FedEx Freight | Denver center gets Monday morning surprise

Two city dispatchers refused the test. One city driver and two office personel refused the test also. There were Five A.M dock that tested positive (three of which were full-time).
P.M dock had three positive results (all supplemental dock). The custodian tested positive and there were zero positives on Hub dock.

So a total of fourteen is a fairly accurate count to date.
Those that were on vacation are required to go to the clinic before resuming there normal work duties.
 
Two city dispatchers refused the test. One city driver and two office personel refused the test also. There were Five A.M dock that tested positive (three of which were full-time).
P.M dock had three positive results (all supplemental dock). The custodian tested positive and there were zero positives on Hub dock.

So a total of fourteen is a fairly accurate count to date.
Those that were on vacation are required to go to the clinic before resuming there normal work duties.

Detroitdiesel :clap:

Welcome to Truckingboards.

Thanks for the update.
Sounds like we have no road drivers and just one city driver positive.

Stay out of the snow. :biglaugh:

:shift:
 
Two city dispatchers refused the test. One city driver and two office personel refused the test also. There were Five A.M dock that tested positive (three of which were full-time).
P.M dock had three positive results (all supplemental dock). The custodian tested positive and there were zero positives on Hub dock.

So a total of fourteen is a fairly accurate count to date.
Those that were on vacation are required to go to the clinic before resuming there normal work duties.

These results would seen like a good indicator as to how successful surprise terminal wide drug testing can be.
With all of the quality people out there looking for a good job, it shouldn't be too hard to find good replacements for all of them.
Good riddance to all of them!:clap::clap::clap:
 
These results would seen like a good indicator as to how successful surprise terminal wide drug testing can be.
With all of the quality people out there looking for a good job, it shouldn't be too hard to find good replacements for all of them.
Good riddance to all of them!:clap::clap::clap:

It looks like a good indicator on how people feel about their employer. Nothing special about this place so who gives a crap about it anymore. Could it be the work load dumped on people in this place has finally taken its toll on people. You do everything they ask and they just want more and more. Thats why so many people have just given up on this place, I see it everyday.
 
It looks like a good indicator on how people feel about their employer. Nothing special about this place so who gives a crap about it anymore. Could it be the work load dumped on people in this place has finally taken its toll on people. You do everything they ask and they just want more and more. Thats why so many people have just given up on this place, I see it everyday.

As I stated on another post, no one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to come to work here. If you think your job is so taxing on you that you need to take drugs to cope with it, then you need to leave. The majority of the people here stay because we like the company, the pay, the benefits and the working conditions. There are hundreds of other companies out there you could work for. But of course, they all will "dump" work on you, and without the comfort of drugs.
Before you leave, just remember one thing: the grass may be greener on the other side of the fence only because it's over the septic tank.
 
These results would seen like a good indicator as to how successful surprise terminal wide drug testing can be.
With all of the quality people out there looking for a good job, it shouldn't be too hard to find good replacements for all of them.
Good riddance to all of them!:clap::clap::clap:

Kind of cold hearted there, with the good riddance comment. Do you think it's ok to have guys boozing it up every weekend (or every day) and coming in to work half hung over? They'll never fail a Drug test but they are no asset to the company.

If you think your job is so taxing on you that you need to take drugs to cope with it, then you need to leave.

Are you one of those guys who think a couple of brewskis on the way home from work is perfectly acceptable but a guy who smokes a little at the house, watching the tube is somehow scum?

The only difference is the guy smoking weed is taking a foolish risk of loosing his job... Same for the guy picking up a 6 pack to start drinking on the way home, but only if he gets caught by law enforcement.

There are lots of drugs that are legal for a driver, as long as you get a Rx for it... or if you drug of choice is alcohol...

Because we choose to be drivers, alcohol is the only real drug available for recreational use, without a perscription.
:Flame-On:
 
Kind of cold hearted there, with the good riddance comment. Do you think it's ok to have guys boozing it up every weekend (or every day) and coming in to work half hung over? They'll never fail a Drug test but they are no asset to the company.



Are you one of those guys who think a couple of brewskis on the way home from work is perfectly acceptable but a guy who smokes a little at the house, watching the tube is somehow scum?

The only difference is the guy smoking weed is taking a foolish risk of loosing his job... Same for the guy picking up a 6 pack to start drinking on the way home, but only if he gets caught by law enforcement.

There are lots of drugs that are legal for a driver, as long as you get a Rx for it... or if you drug of choice is alcohol...

Because we choose to be drivers, alcohol is the only real drug available for recreational use, without a perscription.
:Flame-On:

O.k., first of all, I draw a very clear distinction between drugs and alcohol, so let me clarify my position.
I am a drinker. I go out with friends on occasion and have some drinks and a good time. But I never drink any alcohol unless I know there is a designated driver to ensure that I do not drink and drive. Not even one beer. If there is no one willing to be the designated driver, then I will be it. And no, I never have a few drinks on the way home from work. I have beer at home in the fridge for when I get home, and that is where I unwind. And no, I don't have a wife at home to greet me. I am a widower, and I come home to an empty house.
As for smoking weed, anyone who knows me, and maybe you do, as I clearly use my last name, (Finch), in my user name, knows that I firmly believe in the legalization of marijuana. In fact, I always thought it was a stretch to even call marijuana a drug. I used to be a regular smoker, and all who know me know that I always say that when I retire, I will be a smoker again. but it is illegal to use marijuana and operate a commercial vehicle, so I do not use it now.
And, yes, I know that a person can smoke weed on the weekend, and like alcohol, if it is used responsibly, it will not interfere with safe driving. But the law draws a distinction between the two, and so I will err on the side of the law.
So, no, I am not cold hearted. I just believe that if a person with so little will power as myself can follow the law, then so should everyone else.
 
Agree'd

I still have to feel for those that got surprised. That's when they realized that the risk outweighs the gain.

Otherwise I'm with ya 110% :thumbsup:
 
,

Agree'd

I still have to feel for those that got surprised. That's when they realized that the risk outweighs the gain.

Otherwise I'm with ya 110% :thumbsup:

What sucks is that they tested clerical and dock and managers. People that have NEVER been under the threat of random testing.

And if there was drug dealing going on, why didn't they investigate and get the actual people involved instead of taking a hammer to the SC? I know our security guy over here would have been slobbering to do some survelience and eat donuts and talk about his past exploits. Endlessly.

Why test and fire a data entry clerk? Or a part time dockworker? Besides, I know managers that should smoke a little pot before coming to work.

As far as the non-drivers concerned, there was no risk to outweigh the gain. I think FedEx treated these people badly. But I'm not surprised.
 
there is no way I would allow any fedex manager to search my personal vehicle. Or frisk my body for weapons. If fedex called the local police to come on the property and search every ones vehicle the cops in our town would tell them to go jump off a building. I dont permit any person to touch my body or any of my stuff while at work without my permission. I dont do any drugs or even drink booze so I dont care. I just think this testing stuff is an infringement without cause. And I do think management shoud be tested and searched too. To set a good example:ranting2:
 
Come on guys....They were busted for using illegal drugs. How can anyone say that the company did them wrong. They all, each and every one of them knew the chance they were taking and chose to do it anyway. You make your own bed and have to lay in it.
Before you start throwing stones at me know this... I was the biggest pot head among other thing, before some of you were every born.

They rolled the dice and lost...end of story.
 
What sucks is that they tested clerical and dock and managers. People that have NEVER been under the threat of random testing.


I don't see how they could justify testing clerical. They are not subject to federally mandated testing. I would think they could have refused, with no risk of being fired. I just don't know what terms they were hired under. They may have been required by the Co. to submit to testing.

CDL holders (managers included) are subject to random and reasonable suspicion testing. Not saying it's right, just the way it is...
 
Whatever happened to the 4th and 5th Amendments?

The 4th amendment says the GOVERNMENT won't do search and seizures without a warrant. It doesn't say the company can't search its own property (trucks, lockers, etc.)

The 5th talks about the government taking private property without paying you for it, as well as double jeopardy, so not sure what the connection is to this issue.

For the company, random and probably cause tests are a simple condition of employment. I don't know how long the policy has been in place, but I know it was the policy at AF/FXFE for as long as I've been here (1996.)

oaf
 
The 4th amendment says the GOVERNMENT won't do search and seizures without a warrant. It doesn't say the company can't search its own property (trucks, lockers, etc.)

The 5th talks about the government taking private property without paying you for it, as well as double jeopardy, so not sure what the connection is to this issue.

For the company, random and probably cause tests are a simple condition of employment. I don't know how long the policy has been in place, but I know it was the policy at AF/FXFE for as long as I've been here (1996.)

oaf
The fifth amendment protects witnesses from being forced to incriminate themselves. To "plead the Fifth" is to refuse to answer a question because the response could provide self-incriminating evidence of an illegal conduct punished by fines, penalties or forfeiture.[3]
Historically, the legal protection against self-incrimination is directly related to the question of torture for extracting information and confessions.[4][5]
The legal shift from widespread use of torture and forced confession dates to turmoil of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century in England[6]. Anyone refusing to take the oath ex officio mero (confessions or swearing of innocence, usually before hearing any charges) was taken for guilty[6]. Suspected Puritans were pressed to take the oath and then reveal names of other Puritans. Coercion and torture were commonly employed to compel "cooperation." Puritans, who were at the time fleeing to the New World, began a practice of refusing to cooperate with interrogations. In the most famous case John Lilburne refused to take the oath in 1637. His case and his call for "freeborn rights" were rallying points for reforms against forced oaths, forced self-incrimination, and other kinds of coercion. Oliver Cromwell's revolution overturned the practice and incorporated protections, in response to a popular group of English citizens known as the Levellers. The Levellers presented The Humble Petition of Many Thousands to Parliament in 1647 with thirteen demands, of which the right against self-incrimination (in criminal cases only) was listed at number three. These protections were brought to the American shores by Puritans, and were later incorporated into the United States Constitution through the Bill of Rights.
In terms of Miranda rights, this is often referred to as the "right to remain silent." This amendment is also similar to Section 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In other Commonwealth countries like Australia and New Zealand, the right to silence of the accused both during questioning and at trial is regarded as an important inherited common-law right, and is protected in the New Zealand Bill of Rights and in Australia through various federal and state Acts and Codes governing the criminal justice system.
 
The types of drug and alcohol testing required by DOT remain, specifically, pre-employment, reasonable suspicion, post-accident, random, return-to-duty and follow-up testing.

Which reason did they use for this? Reasonable suspicion is pretty weak just on the findings of "residue" on the property. I don't see an entire terminal as a "random" event, either.

I don't see any lasting damage, DOT wise, to those who refused or failed. It's illegally obtained evidence. They are fired for sure (companies can have their own rules).
 
re testing

Actually I heard they did test management and one failed. A few employees walked out -refused. Several failed. No facts to back this up, just one driver to another, but sounded like they had a problem there. We are under random testing, why not management and dockworkers?
 
Actually I heard they did test management and one failed. A few employees walked out -refused. Several failed. No facts to back this up, just one driver to another, but sounded like they had a problem there. We are under random testing, why not management and dockworkers?

super_t :clap:

Welcome to Truckingboards.


:shift:
 
Come on guys....They were busted for using illegal drugs. How can anyone say that the company did them wrong. They all, each and every one of them knew the chance they were taking and chose to do it anyway. You make your own bed and have to lay in it.
Before you start throwing stones at me know this... I was the biggest pot head among other thing, before some of you were every born.

They rolled the dice and lost...end of story.

The CDL holders knew the risk. The dockworkers and the clerical did not. Even the managers didn't know the "risk" they took.

The drivers, I don't have much sympathy for. They knew they were on a DOT random drug testing policy.

However, the innocents here were punished because of a heavy handed company. I hope some have the inclination to sue. I think they have a case.

I don't care that you were a druggie. That's not the point here. What the point is that they illegally obtained bodily fluids from people that had no reasonable assumption that they would ever be tested outside pre-employment testing. Then they were fired for a positive result on a specimen that the company had no constitutional right to collect.

Come on! Where is the outrage from the right wingers here? From the libertarians? All I hear from the right is how we are in dire danger from Obama tossing the constitution, yet it's pretty quiet when it comes down to the brass tacks.

These people, (the non DOT people) were screwed. And I hope to hell they contact the ACLU and personal injury lawyers.
 
Top