WASHINGTON — A coalition of 32 AFL-CIO member unions representing transportation workers has come out against a request by trucking companies that hair testing be allowed in lieu of urinalysis in screening drivers for drug use.
The Transportation Trades Department of AFL-CIO has questioned the reliability, accuracy and fairness of hair testing in urging the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to deny its use in pre-employment drug tests.
The TTD said scientific standards have yet to be set for hair testing and called on FMCSA to “follow established protocol and put science first.”
“No one in America should be denied employment because the trucking industry wants to rely on an unsound testing method as a way to cut drug-testing costs,” said TTD President Edward Wytkind. “Until hair testing is proven to be a reliable and fair way of testing for drug use and federal standards are in place, subjecting transportation workers to hair testing should not be up for serious consideration.”
Six large trucking companies petitioned FMCSA in January for exemptions that would allow them to use hair testing to comply with pre-employment drug testing regulations for drivers.
The petitioners, most of them members of the Alliance for Driver Safety & Security, contend that if FMCSA grants them exemptions, drug users could be “more readily identified” because the companies could then share failed hair-test results with other firms when they inquire about former drivers and applicants.
Current federal regulations do not allow transportation companies to share these results.
All of the companies making the request currently conduct the pre-employment tests with both urine and hair samples, but they have complained for some time that doing both tests is redundant and costly and that hair testing is more reliable.
The FAST Act highway bill passed in late 2015 by Congress includes a pathway to permitting hair testing by bus and trucking companies, but only after the Department of Health and Human Services establishes federal standards for such testing, a process that could take years.
The union coalition is calling on FMCSA to wait until those standards are established, calling it “a long-established process that rightfully allows scientists, not employers or politicians, to determine which testing methods and procedures are approved and implemented.”
The trucking alliance said hair tests cost $75, compared with $35 for urine tests, but they are worth the extra cost because they are more effective at identifying lifestyle drug users. Being forced by FMCSA to also pay for the less-effective urine test is redundant.
The alliance said that drivers who pass urine exams sometimes fail hair tests. That means they could potentially be hired by companies that only conduct urine tests, resulting in a less safe industry.
The union coalition, however, contends that studies show that hair testing can produce false results and may have an inherent racial bias. Darker and more porous hair retains some drugs at greater rates than lighter hair, said TTD, adding, “Hair specimens can test positive for drugs drivers never ingested.”
The coalition argues that urine tests are the most accurate and reliable method for pre-employment drug testing. Relying on hair testing, it said, “could unfairly hinder a driver’s chance to earn a livelihood and sets a threatening precedent that could affect millions of workers in the transportation sector and across the economy.”
Several civil rights groups, including the NAACP, ACLU and the Drug Policy Alliance, also have submitted comments to FMCSA against hair testing, citing racial biases and false results.
Major trucking industry groups, including the American Trucking Associations and the Truckload Carriers Association, support hair testing.
