http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/28/travel/amtrak-drug-alcohol-tests/index.html
"Amtrak's employees failed drug and alcohol tests at a staggering 51% higher rate than the rail industry average."
Not good.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/28/travel/amtrak-drug-alcohol-tests/index.html "Amtrak's employees failed drug and alcohol tests at a staggering 51% higher rate than the rail industry average." Not good.
Article is long on character assasination and short on facts.
How many tested in which crafts with what failure rate by craft -- nothing was specified in the article.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD schlimm http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/28/travel/amtrak-drug-alcohol-tests/index.html "Amtrak's employees failed drug and alcohol tests at a staggering 51% higher rate than the rail industry average." Not good. Article is long on character assasination and short on facts. How many tested in which crafts with what failure rate by craft -- nothing was specified in the article.
Here is the OIG's report;
http://www.amtrakoig.gov/sites/default/files/reports/da_final_report_20120927_signed.pdf
Mainly the OIG report looked at HOS employees. As a supervisor at an airline I see several problem for AMTRAK.
1. The main crew bases can be easily be covered.
2. AMTRAK crew bases often are not the same locations as their host RRs. There are many crew bases with only a few employees
3. Where crew base locations are same can use host RR facilities.
4. A DRUG and alcohol testing facility has to be certified ( a lengthy process ) and has to be recertified every so often. Alcohol is easier as local law enforcement can be used if they have certain test equipment. The requirement for proper handling of a blood control sample sunk more than one of our testing labs.
5. Many HOS and other employees do not transit any test facility and how do you test agents who work at an out of the way station and may be the only employee?
6. A mobile test van might be the way; however how do you keep the fact of it coming a secret at its next location ?
7. As a supervisor was tested at least every 3 months -- does not sound like upper AMRAK management is be subject to tests?
8. I only had 2 suspected cases for cause ; one was negative and other turned out to have a developing serious medical condition that was undiagnosed. Almost had to go to retraining for those 2.
I am kind of familiar with the drug testing industry...and the story might be right...but not that employee drug use is more at Amtrak than other railroads rather that the testing is more honest by the company administering the tests. Sloppy and unprofessional behavior by the administrator is often the culprit of improper results. Oh, and this is not just in railroading or transporation, but across the board in industry. Those being tested have learned how to cheat on the test. Mishandling of the samples, poorly documented samples, switched samples, all add to the confusion. And in many industries, especially railroading, company supervisors fear, sometimes rightfully so, that they won't be able to have crews if they are tested. So all kinds of games go on from keeping drug testers waiting long hours without people to test so that they leave or calling them after a crew arrives and too late for the tester to arrive to calling crews and warning them ahead of time. Keeping good test administrators is difficult because of the abuse, verbal and physical, they take in doing their jobs. They get no respect and they get no help from railroad management.. I know factory managers who don't want drug testing because they know they will lose over half their work force if tested. It is a problem but one many don't want to solve or work out .
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
"A new report blasts Amtrak, the nation's largest passenger rail carrier, for dangerously overlooking drug and alcohol use by its employees."
"The report released Thursday, an internal audit by Amtrak's Office of Inspector General, "
"Amtrak officials estimate that they've spent $1.5 million to screen employees in 2012 alone"
Those three statements in the beginning of the article would seem to be contradictory. If it's an Amtrak report then Amtrak is not overlooking the problem.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
I believe the Office of Inspector General for Amtrak does not report within the Amtrak corporate hierarchy, but is independent.
The scope of Amtrak's OIB is governed by the Inspector General Act of 1978, which was amended in 1988 and 2008. The OIG reports administratively to the Amtrak CEO, with a dotted reporting relationship to the Board of Directors and the Congress.
"To ensure objectivity, the IG Act empowers Inspector Generals with:
The current Inspector General, Theodore Alves, has more than 37 years experience in government auditing and investigative. He appears to be a seasoned audit executive.
The IG is empowered to bypass the CEO and Board of Directors in extreme circumstances and report directly to Congress. He (she) would only do so, however, in the case of suspected executive management misbehavior.
blue streak 1 BaltACD schlimm http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/28/travel/amtrak-drug-alcohol-tests/index.html "Amtrak's employees failed drug and alcohol tests at a staggering 51% higher rate than the rail industry average." Not good. Article is long on character assasination and short on facts. How many tested in which crafts with what failure rate by craft -- nothing was specified in the article. Here is the OIG's report; http://www.amtrakoig.gov/sites/default/files/reports/da_final_report_20120927_signed.pdf Mainly the OIG report looked at HOS employees. As a supervisor at an airline I see several problem for AMTRAK. 1. The main crew bases can be easily be covered. 2. AMTRAK crew bases often are not the same locations as their host RRs. There are many crew bases with only a few employees 3. Where crew base locations are same can use host RR facilities. 4. A DRUG and alcohol testing facility has to be certified ( a lengthy process ) and has to be recertified every so often. Alcohol is easier as local law enforcement can be used if they have certain test equipment. The requirement for proper handling of a blood control sample sunk more than one of our testing labs. 5. Many HOS and other employees do not transit any test facility and how do you test agents who work at an out of the way station and may be the only employee? 6. A mobile test van might be the way; however how do you keep the fact of it coming a secret at its next location ? 7. As a supervisor was tested at least every 3 months -- does not sound like upper AMRAK management is be subject to tests? 8. I only had 2 suspected cases for cause ; one was negative and other turned out to have a developing serious medical condition that was undiagnosed. Almost had to go to retraining for those 2.
I have no idea how Amtrak has implemented their testing program.
On my carrier, a outside testing organization sends it representative to test specific job(s) and whoever is working that specific job. Company official have no say in who or when the random testing is performed. The testing organization has a list of all the jobs the company has that are covered by testing and in some manner use a 'random number generator' to select which job(s) will be tested and when (before or after the tour of duty). The testers do show up at outlying points where only a single individual may report for duty (they notify that employee's supervisor to advise they are there to test the employee so that the supervisor is aware of what is taking place).
Company official may order testing, for cause, as a result of operating incidents (derailment, red signal infraction, crossing accident etc.) The testing is done by a outside testing organization that sends their representative to perform the test.
At no time does a company employee administer the tests.
BaltACD At no time does a company employee administer the tests.
same with us however since we had a central crew base a company employee would accompany tester and open a sealed envelope with the names of tested persons. In addition all employees were tested at random not just required safety critical employees. Even the CEO & COO.
Just a few points to add to what has been said:
1. The cornerstone of the DAA program is random drug testing. The FRA requires 25 per cent of employees be tested each year. Amtrak was testing 33 per cent of employees, well in excess of FRA requirements and within Amtrak the number of positive tests and dropped markedly in recent years. In 2011 about half a per cent of Amtrak employees tested positive related to about a third of a per cent of freight railroad employees. This was substantial progress. Amtrak senior management may have been lulled into a sense of false security in the knowledge that they exceeded FRA standards and had made progress.
2. One area where Amtrak really fell down on the job is in the lack of supervisory observations. The fact that Amtrak's reporting system was cumbersome is not an adequate justification and upper management clearly was not exercising oversight. The difference between minimum required observations and what was reported should be a real red flag. My perspective is that of a former union rep. Every single supervisor should have seen to it that the required number of observations was done on time and added a few extra to allow no question of his own supervision. It is hard to understand this deficiency.
3. The RedBlock system is interesting. It allowed an HOS employee to deliberately abuse drugs or alcohol and take time off to avoid having his supervisor see him impaired with no questions asked. At first glance it seems hard to justify. However, as I union rep I well know that some people have medical conditions that cause a lot of pain, pain to the extent that they cannot concentrate on their work. They cannot get disability benefits because the pain can be controlled by medication but the medication is strong enough to impair the person at work. RedBlock is a sign of a really enlightened management. It is also a program that can be abused.
4. The report gives detailed information about how the IG collected data. However, there is no real information about the comparative data. Do all freight railroads use identical techniques? Presumably they meet FRA regulations but regulations are subject to different understandings. We just don't know abut freight railroads except that on average they test 50 per cent of HOS employees.
4b. That 50 per cent figure itself makes me a little suspicious. Private companies watch the bottom line. FRA requires 25 per cent be tested. Why go to the expense of testing twice as many as is required? The report suggests it is an effort by freight railroads to scare HOS employees away from using drugs and an effort that meets with some success. However, it may also motivate the same employees into finding ways to cheat the system.
5. It should go without saying that people who do abuse drugs or alcohol do not want to be caught and will develop elaborate subterfuges to avoid being caught. Also, management, especially local management may have an interest in having HOS employees avoid detection. And of course management officials themselves are not exempt from substance abuse. And even though an outside agency does the testing problems can creep in. I wouldn't cast aspersions at people simply because I don't know them but neither would I assume human procedures are foolproof. At the very least I would like to look at freight railroad data and not just averages which can cover up more than they reveal but at an actual frequency distribution of data from individual railroads.
From John WR: "4. The report gives detailed information about how the IG collected data. However, there is no real information about the comparative data. Do all freight railroads use identical techniques? Presumably they meet FRA regulations but regulations are subject to different understandings. We just don't know abut freight railroads except that on average they test 50 per cent of HOS employees."
The idea that some supervisors will lay guys off so that they don't have to go through the drug test is one of the problems...some supervisors are trying to keep enough crews available and one failed drug/alcohol test could set his operation back by a whole crew cycle. But more important and the major problem points are found in John WR's #4 paragraph above. Not all drug testing is equal. My interviews with a drug testing company indicate that not all drug collectors do things by the book...chain of ownership is often compromised, paper work is incomplete or not done consecutive to the gathering of samples, sealing of sample is not done in a timely fashion, employee is not properly supervised or instructed; just some of the problems that crop up. Also employees have games they play with substitution of sample, hiding vials in some of the most undiscribable places (collecting agent cannot be with the employee when sample is dispensed into the vial but can stand by the door and instruct but cannot watch). There are many ways the system can fail...sometimes it is because both the company and the employee want the system to fail, sometimes even the collector is in on the game. Some employees, even supervisors, have been known to threaten and harrass collectors, with the collector or his agency having a universal charge card for tires anyplace they happen to be. In the end the question is how seriouse are the railroads, the government, and even the employees, about drug testing and working safely. If you are out on the road with a guy who is high, how safe do you feel about getting home alive and in one piece? Or is the drug hit worth the risk for you and the guy you are riding with?
All of those problems can and and least in part are overcome in many settings. It depends on the attitude of management more than anything. Clear consequences but with the goal of mutual benefit is the key in the situations where I had involvement in a supervisory role.
Another issue in substance testing relates to impairment and differences in substances. Folks will test positive for a variety of substances for various periods of time well after the last occurrence of intoxication, generally with most testing except for alcohol. In the latter case, blood alcohol levels are noted. In some ways, the latter seems more correlated to the ultimate goal: preventing the consequences of substance impairment of reflexes, judgement, emotions and perception than tests for eg., cannabis use, which may be legitimately positive weeks after the last use, which in turn may never have occurred while working.
schlimmAll of those problems can and and least in part are overcome in many settings. It depends on the attitude of management more than anything. Clear consequences but with the goal of mutual benefit is the key in the situations where I had involvement in a supervisory role.
No doubt you are correct Schlimm. Not only can testing problems be overcome in part, they can be overcome in large part. Of course even 1 case of drug impairment on the job is too many because it can endanger the people any organization serves. In an organization like a railroad it can become life threatening. You were a supervisor and you correctly stress the "attitude of management." My background is an an employee and I would add that employees best serve themselves by having the attitude of zero tolerance for this kind of behavior.
On one level, those problems of drug testing can be overcome. But on a broader level, what is the function of drug testing? To prevent impairment of employees that can lead to dangerous, even fatal accidents. But these policies may not adequately address two factors: 1. different levels of danger of drugs are being tested for, and 2. the presence of some drugs at some point within the time limits of a test does not necessarily indicate that the employee has been working while intoxicated or otherwise impaired. For example, an employee could test positive for a powerful analgesic such as hydrocodone or oxycodone. S/he could have used it briefly in the recent past legitimately or could be continuing what was a legitimate use originally, but now represents substance abuse. Without a sophisticated program, an employee's career could be put at risk unnecessarily.
Post deleted.
While I agree that any increase is not good and the 51% number sounds staggering - I believe that increase is based upon the industry average being approximately 0.5% (one half of one percent) and Amtrak being approximately 0.75% (3/4 of one percent). We are not talking staggering numbers of people and with Amtrak's relatively smaller employee base, each individual failure has a more significant impact on the final statistic than does the individual failure on other members in the industry average. The increase in Amtrak failures is of concern, but it is not the catastrophic level that the 51% headline would have one believe.
The real drug problem is those mishandled, improperly administred, managed by the railroad or the employee rather than the collector....there are probably more like that than 100% true test results.
BaltACD schlimm http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/28/travel/amtrak-drug-alcohol-tests/index.html "Amtrak's employees failed drug and alcohol tests at a staggering 51% higher rate than the rail industry average." Not good. While I agree that any increase is not good and the 51% number sounds staggering - I believe that increase is based upon the industry average being approximately 0.5% (one half of one percent) and Amtrak being approximately 0.75% (3/4 of one percent). We are not talking staggering numbers of people and with Amtrak's relatively smaller employee base, each individual failure has a more significant impact on the final statistic than does the individual failure on other members in the industry average. The increase in Amtrak failures is of concern, but it is not the catastrophic level that the 51% headline would have one believe.
Spot on! Every time we had an incident in the electric utility where I spent most of my working life, HR and management would go ballistic. Mind you, at no point did we find or have any reason to believe that more than 1/2 of 1 per cent of our employees had a drug or alcohol problem.
We took the issue seriously because the electric utility business is dangerous. This is especially true at the nuke plants. People need to keep the statistics and issue in proper perspective.
From the AIG's report:
"Amtrak’s combined rate of positive tests for drugs and alcohol from 2006 through 2011 averages about 1.4 times that of the industry." "When looked at separately, Amtrak’s rate of drug use was over twice the industry average, but alcohol use was 12 percent lower than the industry average for 2011."
So this is not a one year phenomenon. It is a systemic problem within Amtrak compared to the rest of the industry. As Amtrak handles human cargo, one would hope its record might be better than the freight roads. I wonder how the Amtrak picture compares with that of the airline industry?
"None of Amtrak’s locomotive engineers tested positive in 2011 but signals and mechanical employees drove up Amtrak’s positive tests, with these employee groups both testing positive over four times more frequently than their peers in the industry."
Reassuring news, to some degree.
"According to an FRA official, one of the reasons the industry’s positive test rate has decreased over the last several years is that many of the other railroads FRA oversees are testing a higher percentage of their HOS employees than required. Also, according to Amtrak’s D&A Program Office, several large freight railroads are testing 50 percent of their HOS employees, and have been for years. The increased testing rate deters the misuse of drugs and alcohol because, according to an FRA official, the HOS employees perceive that there is a greater likelihood that they will be caught. In comparison, Amtrak’s average testing rate between 2006 and 2011 was 33 percent for drugs and 39 percent for alcohol. This is still above the FRA minimums, but below the testing rates ofsome of the other large railroads." "Amtrak is not exercising due diligence in order to control the use of drugs and alcohol by HOS employees in safety-sensitive positions. Until we presented Amtrak’s senior management with our preliminary results, they were unaware of the extent of drug and alcohol use by these employees. Further, senior management is not actively engaged in the program, nor have they demonstrated that controlling drugs and alcohol is a clear priority at Amtrak. Likewise, Amtrak did not adequately address FRA’s concerns about its physical observation program."
So much of the blame lies with Amtrak management.
schlimm So much of the blame lies with Amtrak management.
One thing that colors this whole issue is that the frt RRs have a really, really, really low "positive" rate from random drug testing. That Amtrak is 50% higher really isn't all that terrible - it's probably still below the national avg for random drug testing.
Amtrak has a pretty high ratio of supervision to T&E employee, so it is somewhat troubling that the program isn't managed well.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
blue streak 1 schlimm So much of the blame lies with Amtrak management. as paul harvey used to say now page 2. http://www.ble-t.org/pr/news/newsflash.asp?id=5341 so the engineer's & conductor's unions strike back. now we need to know why the management of other crafts did not police the employees under their supervision ?
As I indicated earlier, many supervisors feel the employee crunch of not having enough people on hand to cover all assignements so will do many things to have his people avoid the test. He may tip them off, he may give the drug tester a wrong or bad time so that the crew(s) are not available when he/she arrives, he may hold a train out of terminal until the tester gives up and goes home, there are probably others I've not been told of. Employees themeslves have a communications sytstem warning others on the way in, they will intimidate the testor,--especially a female or very young man--to the point they goof up or leave (often outright quit) before the testing is complete, tires have been known to be slashed or punctured, they will try to make exchanges of samples, and, again, others I can't remember at this time. There are many ways drug tests can be tainted or changed and sometimes the tester is bribed or otherwise taken care of in order that the test doens't take place, is tampered with, or there is a violation in the handling of the paperwork, etc., some purposefully done, some by accident, and some--well--not everybody's perfect. But not all testers or testing companies are equal in meeting legal and ethical standards. And the same with railroad supervisors.
oltmannd One thing that colors this whole issue is that the frt RRs have a really, really, really low "positive" rate from random drug testing. That Amtrak is 50% higher really isn't all that terrible - it's probably still below the national avg for random drug testing. Amtrak has a pretty high ratio of supervision to T&E employee, so it is somewhat troubling that the program isn't managed well.
Don; I seem to originally have made a mistake about failures. the OIG report actually had only one conductor and no engineers failing the tests in 2011. rereading the report again -- on page seven ( 7 ) is a breakdown of failures by craft. Mechanical and signals are the big failure crafts. that does not bode well because signals are grouped mostly on NEC, Michigan, CHI union station. Mechanical of course includes the rolling stock.
It is troubling that the program is not managed well for the signals and mechanical crafts.
see page 7
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.