Mike
Well-Known Member
Is Urinalysis good enough, or are hair samples the way we need to go in future drug testing for driving applicants?
Bringing this topic up because the debate is growing, and sides are being taken. Some say that urinalysis should remain the industry standard, while others say the test doesn't do an adequate job of screening potential commercial drivers.
---------
The Trucking Alliance Says:
The group says hair sample tests are more reliable in determining whether a driver applicant has used illegal drugs recently. The Alliance says more stringent requirements are needed in light of the increasing use of addictive opioids. Opioid use cannot be detected in a urine test only after a few hours, the Alliance says, whereas hair screening can detect opioid use from the prior 90 days.
Lane Kidd, managing director of the Trucking Alliance, says Congress plans to unveil legislation in January 2019 to require hair sample testing for truck drivers. The Alliance includes member companies J.B. Hunt, U.S. Xpress, Knight Transportation, Dupre Logistics, Swift and Maverick, among others.
Kidd says that, since 2006, J.B. Hunt has turned away more than 5,000 driver applicants who failed a hair sample test after passing a urine sample test. These drivers likely found jobs at other trucking companies, Kidd says, since most companies only use urine analysis tests. “Multiply this company’s experience by the hundreds of thousands of truck driver applicants each year across the United States, and we have a major problem,” said Kidd.
OOIDA Says:
“The Trucking Alliance has yet to demonstrate that they have experienced a reduction in crash rate since their voluntary adoption of hair testing,” the OOIDA Foundation wrote in its one-pager on the topic. “Neither have they presented evidence showing that their hair testing labs meet the rigorous standards of scientific methodology for testing or that their hair testing equipment and protocol has been consistent and unbiased.”
“Studies have indicated that hair testing for controlled substances has a bias toward hair color and texture, particularly for those individuals with darker hair,” OOIDA wrote. “Other issues with hair testing which have yet to be addressed include the problem that different individuals grow hair at different rates and that it takes much longer for metabolites to appear in hair than in urine.”
“OOIDA believes that before any alternative testing methodology is allowed in lieu of a proven methodology, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (should) be allowed access to the applicants’ hair testing and crash data to review for validity and to substantiate claims of a reduction in crashes,”
---------------------------
Responsible truck drivers, those who want to see a better image out here for the industry, would almost unanimously agree that drugs have no place within the industry.
The questions here are:
Does Urinalysis go far enough? Long enough? Accurate enough?
Is the potential unfairness of hair follicle testing a legitimate factor in this discussion?
The article from OOIDA cites crash data from 2015. The data shows out of 32,166 fatal motor vehicle crashes, 185 (or 0.58%) involved commercial drivers with positive drug tests. Would requiring hair follicle testing on a pre-employment drug screen have any positive impact on this number?
Bringing this topic up because the debate is growing, and sides are being taken. Some say that urinalysis should remain the industry standard, while others say the test doesn't do an adequate job of screening potential commercial drivers.
---------
The Trucking Alliance Says:
The group says hair sample tests are more reliable in determining whether a driver applicant has used illegal drugs recently. The Alliance says more stringent requirements are needed in light of the increasing use of addictive opioids. Opioid use cannot be detected in a urine test only after a few hours, the Alliance says, whereas hair screening can detect opioid use from the prior 90 days.
Lane Kidd, managing director of the Trucking Alliance, says Congress plans to unveil legislation in January 2019 to require hair sample testing for truck drivers. The Alliance includes member companies J.B. Hunt, U.S. Xpress, Knight Transportation, Dupre Logistics, Swift and Maverick, among others.
Kidd says that, since 2006, J.B. Hunt has turned away more than 5,000 driver applicants who failed a hair sample test after passing a urine sample test. These drivers likely found jobs at other trucking companies, Kidd says, since most companies only use urine analysis tests. “Multiply this company’s experience by the hundreds of thousands of truck driver applicants each year across the United States, and we have a major problem,” said Kidd.
OOIDA Says:
“The Trucking Alliance has yet to demonstrate that they have experienced a reduction in crash rate since their voluntary adoption of hair testing,” the OOIDA Foundation wrote in its one-pager on the topic. “Neither have they presented evidence showing that their hair testing labs meet the rigorous standards of scientific methodology for testing or that their hair testing equipment and protocol has been consistent and unbiased.”
“Studies have indicated that hair testing for controlled substances has a bias toward hair color and texture, particularly for those individuals with darker hair,” OOIDA wrote. “Other issues with hair testing which have yet to be addressed include the problem that different individuals grow hair at different rates and that it takes much longer for metabolites to appear in hair than in urine.”
“OOIDA believes that before any alternative testing methodology is allowed in lieu of a proven methodology, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (should) be allowed access to the applicants’ hair testing and crash data to review for validity and to substantiate claims of a reduction in crashes,”
---------------------------
Responsible truck drivers, those who want to see a better image out here for the industry, would almost unanimously agree that drugs have no place within the industry.
The questions here are:
Does Urinalysis go far enough? Long enough? Accurate enough?
Is the potential unfairness of hair follicle testing a legitimate factor in this discussion?
The article from OOIDA cites crash data from 2015. The data shows out of 32,166 fatal motor vehicle crashes, 185 (or 0.58%) involved commercial drivers with positive drug tests. Would requiring hair follicle testing on a pre-employment drug screen have any positive impact on this number?
