What's new

FedEx Freight | House cleaning in Dallas

Smokestack said:
Why 2x's ?
Click to expand...

My guess is they're trying to out smart the bad guys.
Guy gives sample and figures it will be awhile before his name pops up again for randem test. Goes ahead and does something thinking he has plenty of time to get it out of system.
Back to back testing might catch em off guard.
 
I was off during the middle of the week but they were looking for me when I came in Friday am. They had a guy from the clinic in the bathroom and had us fill out the form just like at the clinic. I dont have a problem with taking randoms, but when I got home Friday night I noticed on my copy of the paper they give you when you submit a UA/ drug screen. ON line D. Reason for test: instead of checking "Random" they had checked the box that says "Reasonable Suspicion/Cause". Now I do have a problem with that ! I want to know exactly what I did to cause suspicion ! Does any one else think this is wrong or is it just me ?
 
Grizzly said:
I was off during the middle of the week but they were looking for me when I came in Friday am. They had a guy from the clinic in the bathroom and had us fill out the form just like at the clinic. I dont have a problem with taking randoms, but when I got home Friday night I noticed on my copy of the paper they give you when you submit a UA/ drug screen. ON line D. Reason for test: instead of checking "Random" they had checked the box that says "Reasonable Suspicion/Cause". Now I do have a problem with that ! I want to know exactly what I did to cause suspicion ! Does any one else think this is wrong or is it just me ?
Click to expand...
Hey grizz.. If for any reason other than an accident or computer generated random, reasonable suspicion would be the appropriate reason.. It's the only way that it would hold in court against a termination if they brought people in to do it.
  • Legal Requirements for Reasonable Suspicion
112.0455(5)(j) - requires a "belief that an employee is using or has used drugs in violation of the employer’s policy drawn from specific objective and articulable facts and reasonable inferences drawn from those facts in light of experience." Must be upon the recommendation of a supervisor at least 2 levels above the employee. Possible bases for the inference:

report of drug use from reliable and credible source, which has been independently corroborated Federal vs. State Drug Testing Requirements Reasonable Suspicion (CDL & Law Enforcement)

A. Affected Employees<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = &quot;urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office&quot; /><o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> All classified and unclassified, permanent or probationary, full or part-time employees, or employees under contract, are subject to reasonable suspicion testing in accordance with this procedure. Volunteers or other non-compensated persons may not be tested. (40 O.S. § 552.8.)<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> B. Reasonable Suspicion (40 O.S. § 552.12.)<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> A belief that an employee is using or has used drugs or alcohol in violation of the department’s policy based on specific objective facts that can be clearly described, and reasonable inferences made from those facts. Such facts and reasonable inferences include, but are not limited to:<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> 1. Physical symptoms or manifestations of being under the influence of a drug or alcohol while at work or on duty; or<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> 2. The direct observation of drug or alcohol use while at work or on duty; or<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> 3. A report of drug or alcohol use, provided by reliable and credible sources and which has been independently corroborated; <o:p></o:p> 4. Evidence that an employee is involved in the use, possession, sale, solicitation, or transfer of drugs while on duty or on department premises, or while operating any department vehicles, machinery or equipment. <o:p></o:p>

Pretty much what I read.. If you are transporting cargo under the Interstate trade Commerce, You are entitled to and can be tested at any time that the company you work for feels need.

GtRdOnE
 
gtrdone said:
  • Legal Requirements for Reasonable Suspicion
112.0455(5)(j) - requires a &quot;belief that an employee is using or has used drugs in violation of the employer’s policy drawn from specific objective and articulable facts and reasonable inferences drawn from those facts in light of experience.&quot; Must be upon the recommendation of a supervisor at least 2 levels above the employee. Possible bases for the inference:

report of drug use from reliable and credible source, which has been independently corroborated Federal vs. State Drug Testing Requirements Reasonable Suspicion (CDL & Law Enforcement)

A. Affected Employees<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = &quot;urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office&quot; /><o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> All classified and unclassified, permanent or probationary, full or part-time employees, or employees under contract, are subject to reasonable suspicion testing in accordance with this procedure. Volunteers or other non-compensated persons may not be tested. (40 O.S. § 552.8.)<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> B. Reasonable Suspicion (40 O.S. § 552.12.)<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> A belief that an employee is using or has used drugs or alcohol in violation of the department’s policy based on specific objective facts that can be clearly described, and reasonable inferences made from those facts. Such facts and reasonable inferences include, but are not limited to:<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> 1. Physical symptoms or manifestations of being under the influence of a drug or alcohol while at work or on duty; or<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> 2. The direct observation of drug or alcohol use while at work or on duty; or<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> 3. A report of drug or alcohol use, provided by reliable and credible sources and which has been independently corroborated; <o:p></o:p> 4. Evidence that an employee is involved in the use, possession, sale, solicitation, or transfer of drugs while on duty or on department premises, or while operating any department vehicles, machinery or equipment. <o:p></o:p>



GtRdOnE
Click to expand...

Thats my point NONE of these apply !
 
Pretty much what I read.. If you are transporting cargo under the Interstate trade Commerce, You are entitled to and can be tested at any time that the company you work for feels need.
Click to expand...
That is fine with me, like I said they can test me as often as they want, I will gladly submit. From what I understand, an associate had a party and supposedly someone saw some associates at said party doing something, dont know what or where or when... dont really care. What I am saying is what does that have to do with me? According to the legal requirements for reasonable suspicion, if you read them all none apply to me or anyone of us who werent at said party and therefor were not observed doing anything by anyone. I can see why they would use that reason for those involved but for the rest of us it should be a random. Also the supervisors were acting as if we were all guilty. I dont appreciate it !
 
Grizzly said:
That is fine with me, like I said they can test me as often as they want, I will gladly submit. From what I understand, an associate had a party and supposedly someone saw some associates at said party doing something, dont know what or where or when... dont really care. What I am saying is what does that have to do with me? According to the legal requirements for reasonable suspicion, if you read them all none apply to me or anyone of us who werent at said party and therefor were not observed doing anything by anyone. I can see why they would use that reason for those involved but for the rest of us it should be a random. Also the supervisors were acting as if we were all guilty. I dont appreciate it !
Click to expand...

I am right there with ya.. I would have felt like awkward as well..

Good thing is.. I know I would have nothing to worry about..

the sups probably just felt like they were more important than they were, anytime something big happens, their heads swell...

they should have brought someone in and talked to you guys to tell you that is was all precautionary.
 
Grizzly said:
Thats my point NONE of these apply !
Click to expand...
If they get a call on in-touch from a person that don't leave a name.. that person says that there was a party, some sups drivers and dock were smoking weed or what not.. but never gave names...

If FedEx did not follow up on that and somebody got hurt down the road that tested positive.. They would be in some deep doo doo.. so I guess it would fall under &quot;if a report was made&quot;

I see where you are coming from, and know how it could feel..

From the outside looking in... I'm glad they followed up on someones concern though.:1036316054:
 
That's what I figure, someone reported that there was alot of use by most employees and they took action to see which ones it was, don't take it personal, just collect your pay and make your deposit (pun intended, lol)

FM
 
It has never been Fed Ex's policy to single out any one or group of employees. Was always one of my pet peeves that pats on the back and slaps on the wrist were handed out to everybody as a group. Always saw fault in it.

One guy speeds through the lot, they have pre-shift with entire shift to tell them to slow down. Guy who broke policy has no idea he's the one they're referring to.

Same with pats on the back. When numbers are good they say good job to everybody. Guy who sits behind Wal Mart and naps everyday thinks he's doing his part.

Asked regional HR guy one time. He explained it has to be that way now thanks to lawyers and politcal correctness. Single a guy out for a pat on the back and somebody will start rumer that he got it because he was&quot;yadda,yadda,yadda&quot;.....Same with a slap on wrist. &quot;You're picking on me because I'm yadda, yadda, yadda.....&quot;

Probably the same with drug testing. To get the ones they suspected, they had to test others to show it wasn't profiling or what ever case the lawyers try to make out of it.
 
I am glad they got the guilty parties involved, I dont think we need those type people working our docks. I cant believe there were that many, of course they wont tell us how many, all you hear is rumors about the actual number.The thing I dislike about the whole deal is what happens years from now when someone looks back in my file and sees a drug screen that says Reasonable suspicion instead of random ?
 
That's a good thing

Somebody finally dropped a dime on those undesireable's down in that TX state of mind!!!! All i'll say is good for them too have the ball's too drop that dime!!,or was he stabbin someone in the back for a drug deal gone bad.!!!!!:chairshot: :knockout:
 
ICO postings came out this morning..

Operations Supervisor II
City Driver - F/T
Dock Associate - F/T
Driver Aprentice - F/T
Office Associate - F/T
Office Associate - P/T
Office Associate - P/T

Not sure what the final count was, but it looks as if will open the doors for some deserving people.
 
unbelivable some people just dont understand the meaning of it all they think its cool to use drugs :beerchug: or even get caught drinkin and driving, why to lose eventhing you work for? :duh: :duh:
 
death count in dallas

in our preshift friday morning, being curious as i am the question of the running total of associates in dallas sealing their fate was 47 that included 3 dock supervisors 2 office associates and the rest were dock associates. 47 in all and the results are still pouring in!!!! it's a small percentage considering dallas employs over 750 people, in a real world we would hope that everyone would be on the up n up but as all of you know there are many bad apples out there! i am glad to see this massive cleanup effort happen. but what a huge black eye this is going to be for dallas. what about other centers large or small if there is/was a problem in dallas what's to say houston or atlanta or even harrison doesnt have the same problem it will be interesting to see what falls out of this. by the way everyone including the center mgr was tested start at the top and work it on down!!! KUDOS for making my center a safer better place to work!!!!!!!
 
nagoose said:
Hey bullhauler2 the big D has 750 employees? That place must be a madhouse!! How many doors you got down there?
Click to expand...

doors are numbered through 312 I believe, give or take a few cause it skips a few here & there for the office and break room etc. I believe we had in the neighborhood of 250 city drivers last bid. actually it runs pretty smooth for a madhouse
 
they should do drug tests at every center,from the scm on down even the machanics if your center has a shop,dallas is a safer place to work i want my center to rid these people to.:1036316054:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top