Comments on: OSHA: unlawful for employers to have rule requiring drug tests after accident

By: Bob

Bob — Tue, 16 Aug 2016 15:48:23 +0000

Of course, many state Workers Compensation systems provide premium reductions for employers with post-accident screen policies. OSHA/DOL are as usual overreaching and squeezing employers in the process. Not that they care – employers are evil unless they are government.

By: WRT

WRT — Tue, 16 Aug 2016 15:30:07 +0000

The OSHA rule seems to provide an out for complying with state law, such as workers’ compensation. On its face this seems reasonable. They also throw out common sense situations ( passenger in car accident in course and scope), but the language seems to make employers provide a theory where intoxication may have been a factor. Also many employers qualify for WC premium reductions as drug free work places, but such policies often require mandatory testing for all accidents.

By: mike

mike — Mon, 15 Aug 2016 19:25:07 +0000

I must disagree, Mr. Carver. Perhaps Jones was inattentive and walking around in a daze because of his ingestion of the Wacky Weed on his lunch-break, and that’s why he did not avoid the box…very few accident situations are so clear-cut that all fault can be determined immediately.

By: gitarcarver

gitarcarver — Mon, 15 Aug 2016 17:44:39 +0000

The difference here seems to be a blanket policy of testing rather than testing on the basis of impairment may have caused the accident.

For example, Jones and Smith work in a warehouse. Jones is walking down the aisle when Smith, who is driving a lift, strikes the shelving causing enough vibration and shaking for a box to fall from the shelving, striking Jones on the shoulder and breaking his collarbone.

Smith should be tested because his actions caused the incident. But why should Jones be tested for anything? It was not his fault that the box fell on him. He did nothing to cause the accident. If you test Jones, it seems like a fishing expedition with no safety benefit.

The flip side of this argument is that if you are going to hold companies accountable for every incident in the workplace while demanding that companies investigate every avenue with the goal of reducing workplace accidents, then the company has to test everyone.

To me, this is another case where companies are put in no win situations. No matter what they do, someone (ie some lawyer or agency) is going to come after them.

By: Fox2!

Fox2! — Mon, 15 Aug 2016 05:21:08 +0000

It’s the first thing NTSB wants done in a transportation related.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 15 Aug 2016 05:06:51 +0000

Of course the several Federal agencies have rules to the contrary. FRA, FAA, etc.

By: Risqbiz

Risqbiz — Mon, 15 Aug 2016 04:47:00 +0000

With marijuana usage increasing and some states having it legal, to not drug test is about as smart as checking for a gas leak with a lighted match. How about alcohol testing too? Again government stupidity at its best. No employee should refuse to be tested, unless they have something to hide.