Career Path > NRC

Denied unescorted access at riverbend nuclear plant

<< < (2/2)

GLW:
no nelp help from the union hall on this scenario?

Graphic:
Whether or not you want to call it being employed by that company, the reason you are getting denied is for failing to take the test WITH that company. You presented that information to the utility and they followed the guidelines they are mandated to follow. Any drug/alcohol related offenses in the past 5 years are more than likely going to hinder you from getting unescorted access. Refusal to test falls under that guideline.


Why would the utility offer you alternatives to test when you tested for them? There is no need to offer you any type of alternative if you passed their test.

So like I said the reason you are being denied is for your failure to test on a previous job. If you have documentation proving you had medical issues, take that it up with the previous job. They are the ones who are hindering you, not the utility.

hamsamich:
I think refusal is a bad word for this situation, how about unable to perform?  I looked up the definition for refusal, and it seems to imply will, although I'm sure there is a def. somewhere that says will doesn't matter.  Doesn't seem like there was intent here.  I don't know if it matters I'm just stating a possible fact.  Plus the spirit of the procedure seems to imply you are in control off giving a sample, and obviously in this situ may not be the case.  A blood test would have cleared things up.  As a matter of fact if this would have happened to me I WOULD have gotten a blood test myself at the earliest possible chance.  Graphic seems to be saying that ANY company no matter how small or large and what their reputation has complete omnipotence over you in this situation?  That sucks!!!

Graphic:

--- Quote from: hamsamich on Sep 08, 2014, 07:17 ---I think refusal is a bad word for this situation, how about unable to perform?  I looked up the definition for refusal, and it seems to imply will, although I'm sure there is a def. somewhere that says will doesn't matter.  Doesn't seem like there was intent here.  I don't know if it matters I'm just stating a possible fact.  Plus the spirit of the procedure seems to imply you are in control off giving a sample, and obviously in this situ may not be the case.  A blood test would have cleared things up.  As a matter of fact if this would have happened to me I WOULD have gotten a blood test myself at the earliest possible chance.  Graphic seems to be saying that ANY company no matter how small or large and what their reputation has complete omnipotence over you in this situation?  That sucks!!!


--- End quote ---

I wouldn't say a company controls your fate simply by what they say or report back but it definitely can effect you. I mean one of the MAIN questions they ask on the PHQ (and they also ask when calling references/jobs) is have you ever refused to take a drug/alcohol test. In this instance he/she refused, no matter how we want to word it or if it was his intention that is how the company lists the termination. Nowadays most companies don't even give out any information regarding a persons employment aside from the dates they were employed and their position --- mostly for legal reasons. So when a background screener gets an anomaly such as this it can raise red flags pretty quick. There really is no way for us to know the whole story because we will never know what the former job reported, if anything. Any information found during the investigation is also not divulged (as in names, what company said what.. etc)

The NRC basically follows DOT drug testing guidelines. If it was done at a lab they are required to follow those guidelines. If it's a mom and pop shop that does their own drug testing on the spot then they don't fall under those guidelines. I won't even get into all the DOT/HHS guidelines for testing. To me,  the previous company saying he refused to test is the issue and why he was denied.

Regardless, his appeal has already been used and it was denied also. It is only a 1 year denial which could easily have been 3. Obviously if he reapplies again this situation has already been adjudicated (1 year denial) and won't give him problems going forward, as long as he can pee in the cup.

I don't know what the procedure Entergy is referring to since it is internal but it's just a form letter so it is more than likely their FFD procedure. I would still contact the previous job. I say if this story is accurate the only one that discriminated against him is the former company.

A year will fly by though. Just wait it out and you'll be fine. I know that's not the favorable answer but you really have no recourse.

Good luck

hoghunter:
 I tried to stay away from this one but being what I have been through and knowing what he said she said and what it will be. against my judgement in order for me tell explain I will need to say what  I went through. In mid 80's I went to one of the  first plant to have in process drug test. although mine was true and you thank yours is different just listen to me for a minute and you will see why it isn't. now I continued to work and 1991 ffd came into play and even though I was working at a plant I got put on a 5 yr program and to this day I'm still on programs at different plant.I even had the EN-NS-101 procedure pulled on me, it is a security procedure  which has the FFD guide lines. I know most the world out there know me and with that they know the hardest thing I do now is cigarettes and rootbeer( SAMS) lol.
 Beng look at it like this if a cop pulls you and you refuse the breath test it the same as a positive. the same is here,you said you have a medical issue so you couldn't produce and when you turned and walked out in their eyes thats a positive. I heard you say medical issues and the blood test thing, but take it from a person who makes a habit of opening mouth at all the wrong times and saying just what I shouldn't, you need to seek legal help and let them see what they can do in a political way. trying to complain to NRC and others will only make it worse. to be honest right now you have denied access which is not good but you should have started doing something about it the day of  and with the company it happened with because now may be to late, they say 1 year good luck with that. I was told 5yrs and to this day there are plants I can't go to and others that still want to judge on past. I'm just saying don't be miss lead!!  Graphic had some very good points but Rennhack may have hit best do some doe site and non NRC reg. jobs come back in a year and try, in the mean time seek legal help but don't rock the boat now it will cost you later. Let the legal ones do it for you

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page