See Dick Run

The title of this blog will seem hilarious when you get to the meat of the matter.  I almost pissed myself when I read it.  It seems that the shitheads at the FAA have come up with another method for their perverted sexual proclivities. 

You would think that the flaccid weeners working for Booby Sturgeel at 800 Independence Avenue would have something better to do that spy on people's cocks and cooters but that's exactly what they have decided to do.

There's also a strong rumor that DoT Beeotch Mary Peters fired this as a parting shot at unions.  Urine trouble when a lady named Peters wants to part your privates.  In my opinion she probably stands when she pees anyway.

Now me, when I used to have to take a drug test I always did one of two things which you might want to incorporate into your routine in light of these new developments.

I would either hold my hands up and say, "I burned my fingers making waffles this morning.  You're going to have to help me out with Toby here."  Or.....I would slink the snake out of his trouser-cave and hose down the inspector, saying, "Whoa, Big Fella, Whoooooooa!  Oh well...you got your specimen..."

The new regs, as described by Pass General Counsel Mike Derby:

You may recall that for the past few years there has been a controversy brewing throughout the transportation industry, FAA included, concerning "validity" testing for urine samples obtained under the Department of Transportation's drug testing policy.  The concerns involved several procedural issues and PASS, in conjunction with the AFL-CIO's Transportation Trades Department (TTD) (including private sector transportation unions) submitted comments on the DOT's proposed changes to its drug testing regulations.  All of this culminated in the DOT's issuance on June 25, 2008, of a "Final Rule," effective August 25, 2008, dealing with various amendments to 49 CFR Part 40 - the DOT's drug testing regulations applicable to all modes of transportation, including all FAA employees subject to drug testing. 

While most of the changes are beneficial in that they tighten up and clarify the validity testing issue, the final rule includes a major change that was not included in the proposed rule and, thus, is an issue on which PASS and TTD never had an adequate opportunity to submit comments as required under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act.  Specifically, the DOT Final Rule contains a new provision for EXPANDED DIRECT OBSERVATION URINE SAMPLE COLLECTIONS for all employees subject to "return to duty or follow up drug testing."  This means that employees who have had drug testing problems in the past and have successfully completed rehabilitation and/or other requirements and are subject to return to duty or follow up testing under, for example, a rehabilitation agreement, must provide all future urine samples under "direct observation."  The DOT attempts to justify this new requirement by pointing out that since the 1990's the use and availability of various devices for the adulteration of urine (i.e. http://www.whizzinator.com ) has greatly increased. Direct observation was determined to be the best method for preventing adulteration and is described as follows:

        "Based on these facts, the DOT will require employees who are undergoing directly observed collections to raise their shirts, blouses, or dresses/skirts, as appropriate, above the waist and lower their pants and underpants to show the observer, by turning around, that they do not have a prosthetic device on their person.  After this is done, they may return their clothing to its proper position and contribute a specimen in such manner that the observer can see the urine exiting directly from the individual into the collection container, as required under current regulations."  [SEE Pages 35968 and 35970 of the attachment]

Although direct observation has always been included as a collection method under the drug testing procedure, it was limited to circumstances where there was evidence of possible tampering based on lab results or other objective factors.  The new rule expands the practice to include a new universe of employees that will substantially increase the use of direct observation, even when there is no evidence or history that these employees have ever attempted to tamper with their urine samples or otherwise interfere with the drug testing process. 

It is important to note that this requirement was not included in the DOT's proposed changes to 49 CFR Part 40.  There is speculation that DOT Secretary Mary Peters signed off on this change as a sort of parting shot towards the various transportation unions, much like the anti-union actions of the Secretary of Labor in her recent issuances.

In any event, on 7-29-08 PASS participated in a teleconference  with TTD lawyers and representatives of various TTD affiliates whose members are covered by the amendments to explore our legal options for stopping implementation of the rule change concerning direct observation.  During the telecon, the consensus was that the new requirement is out of line because (1) it would involve a substantial invasion of personal privacy without evidence of tampering or other legitimate justification and (2) the requirement was included in the new rule without proper compliance with the APA.  During the call, it became apparent that many private sector employers (rail and airlines) also object to the new direct observation requirements because they see an increase in cost and administrative requirements.  It was also observed that, since this is a final rule, there is no provision under the APA to seek formal reconsideration.  Nevertheless, after extensive discussion, it was decided that the TTD, on behalf of all TTD affiliates, including PASS, will submit a Petition for Reconsideration directly to Secretary Peters pointing out the procedural defects in connection with the issuance of the rule, and asking her to revoke the direct observation changes until after DOT complies with the APA.  Since employers are also objecting, there was some discussion of coordinating with them since it is likely DOT will be much more receptive to corporate concerns than those submitted by the transportation unions.  If the DOT fails to act on the petition, it is likely that TTD, on behalf of its affiliates, including PASS, will take appropriate legal action to halt implementation of the direct observation amendment. 

I am circulating this now so that PASS members will be aware that (1) there are new drug testing procedures that will be implemented on 8-25-08; (2) PASS is taking action on their behalf in conjunction with other unions to stop implementation of the offensive amendment; (3) PASS's affiliation with the AFL-CIO has been beneficial in connection with this effort; and (4) non-members should seriously reconsider their membership status because PASS is the only organization looking out for their workplace rights.

Comments

[Really???]

Same sex observers have been doing this and more since the military had the piss test. No chance of a doctored test when they see the pee hole hit the bottle hole!!

[gotta go pee]

It would really suck if I accidently pissed on an observer.

[Mary Peters]

What assurances are there that the FAA isn't hiring homosexual voyuers who get their jollies on the job?

[passdave]

I see why PASS is getting so pissy about it.

[Retired-2007]

Sorry about that, Mr. Tester: I usually fart when I piss.

[John J. Tormey III, Esq.]

I'm speechless with disgust and outrage at FAA's and USDOT's absolutely unacceptable and unwarranted attack on privacy. I can't even comment. Yet.

[John J. Tormey III, Esq.]

Okay. Kiki Dee. I heat up. I cool down.
I expect that affected workers will individually and collectively address their concerns, PRIOR to August 25, 2008, to their corresponding organizations such as PASS, NATCA, AFL-CIO, Teamsters - whichever and however many are relevant. Even organizations without members in the cross-hairs on this, will be interested though, due to its precedential and prejudicial effect on the entire American workplace potentially. John Carr rightfully recognizes that this injustice has huge and potentially international media potential. It is time to make it go international. August 26 may be too late.
Other organizations to consider contacting are ACLU (the NY number is 1-212-607-3300), and NELA.
Outside litigation counsel immediately coming to mind are Alan M. Dershowitz, Esq. in Cambridge, MA; New York-based employment litigator Wayne Outten, Esq.; and New York-based employment litigator Bob Lipman, Esq. Other outside litigators in individual jurisdictions can be located and researched through:
http://www.martindale.com
Finally, as one of my professors Hal Kruth used to say in law school, "Self-help is always a remedy". As tempting as it would be to have every tested worker save FAA and USDOT the time and expense by simply snail-mailing their samples in to Mary Peters and Bobby Sturgell ahead of time, that would create Postal Regulation problems. But here's a more productive thought. When a cop pulls you over, you're entitled to his/her name and badge number. If a USDOT or FAA ghoul insists on viewing your micturation ceremony full-frontal citing a concocted new regulation, you BET you are entitled to know that person's full legal name. I am pleased to announce, today, the commencement of the "FAA/USDOT Voyeur Database". We are going to treat each individual who acts as "observer" or bathroom inspector hall monitor, as the pervert and sex criminal that they are, just as if they are registered violent sex offenders. Because that IS what they are, doing violence to common decency and the rights of the individual. What kind of scummy individual agrees to do that as their job? We are going to collect EACH of the observers' individual full legal names and all other identifying information about them, including photos of them, FOIA their personnel files, and then run background checks on each and every one of them, and we are going to make sure that every single person in THEIR respective homes, communities, and neighborhoods where they reside - local newspapers, schools, neighbors, houses of worship, spouses, children, local police stations, and so forth - know EXACTLY what they do for a living. They want to invade your privacy? FINE. We are about to teach them, on an individual level, a thing or two about privacy.
Let's hit this hard. Let's hit them hard.

[AceOfAerospace]

I can only piss while taking a dump.

[PNSHD]

I get really nervous having to pee in front of somebody. That makes me shake. Sorry for the sloppy specimen...hope it doesn't mess up your paperwork.

Welcome back Johnny!

[ZHU, CPC]

Wow, Mr. Tormey. You're good. Glad you're on our side.

[ZHU, CPC]

Oh, yeah, check this quote...

"After this is done, they may return their clothing to its proper position and contribute...."

Returning the clothing to its "proper" position would seem to indicate that it was previously in an "improper" position. Poor choice of words, I think, admitting that the new procedure is "improper".

[Steamer]

I like that idea of snail-mailing them a specimen. How 'bout a steaming cup of #2, Mary? (Credit for this idea goes to John Carr)

[BeachSide]

First, a disclaimer here, in no way do I support anything the jackboots in the FAA are trying to ram down the 2152 force. Yes, the FAA is staffed with many "toe-tappers" that would love nothing more than to do this. FAAMA will probably print a "How To" guide in the next issue....

However, for clarification, doesn't this apply to those that have already failed and are being "second chanced"?

To do this on the workforce in general (initial test) would most likely invoke many problems/issues. As stupid as the FAA is, it can't be that stupid.

Is this a nose under the tent issue? Just wondering.

Retire, then live as you like......

[too late brace yourself]

How many of these "second chancers" are there? Does the number justify this ruling? In my 28 yrs, I've only seen one person "popped" in both urine testing and breatholyzer testing.

[MerlinMine]

BeachSide,

The provisions allow them to observe anyone at anytime...

[John J. Tormey III, Esq.]

It just dawned on me. Hand-delivery of the pre-emptive sample, vitiates the potential Postal Reg problem. Has anyone given any thought to the gift that they want to bring Bobby Sturgell for his sheet-cake send-off party at 800 Independence?

Speaking of which, check out Russ Niles's interview of The Eel at:

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/exclusivevids/EAAAirVenture2008_ExclusiveVideo_BobbySturgell_FAAAdministrator_198490-1.html

You can fast-forward to SMPTE-code 4 minutes into this 5.5 minute video, and watch what "federal official" Bobby does with his hands, as soon as Russ asks him about that "unusual" group in New York that scooped the story on Bobby's already-occurring resignation. Any other psy-ops or psych majors out there? I haven't seen hand-wringing like that since "federal official" Steve Kelley impersonated Lady Macbeth in Hillburn.

Never mind "murdered sleep". Bobby Sturgell murdered aviation. What a loser.

[Semper fi]

LET IT RUN.! Get a full bladder and follow the instructions letting it run all over the floor and everything else. Wet all over your clothes and shoes and I'll bet they send you home to change. Slip and fall on the puddle you made and have the FAA call 911 for assistance. Tormey, you da' MAN!

[atcadvocate]

want to be an air traffic controller, whip it out, son!

[Fox Echo]

What's to keep these slimy slobs from being issued FAKE IDs & ADRRESSES? Considering the topic "at hand", I guess you could call the FAA/DOT effort here "WATERgate II". Just a thought.

[John J. Tormey III, Esq.]

(You call it "Toby"?).

[blue cat]

Welcome back Mr. Carr. These little tidbits are what makes your blogs one of internet "must-reads".

[dt]

if they want to watch, ill dye my johnson blue/green the night before and cover it with vaseline dyed red(blood) and whip it out towards them to start. Hope it doesn't splatter all over the paperwork

[dysfuntional]

Being ex navy I have already experienced this sort of collection observation. BUT as a military "member" no pun intended, I was also military property and thus subject to "inspection". However my FAA NON-Tract/Firm offer etc... has no such clause. Therfore quite simply the FAA or any entity of said agency has no right to treat me as property but as a citizen. NOW I agree if someone has had a history of "Abuse" and or usage, and is in some kind of either rehabilatory program or suspended due to said drugs. Then the rule could be applied there.

[Neidameyer]

"S'cuuuuzzzz Mee, while I whip 'dis out!"

Okay, how about we all show up in D.C. with cups full of piss and set them on the steps of the DOT?

[Aluminum showers]

Interesting.

By the way John J Tormey, you might be interested to know that it's usually NOT FAA employees who do the testing. The last time they came around for the random, it was a contractor out of Chicago. The FAA always contracts stuff out to the lowest bidder.

Poor guy.

I am not a very good aim.

[Don Brown]

"As stupid as the FAA is, it can't be that stupid."

I wish I had a dime for every time I said that -- and was wrong.

Nice to have you back, John.

Don Brown

[lowskillset]

I hope I don't drop the collection cup next time. If I do, I'm guessing the observer and myself will get several hours of OT because I probably won't be able to contribute another specimen for some time.

[John J. Tormey III, Esq.]

Dear Aluminum Showers:
Kindly please research for me, if you can, and if you have the time, the names of the persons and/or entities that "handle" the testing, be they out of Chicago or otherwise. My fax number is: 1-212-410-2380. If you have the addresses, e-mails, websites, phone numbers, and/or faxes of these observer-contractor-Klingons, all the better. Private entities are EXTREMELY vulnerable. A 3rd-year associate at a firm can usually take them out. It's pretty easy. It is also surprisingly easy to run research and recon on private entities, and they ALWAYS leave traces that they have forgotten about. MITRE is about to find that out. So too will the Chicago pervert "observers". By the way, isn't that a Chicago accent I detect in Hank (The Cowardly Lion) Krakowski? Speaking of 'traces that they have forgotten about', are there any former Lima Lima's working for the Chicago contractor? Let's have some fun with this. And, let's finish this.

[Michael]

Just wink at the tester and say "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" and keep making kissing sounds in his direction. Ask him if he wants a urine sample or a semen sample.

[Dale Kettring]

Here is a suggestion from a PASS member that I thought was rather appropriate.

"...from para 15c of the updated Human Resources Policy Manual (HRPM) Volume 4: Employee Relations ER-4.1:
https://employees.faa.gov/org/staffoffices/ahr/policy_guidance/hr_policies/hrpm/er/er-4-1/

"In addition, employees occupying safety-sensitive duties must immediately report to their manager any use of prescription and OTC drugs."

I took an aspirin while on duty today and notified my manager.

But to fully comply with the requirement, I intend to report all off-duty use of aspirin as well. Immediately. Especially when he is also off-duty.

And I use aspirin VERY frequently. In fact, I expect it may become even MORE frequent now."

[Martinlady]

Gentlemen, gentlemen, let me bring a female perspective to the discussion.

I'm not sure how anyone is supposed to observe the urine exiting directly from me without some serious contorsionism (is that a word?) going on. Like most females, I sit when my urine requires exiting from my body.

I can guarantee it won't be me doing the twisting and turning...nor the spreading...for the observation of said collection.

[nutts]

i cant pee if soneone is looking at me, hay that rimes