for testing. The lab does the test and sends the results to an MRO (Medical Resource Officer) who works with, but not for, the lab.If no issues MRO calls company and reports a clean result and moves to the next driver. If a test exceeds a set threshold for specific drugs in one's system or any other issue the MRO will attempt to call the driver. If not successful after a certain number of attempts (I don't know if it's regulation or policy that dictates the attempts) it's a failed test and is reported to the company and Drug Clearinghouse as a failed test.
Now if the MRO does contact the driver several questions should be asked trying to determine if there is a valid reason for the results. It really depends on the drivers answers and explanation if the MRO will suggest a split test, or if there is a valid reason for the result.
For example if a driver has a high THC result, but claims anesthesia as the reason the MRO is unlikely to believe him as that's not a way to have high THC. Now, if it's a high cocaine result and it happened in the last few days then it's likely a valid reason for the high result. Same with prescriptions, if something is high they should ask if you take any prescriptions. You'll fax or email the doctors prescription to the MRO as proof. Same with any medical procedure like an
anesthesia. You'll give the MRO proof. If it's plausible then the MRO should mark it as a good test and inform the company as such.

 

This is where i call bs on this suit.. the person making the allegations is claiming they wanted them to take a drug test but they didn’t wanna take a drug test because they were under anesthesia not once Did they ever mention anything about the alleged prescription drugs so that in turn tells me they basically did not want to take a drug test.

They wanted to flat out refuse it which under DOT grounds they have a right to fire you…. and so far it looks like all this is just hearsay unless they’ve got emails from TMC that back all the stuff out that was allegedly said that this person…

Basically what it looks like to me is somebody just simply playing the race card trying to get a payday… Until I see evidence come out in a courtroom that proves otherwise I’m sticking with that claim .

 

A much better view, Question everything! Why/how could initial complaints/accusations be let go without real investigation? Why/how could a company knowing full well the actual implications of not investigating/protecting an associate in the light of such allegations let them continue and/or send that associate right back into the danger zone? Why/how could/would an associate allow themselves to go back into a hostile situation with almost no reassurances or safety/preventative measures after such allegations?
Are any/all or none of the complaints factual or even partially factual?
No matter which way I slice this I come up with more questions that need real answeres before I could take any side or even decide if there is some degree of truth to parts of it or not. Then as others have pointed out the possible tipping stone being the drug test questions?
In today’s world I know the seriousness of allegations and know first hand how most companies deal with them head on. I have been on the investigation side more times than I care to think about and know all too well what the legal department would have to say in light of his alleged allegations. Which if were registered as complaints at any of the companies I worked at would have had immediate mandates on how to proceed by the legal department.

 

I would question this.
If your impressions were wrong and you approached the week with a more open mindset would it be possible that the week might just turn out to be not as bad as you first thought, better than you thought or maybe even one of the best on record?

 

Ahhhh ok, that is good education there. That'll be helpful down the line to someone on here.

 

@Jubal Early Times and @gentleroger ...if you two don't like to read what the other one posts and you can't reply in a civil manner please put the other person on IGNORE or quit posting in this thread.

 

Claim
1. Racism: exists
2. Racism is systemic
3. Racism is widespread
4. Most white people dont think 2 and 3 are real



1. This i think is not in dispute except in the most ignorant cases

4. This assertion is made frequently but refuses to deal with what is actually meant by widespread and systemic. And importantly it ignores a question of degree

Tackling widespread, i could take 2 views on this, in a country of 1/3 of a billion people, many of whom actually were alive in the pre civil rights act era, it is naive to think that at least some percent of people hold the oldest (used to be prevalent) views on race, let us for the sake of arguement (and with 0 evidence, i am literally making up numbers, i do find it plausible personally) call that 1%. These people will find it acceptable to actually discriminate on the basis of race, think there should be seperate bathrooms, drinking fountains, think its fine to treat other nonwhite races with no respect, they think actually calling people racial epithets is okay. That would suggest a population of 3.3 million people in the united states are blatantly and openly racist. This actually may be true, but its
a. Distributed relatively evenly but with pockets of higher concentrations
b. Not in charge of any real institutions (this is usually the province of "systemic, but i think its relevant here), exceptions now would be say a small town where a racist 4 officers are the entire police force.
Remember that in the 1% there are 3.3 MILLION people that would be fine with this blatant racism.

Now how many are going to be fine with actual violence, or an actual crime. The fbi lists 8263 actual crimes for 2020 that were racially motivated. Lets say first, the bar for having an fbi classification of hate crimes is a bit high and therefore only 10% of actual crimes are reported (many reasons for this), that would give an incidence rate of only 2.5 %of the actual racists are willing to commit a crime for the matter, or .0025 % of the general population

So is this high enough to meet a threshhold of "widespread"?

Total crime statistics show about 8 million total reported crimes per year in the usa, using the 10x # again for underreporting, thats
80,000,000 crimes absolute value versus
82,630 hate crimes absolute value
So less than one tenth of a percent of crimes are hate crimes... thats hardly an epidemic of racism.

I will argue that blatant action based racism causing real harm is not truly widespread. But that a low grade "everybody has at least met a REAL racist" is a plausible thing, which means yes racism is widespread... its too nebulous of a term.

This SHOULD also answer the systemic question, but it doesnt, while true there are residual racial biases in many parts of our institutions, even 100% eradication of those things in 1965 would take a long passage of time to fully erase (like a few hundred years) it is unlikely that a black family denied access to good housing in 1965 would consider that harm rectified because simple housing choices can have deep echoes throughout ones life and cause generational unequal opportunity, impacting the future in a profound way.

So "systemic" is a squirrley thing to nail down, i could say no we dont have systemic racism because its literally a crime to discriminate on race now, or i could say yes those echoes still exist, ergo systemic racism still exists....

Too much is made of it one way and the other certainly, but neither end of the spectrum wants to be reasonable about it so here we are, re-litigating 1965

 

It’s not that I don’t like to read what he post. I just think he arguing for the sake of arguing and it was getting late and I was tired and didn’t want to read an op-Ed piece. No hard feelings.