Unions challenge DOT’s “strip search” regulation

[JohnEasley]

Next thing you know, the pecker checker will need to hold it while ya piss. Just hope he gives it the proper squeeze, and shakes it correctly. I'd hate to have a dribble spot on my bibs.

[blizzard07]

And the Supreme Court judges who approved it are guilty of anti-Constitutional treason. But this would not be the last time they committed treason; Some Dare Call It Treason...
Will they ever get called on it? Not likely. And it's about 95% certain that we are going to have incidents of people of dubious sexuality staring at our members like hungry pike (hey who else is going to take that job?). And it's about 85% certain that one day railroading operations are going to freeze up and everybody will be scrambling to figure out why. The march of folly brothers! Now if you are paranoid you will say that the unions are opposing strip searches only because the railroads told them to-in which case it would seem that the railroads oppose strip searches. If that is the case then it might NOT happen.

[Streaker]

I had to piss in a jar under direct observation for 22 of my 26 yrs in the military. I really hated the part when the observer tapped you on the shoulder and said "Nice Dick"!!

[Excon421]

Originally Posted by jp2153

When I was in the Army, one of my duties was to perform a monthly 10% and once a quarter 100% urinalysis and breath test. I was an observer and also the Unit Drug and Alcohol Coordinator.

When the testing was done, it was the responsibility of the tester to ensure that the sample was not tampered with and met the proper volume and tempurature for a sample.

Yes, it was embarrassing to have to go through this and have to sit at a Court Martial when a freind or fellow leader tested positive for an illegal substance. I have been to 12 different UCMJ hearings out of my 23 years of service. Out of the 12, 4 were thrown out because the observer did not observe the individual peeing in the bottle.

3 of those cases were thrown out, and the 4th one involved the observer being charge for deriliction of duty and was reduced from the rank of SSG to SPC.

We work in an environment that has the potential to cause a disaster to innocent people. I do not agree with OPERATION RED BLOCK. I personally feel that if you want to partake in illegal substances you should be permanently fired from the rail road.

It is a bunch of bull to see an engineer and a conductor get fired for 7 days for testing positive for Cocain and Pot after running through a switch, but if a guy that does not test positive runs through a switch, the FRA wants a huge chunk of money and jail time.

Were is the justice in this?

Sarge,
I agree that we work in an environment that has potential for disaster, I thoroughly disagree with your statement about Operation Redblock(ORB).
ORB allows for an employee caught short with regards to alcohol consumption
to essentially mark off sick, so they don't show up to work drunk, and cause disaster for themselves and others. In the 24/7 world of railroading with its' screwed up train line ups, bad calls, and "you show up or else" management, the ability to take yourself out of harms way is huge both for the employee and the employer. It isn't a cart blanche system either, there are limitations to the amount of markoffs an employee can use before they are sent to counseling to see if there is a problem they need professional help with.

As to the 'fired for 7 days" after testing positive for drugs, you are incorrect as to your assumptions, a positive drug test is as serious and it treated as such, as any other impairmant type offense. It is a wonder to me however that someone who tests Positive for alcohol is gone 9 months, goes thru a program, etc... while a positive drug test is usually 30 days, and go thru the program.

BTW The fines the FRA wishes to impose, are for willful violations, and take some degree of effort on the Feds to prove. They aren't automatic.

I also find it somewhat ironic that you were in a position within the military where procedure, chain of custody, and the "embarassmant" of seeing a fellow leader go down the drain for a lapse of reason were a part of your position, yet you object to a program that allows an employee to take himself out of harms way both for himself and his employer, and is but a step to getting professional help(if needed) before it gets to the point where they hurt themselves and their employer.