Drugs and transit don't mix

LIKE MANY agencies with the power to conduct random drug and alcohol tests, the MBTA tries to balance the safety of the public with the privacy expectations of its workers. But the T is tipping too heavily toward its workers at the expense of its riders.

A recent report found that 54 workers in safety-sensitive positions who failed drug and alcohol tests since 2006 are still on the job. Most disturbing, 16 of those workers had been flagged by supervisors for being noticeably impaired on the job.

MBTA policy requires dismissal for any employee who tests positive for drugs or alcohol after involvement in an accident, regardless of the damage or personal injury. That's a clear and sensible policy. Less clear are the disciplinary measures needed when an employee tests positive after a random search. The T now imposes a 40-day, unpaid suspension and medical referral. A second offense results in termination.

Such a two-strike policy won't be a comfort to many T riders. But T general manager Daniel Grabauskas makes a reasonable case for the policy if it is combined with employee and medical assistance programs offered by the T. What is not reasonable is the T policy that offers a second chance to operators who show up for work visibly impaired. Managers can fire such workers outright - and do in some cases - or they can impose the same discipline handed out to unimpaired workers who fail random drug tests.

There's a big gulf between the worker who arrives on the job under the influence and the sober guy whose drug screen on Wednesday afternoon might reveal recreational marijuana use over the weekend. The T should take all measures necessary to prevent its vehicles from falling into that gulf. One strike is enough for any T operator found impaired.