You can almost physically feel the tension between public safety and individual privacy as you read the Driver Safety Performance History regulation. Like a tug of war between well-matched opponents, the language is kept taut, pulled left with words like inquire, review and provide then right by terms like written authorization and rebuttal. The effort to achieve a balance between society's need for safety and security and the long-assumed rights of the individual is evident on every page.

advertisement

ASK THE EXPERTS

According to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), finding a means to help enhance public safety while still respecting personal privacy was precisely the regulation's intent. During the rulemaking process, the agency noted that, “The objective is to improve the quantity and quality of investigations made to previous employers, as well as the quantity, quality and timeliness of background driver safety performance information provided to prospective employers. This should foster more informed employment judgments about the safety risks of potential new employees while affording drivers the opportunity to review and comment on the accuracy of the information provided by previous employees.”

In fact, when the “Investigations and Inquiries” FMCSA regulation (391.23) went into effect in October of 2004, it generally caused little stir among carriers or their drivers, perhaps because it simply standardized what were already considered “good business practices” for many fleets accustomed to dealing with fleet safety and personal privacy issues as a matter of routine.

“We made a few procedural changes and small changes to our job application form,” recalls Jim Dunn, executive vp and safety manager for flatbed carrier Davis Transport of Missoula, MT, “but we have always been very responsive to requests from other carriers for performance information about drivers. Now we won't provide information by telephone anymore. Instead, we only respond in writing and only after we have a signed release from the driver authorizing the transfer of his or her information.

“I have not talked with any drivers who seem overly concerned with the new system,” Dunn adds. “In fact, I haven't heard anything good or bad about it. We do a newsletter for our drivers and also send out safety bulletins to make sure they are aware of new regulations or other changes that may impact them personally. That probably helped smooth the transition.

“I believe it is true that, prior to the regulation, there were carriers who would only provide dates of employment when another carrier made inquiries about a driver,” he notes. “They probably didn't want to say bad things about a driver because they worried they'd have to go to court to prove them if a driver was denied employment based on the information they provided. Now, Congress has granted limited liability to the employers providing and using this information as long as it is correct, and there is also a special new process for drivers who want to challenge the information in their records.”

Like Dunn, Randy Cornell, vp. of safety for Missouri-based Contract Freighters, Inc., says that implementing the new procedures was a “non-event” for their company as well. “The new procedure is really not very different from what we did before the regulation,” he says. “We are still using the same recordkeeping system we always have, for example. We're just retaining some information like drug and alcohol testing results longer and adding some additional documentation to the files.”

“I don't believe this has hurt carriers or drivers,” observes Dunn. “The bottom line is that the new procedures help us work together to wash bad drivers out of the trucking industry, and that is a big plus for everyone.”

Want to use this article? Click here for options!
© 2007 Penton Media, Inc.