Drug and Alcohol Testing for Commercial Truck Drivers

Introduction and Federal Testing Requirements

Drug and alcohol testing has come under fire from many groups — from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which argues that it violates employees' rights, to groups who advocate that testing should be increased rather than decreased. One area of drug and alcohol testing that has withstood opposition is the testing of commercial truck drivers. The Federal Government began requiring mandatory drug testing of drivers in 1995, depending on the size of the company; smaller companies had until 1996 to begin testing. Anyone who applies for a Commercial Driver's License (CDL) must successfully complete a substance abuse test before the license is issued, and these tests must be repeated throughout their employment, as the relevant federal guidelines state:

"Companies are to randomly test drivers at a minimum annual percentage rate of 25% of the number of drivers for each selection period for alcohol testing, and 50% for controlled substances testing. The random alcohol test must be performed immediately prior, during, or immediately after a driver is about to perform, or has performed, a safety-sensitive function as defined in Section 395.2. All drivers must have an equal chance of being selected" (Staff, 1994).

Thus, anyone driving a vehicle that requires a CDL — which includes semi-trucks, buses, and other large transportation vehicles — must pass a substance abuse test and continue to pass those tests throughout their employment.

Common Sense Reasons for Mandatory Testing

There are a number of straightforward reasons why mandatory testing is a sound policy. First, allowing someone who is impaired in any way to operate an oversized vehicle is simply asking for trouble. This is the reason driver testing came into being in the first place: to ensure that those who wish to operate a motor vehicle are capable of doing so safely. For example, if a driver must wear corrective lenses, that requirement is noted on their license — a simple measure that makes obvious sense. We would not want someone who could not see the cars ahead of them driving a small car, any more than we would want someone driving drunk at the wheel of a tractor-trailer rig. Making drug and alcohol testing mandatory for anyone receiving a CDL is therefore a matter of basic common sense.

Other merits of the policy become apparent when we consider situations in which a driver is directly responsible for the safety of others, as with school bus or tour bus drivers. Such drivers are often required to undergo physical examinations for heart disease and other conditions that could suddenly affect their performance on the job, and the same logic applies to substance abuse testing. No one wants to be a passenger on a vehicle driven by someone who is impaired, and substance testing is one means of ensuring the safety of passengers as well as that of other motorists sharing the road.

Test Validity and Employee Rights

One of the most important issues surrounding successful testing is the validity of results. A case involving a bus driver whose urinalysis showed the presence of marijuana illustrates this concern clearly: "News of his suspension and the test results spread to the bus driver's family, co-workers, and acquaintances. Two weeks after the first urinalysis, the bus driver was retested. The results were negative and the company reinstated him" (Angarola, 1991, p. 171). This example demonstrates that a company must be absolutely certain its results are correct and must be scrupulous in maintaining the privacy and confidentiality of the employee — or it risks both litigation and significant personnel consequences. While substance testing is both sensible and legally required, precautions must be taken to ensure that results are accurate and that employee rights are protected.

Conclusion

The merits of substance abuse testing for those who desire or already hold a CDL are clear. Such testing keeps substance abusers off our roads and highways and helps ensure the safety of the public. It is also simply good policy. Driving while impaired is always dangerous, but operating a large commercial vehicle while impaired can be even more deadly. Drug and alcohol testing may not be appropriate for every employment context, but for commercial truck drivers, it is a vital tool for public safety and a straightforwardly sensible requirement.

Works Cited

Ammerman, R.T. (1999). Prevention and societal impact of drug and alcohol abuse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Angarola, R.T. (1991). Substance-abuse testing in the workplace: Legal issues and corporate responses. In R.H. Coombs & L.J. West (Eds.), Drug testing: Issues and options (pp. 155–182). New York: Oxford University Press.

Editors. (July 1994). Alcohol and drug testing — Part 382. Retrieved from the Underride Network Truck Safety Web Site: 21 Nov. 2003.

Gant, R.E. (1991, Spring). The impact of the trucking industry in Tennessee. Business Perspectives, 4, 1+.

Simon, F.C. (1998, June 5). WASA pact opens door for drug testing. The Washington Times, p. 4.