Drug testing

OK, lets go back to Random drug testing, is it really random, I know one guy that has been "randomly" tested 3 times in the last two years, he does have some discipline problems and has been fired twice in the last year, one for not protecting a shove and running through a switch and one for sleeping on duty.

Then I know guys that have never been tested, so is it really random?

I can't say how your railroad tags people for testing but on bigger railroads every employee covered is in a computer that randomly selects candidates, the FRA gets a log file of monthly activities on this program.
If someone has been caught dirty he needs to be tested a minumum of 6 times in following year, 3 times second year and years after till max of 5 years.
A railroad can tag a employee as high risk and program will tag the person more frequent, but if the railroad did this without proper cause they would set themselfs up for a big lawsuit.

Thanks for the info, there's rumours that calling the RedBlock number will get you tagged, despite what they tell us!

Any truth to that?

I could not tell you I have no insight on operation redblock.

There is much mistrust about it, though it does seem like a good idea, most will just layoff sick if caught short.

DutchRailnut wrote:I can't say how your railroad tags people for testing but on bigger railroads every employee covered is in a computer that randomly selects candidates, the FRA gets a log file of monthly activities on this program.
If someone has been caught dirty he needs to be tested a minumum of 6 times in following year, 3 times second year and years after till max of 5 years.
A railroad can tag a employee as high risk and program will tag the person more frequent, but if the railroad did this without proper cause they would set themselfs up for a big lawsuit.

That's, "supposedly," also the manner in which individuals are selected on the railroad I'm employed by. If you're in the computer, you're subject to be tested. The frequency of tests for some, versus others, makes one wonder sometimes though?

jg greenwood wrote:

DutchRailnut wrote:I can't say how your railroad tags people for testing but on bigger railroads every employee covered is in a computer that randomly selects candidates, the FRA gets a log file of monthly activities on this program.
If someone has been caught dirty he needs to be tested a minumum of 6 times in following year, 3 times second year and years after till max of 5 years.
A railroad can tag a employee as high risk and program will tag the person more frequent, but if the railroad did this without proper cause they would set themselfs up for a big lawsuit.

That's, "supposedly," also the manner in which individuals are selected on the railroad I'm employed by. If you're in the computer, you're subject to be tested. The frequency of tests for some, versus others, makes one wonder sometimes though?

It's supposed to be random. From my military experience, staging "random" testing, I can tell you there's ways to jigger the figures so targeted names are included.

For example, we might be testing every 35th name on the roster, with a random start. But (in the Navy) we might have identified a "target" on an alpha roster and then counted up and down 35 names, top to bottom.

I don't know that the railroads are doing that but it's conceivable.

Testing may also be chosen on time - for example, two times I was tested was when called in on the Fourth of July and on Labor Day. That cannot be accidental...it was a "sweep," all candidates called to work during testing hours had to do the "whiz quiz."

As for accidents...not clear on what the guidelines are. I know it's not MANDATORY for testing on grade-crossing accidents...there must be "reasonable suspicion" to test. Could a "random" test be called?

I have had one incident - killed two trespassers who were on foot. I was not tested. I have ALSO had three derailments...twice I was not tested; the third time (similar circumstances) a test was ordered and the RFE enroute, when the Company changed its mind and cancelled the test, ordered us back to work (yard assignment).

So there seems no method to their madness. I guess that's one definition of "random."