drug testing

Discussion in 'UPS Union Issues' started by jwbennett80, Jun 7, 2008.

  1. jwbennett80

    jwbennett80 New Member

    Recently I stepped out of the rear of the package car and twisted my ankle really bad. Called my super she took my to the doctor while i was there (by myself) the nurse gave me a drug test. Every rule in the contract was broken on getting the sample not having a union rep there and controlling the sample. I told the union what had happened. A couple of days later i was fired. now i have to go to panel to get my job back. Does any one know the chances of me getting my job back. I know there is a rehab program for things like this but my rep wanted to go at it as a break of the contract.
  2. Mike Hawk

    Mike Hawk New Member

    I couldn't find it in the NMA link on this site but I know it's in the contract, two supes have to witness behavior that would indicate you were high to get a drug test. I don't know if that will be enough to get you your job back, but you should have known better.
  3. drewed

    drewed Shankman

    maybe you shoudlnt be doing drugs when you know the company your working for has a zero tolerance policy towards such things.....just a thought tho
  4. The-UK-Guy

    The-UK-Guy Tea anyone ?

    I have been in this situation before. If you get in an accident or an injury they are allowed to test you without doing the observation. I`m asuming you were fired because the results came back positive right ?
    they dont have to have a rep there either. The best way for you to get your job back is to admit you have a problem and will have to sign up for the ASAP program. Expect to be off work for up to a year (from my experience) you will go see a SAP (substance abuse proffesional ) who will decide the best course of treatment for you. I got 2 weeks in an inhouse rehab 52 aa meetings and you can guarantee at least 12 randoms a year for drugs and booze. It sounds tough , well actually it is tuff, but I can look back now and say that the ASAP program saved my life. Best of luck man and to be honest, its not the best Idea to drive a truck under the influence
  5. cachsux

    cachsux Wah

    A non controlled drug test is void.
  6. ImpactedTSG

    ImpactedTSG New Member

    This is the BS that makes me dislike unions. The drug test is either negative or positive. Having a rep or sup standing there won't change that.
  7. 1989

    1989 Well-Known Member

    Say No To Drugs
  8. sx2700

    sx2700 Banned

    I agree, the guy is driving under the influence and gets caught and we're all supposed to feel sorry. I don't think so. Serves him right, because I don't want this hopped up loser driving down my street when the kid's playing in the driveway.
  9. BrownShark

    BrownShark Banned

    The company does not need to bring the union in to observe when they have "reasonable suspicion" that an employee may be on drugs while driving a package car.

    Anyone who told you that is mistaken.

    The company determines what is reasonable, not the union or YOU.

    If you failed the test, oh well. Hopefully a lesson learned.

    The Union may try to negotiate placing you on ASAP and placed into a hub position until your completion of ASAP, but that will depend on the strength of the Agent.

    I wouldnt count on seeing the inside of a package car anytime soon however.

    Unlike feeder, random testing is not required in the package arena, however, "reasonable suspicion" does not have to follow the guidelines of feeder testing.

    Nice try though.

    Unfortunately, you will end up as an example to the younger drivers to avoid drugs in their lives while working for UPS.

    Sorry for the negative response, but there is no other answer to give you and the sooner you realize the truth, the sooner you will consider forgoing drugs in your life.

  10. trickpony1

    trickpony1 Well-Known Member

    I guess alcohol isn't a drug?
  11. sx2700

    sx2700 Banned

    What are you talking about? Last time I checked it is illegal to be drunk or stoned while driving.
  12. dilligaf

    dilligaf IN VINO VERITAS

    Article 35 Section 3.8 Reasonable Cause Testing
    Paragraph 3

    "The employees conduct must be witnessed by at least two (2) supervisors, if available. The witnesses must have recieved training in observing a person's behavior to determine if a medical evaluation is required. When the supervisor(s) confronts an employee, a Union representative should be made available pursuant to Article 4 of the National Master UPS Agreement as interpreted. If no steward is present, the employee may select another hourly paid employee to represent him."

    As this language has not been edited or changed in anyway during negotions for the new contract, you will not find this section in the new Master until the printed version is handed out. Only the changed language is available online.

    Now I realize that the language says 'should be made available' but, if UPS wants to dot their i's and cross their t's they will make sure a represtentive of the employees choice is made available. If they don't do this then odds are very good that said employee will not lose their job under the claim that the company refused representation.

    Next: Alcohol
    Art. 35 Section 4.11 Subsection 1
    Discipline Reasonable Cause Testing

    "An employee who is tested for resonable cause and whose alcohol level is 0.02 to 0.039will be taken out of service for twenty-four (24) hours and receive a warning letter.

    An employee who is tested for reasonable cause and whose alcohol level is 0.040 to 0.069 will be taken out of service for twenty-four (24) hours, referred to a Substance Abuse Professional (SAP) and suspended for ten (10) days."

    "A second positive test of 0.20 or above is a dischargeable offense."
  13. trickpony1

    trickpony1 Well-Known Member

    you may have missed my point.
    don't have time to explain now but will later.
  14. dilligaf

    dilligaf IN VINO VERITAS

    Having someone standing there may not change the outcome of the test, but how the test is done could very well impact the outcome of the test. This is why it has to be controlled. Do you want to lose your job based on a false positive?
    The language on testing procedures is very specific for this reason.
  15. over9five

    over9five Moderator Staff Member

    Exactly. And just because some management person is all excited that he gets to fire someone is not reason to disregard the contract that they agreed to.
  16. sx2700

    sx2700 Banned

    I'm pro union all the way, but come on, you have to draw the line somewhere. Just because you have to be "anti-management" doesn't mean you have to protect somebody that is clearly wrong and it was obvious enough that they did the test. The guy apparently couldn't even get in and out of his truck without injuring himself, how is he supposed to drive safely? Do you really want this guy or others like him driving around your neighborhood? I suppose if some employee walks into the building and murders everybody there is a paragraph somewhere in the contract that allows him to keep his job too. 'Let's just send him to anger management class, then he will be a productive and valuable employee again'.
  17. dilligaf

    dilligaf IN VINO VERITAS

    What you have to do is do it 'BY THE BOOK'. Do you want someone like this getting their job back because procedures weren't followed? Oh yeah I got my job back on a technicality! Trust me, the union doesn't want this type of problem either, but they have to defend a member to the best of there ability or they could face NLRB charges. It sucks sometimes, but it is what it is.
  18. sx2700

    sx2700 Banned

    But in the original post he makes it sound as if the fact that he was fired for testing positive is a non-issue. Right away they are looking for excuses and loop holes and skirting the real issue at hand. He made it sound like the Rep was discouraging him from taking the rehab route (I'm assuming because it would be an admission of guilt). All I'm saying is people should be held accountable for what they do, especially the serious stuff. I'm the least likely person to judge other people because I know I'm far from perfect and I don't have all the answers, but a case like this just makes my blood boil. If this dude was higher than a kite and working inside, then I say blaze away, but if he's out there putting people in danger then crucify him.
  19. IDoLessWorkThanMost

    IDoLessWorkThanMost New Member

    I dont condone drug use, but what someone does on their own time is completely different than UPS's time. If you get stoned or drink and goto work, there's no ground to stand on.

    My only problem is (again I dont condone it but for arguements sake) if you smoke pot on a Saturday and 2 weeks later injure yourself, twist an ankle. Obviously the drugs had no impact on the situation but if you're tested and positive because of suspicion or "targeting", you won't be working again with UPS for a long time.

    I do believe there's varying degrees of evil and this should be evaluated more than guilty or not guilty. Someone testing positive for cocaine on the job, or something very severe, should not be handled the same as a testing positive for traces of marijuana in the bloodstream.
  20. dilligaf

    dilligaf IN VINO VERITAS

    Sorry sx, I didn't mean to sound like I was taking a jab at you. I wasn't. I agree, if someone is stupid enough to do that before or on the job then they get what they deserve. It has to be handled by the book to make a termination stick.:whiteflag::happy2: