Should TTC Drivers have to submit to random drug & alcohol tests?

[oldjones]

So, oldjones...how about your managers at your real job...assuming you have one.
Manager should "lead by example"....NO!!!

Another master of irrelevance heard from! How about the managers at your job, ditto? If the best we can do to keep people from drug-addled decision-makimg is urine-testing, tell me why anyone should be exempt? The line cook who might think it amusing to piss in a soup kettle to share his PCP with the world f'instance? Or the trader whose heroin habit dulled his reflexes and wiped out your RRSP mutual funds?

As to my real job, when I had one it was lying for money; I worked in movies and TV. The drug habit of one of our actors cost the producers hundreds of thousands, and may well have been the cause of the series being cancelled—effectively bankrupting a small company. But hey! That's Entertainment!

Now I contract. Would it make you happy or unhappy if you thought I or my carpenters was drugged up when they installed those floor joists or took out that wall they said was not load-bearing?

I also had a real job back in the day working for a government investigation of drugs and drug use. I don't really believe that drug testing gets at the issue at all. It just comforts the dull and lazy managers and those they may have to answer to that 'they're doing everything reasonable and possible'. While the problem remains and gets more intractible. Like building super-prisons, you just make smarter drug users and criminals.

Ask yourself: Did Breathalysers reduce drunk driving (didn't stop me), or did MADD and the various campaigns that focussed on the anti-social stupidity of drinking and driving?

But if we must have testing, what do managers have to fear?

 

[oldjones]

I'd be more worried about the mechanics actually doing the work than the managers overseeing it. Ooooooow, scheduling, dangerous wrk. I thought the standards and guidelines for maintenance were set by the ministry. I suspect the test would be done by qualified, possibly medical, personnel, not some bean counter. Then your trying to connect the manager's habit to his dealer who 'might' be a bus driver. So what, testing managers won't really catch the dealer. OJ, you're sounding desperate.

And isn't it that stoned out manager who guarantees you the mechanic he buys his drugs from actually did that work? And signed the Ministry forms? As to the "qualified medical personnel", do you know how high addiction and drug abuse rates are among doctors and hospital staff? Not that a piss-testing lab has such high-priced help doing the mind-numbing distasteful work. "Here, this'll make the time pass easier. Ooops, never mind, if the guy was using, we'll get him next time round". And since you brought up desperate, how else would you describe your invention of testing managers to catch dealers?

Here is the deal: If testing for drugs is A Good Thing, why isn't it applied and required in all jobs in the organization? And if it's only because bus drivers have the physical control of tons of steel carrying people and moving at speed on the roads that they merit testing, why aren't school bus drivers, EMS drivers, police, fire, gasoline tanker and taxi drivers, and for that matter you and I also required to be tested randomly?

And don't say it's because the RIDE cops' union wouldn't let them handle the samples.

 

[friedrice]

People always seem so ready to hand over their rights to privacy. oldjones makes very good points.

 

[night ride]

Easiest way to solve this is have the drivers show up to be inspected by an officer before their shift starts. If the police suspect anything then they will do a test to confirm or deny anything before they start their shifts. The police know what to look for better than any inspector or office worker would. That way random testing is out which will save money and the situation will be handled before they get in the vehicle.

Better still have the police do their patrols using the better way instead of expensive cop cars. That way if the driver sneaks a drink midway thru the shift he may still get caught.

 

[JohnLarue]

YOU don't get it bon ami!

Sounds like YOU support drunken dope addicts, as long as they are salaried or in management, eh Johnny boi! YOU choose to coddle these management addicts while going only after union members! It is a well known facts many in management are driven into becoming alcoholics! Some even use dope! Ford had several managers sue them for just that! Our corporation realized this and demands ALL employees union and non-union being subject to random testing as a condition of employment! We don't have a problem with this! Why do YOU! What are YOU hiding or afraid of? From the way you post, you must be a junkie....FFS!!!

Like I said it's backwards knuckle-dragging trogs like you who created the need for unions. All you carp is anti-union drivel, while apologizing for your privileged entitled salaried pals. Now go back to your masters with all your slavish obsequiousness but first wipe that brown off your nose! It makes you look dirty!....

I do not think you could be more obnoxious if you were paid to do so

There is no need for the managers to be tested, so lets label this for what it really is
This is nothing more than a union philosophy that if they give they must take

And that is truly sickening, that you would put the need to even the score ahead of public safety.

You are truly a despicable excuse for a human being.

Every time you post you do untold damage to your left wing cause as no fence sitter in their right mind would want to associate their beliefs with a such a fool You can not argue persuasively, lack the ability to articulate relavant facts and you think ass kissing or cock sucking insults will convince others that you know best.

Think again moron

 

[rhuarc29]

But a conscientious and observant manager could likely spot the driver she should take the keys away from without asking for a urine sample.

Yes, I'm sure unions would be understanding when a manager denies a worker their shift because he/she "thinks" the worker is intoxicated. Without a physical test, what kind of paper work would be sufficient to not screw over that manager? I agree with the premise of what you're saying, but it doesn't work in practice.

Here is the deal: If testing for drugs is A Good Thing, why isn't it applied and required in all jobs in the organization? And if it's only because bus drivers have the physical control of tons of steel carrying people and moving at speed on the roads that they merit testing, why aren't school bus drivers, EMS drivers, police, fire, gasoline tanker and taxi drivers, and for that matter you and I also required to be tested randomly?

We should be.

 

[jiiimmm]

I've been dealing with random drug testing for 25 years now. And while I am no longer required to do so, I continue to participate since I am a true believer in leading by example. My big beef is mechanics not requiring testing. There are some scarey SOBs out there that have no business working on heavy equipment in the state that they do and my reach does not go that far unfortunately. I can tell you from experience, anyone who has ever objected to being tested has always had something to hide. This isn't about left or right politics, its about safety and liability.

 

[WoodPeckr]

I do not think you could be more obnoxious if you were paid to do so

There is no need for the managers to be tested, so lets label this for what it really is
This is nothing more than a union philosophy that if they give they must take

And that is truly sickening, that you would put the need to even the score ahead of public safety.

You are truly a despicable excuse for a human being.

Every time you post you do untold damage to your left wing cause as no fence sitter in their right mind would want to associate their beliefs with a such a fool You can not argue persuasively, lack the ability to articulate relavant facts and you think ass kissing or cock sucking insults will convince others that you know best.

Think again moron

LMFAO!!!
Thanks Johnny boi! You act like a paranoid doper with something to hide! All you did was attack me while running like hell away from the topic. Proof positive you must have something to hide. Now it's just a matter of determining what you are on? Is it booze or blow???

Drug testing never bothered me but it sure makes you look squirm and worry! What a right-tard idiot!....

 

[JohnLarue]

LMFAO!!!
Thanks Johnny boi! You act like a paranoid doper with something to hide! All you did was attack me while running like hell away from the topic. Proof positive you must have something to hide. Now it's just a matter of determining what you are on? Is it booze or blow???

Drug testing never bothered me but it sure makes you look squirm and worry! What a right-tard idiot!....

I have nothing to hide and if requested I would take a test.
I certainly would not insist that another group be tested as a condition for me to take the test

On the other hand, your inability to communicate without going tangential to the toipic, suggests extensive and long term brain damage.
Are you on glue?

Who is hiding now?

Do you ever get tired of being wrong all the time?

The topic at hand was protecting the public from impaired bus / street car drivers
A topic most would agree should be a given.

Somehow you managed to turn it into a we vs. them union propaganda bullshit sermon filled with illogical and irrelevant insults and garbage
If you had half a brain, you would be ashamed.

 

[JohnLarue]

YOU don't get it bon ami!
It is a well known facts many in management are driven into becoming alcoholics! Some even use dope! Ford had several managers sue them for just that! :

#1. Facts please. Unless you had not noticed you have zero credibility here
I just refuse to take the word of some idiot who routinely states his opinion as a fact , yet does not have the nuts to back up his statements
(You will wimp out on this fact challenge as well)
#2. What occurs or possibly occurred at Ford is not relevant to this discussion about TTC safety or relevant to a solution for this issue

Come on WoodPeker astonish us all and post something intelligent, relevant , factual, without any propaganda and convincing
Most eighth graders can do this , but I do not think you are up to the task

 

[WoodPeckr]

(You will wimp out on this fact challenge as well)

LOL!!!
Now it comes out.
Johnny boi stop your incessant lying. Guess it's kinda hard for ya since lying comes part and parcel with management and their lickspittle apologists. Seen this time after time where management were promoted in direct proportion to how skillful a LIAR they became. Lap puppies like you are a dime a dozen, FFS!
Point of fact Johnny boi you are the biggest corporate wimp on this board, as they play you like a fiddle!....

 

[black booty lover]

Touche ???
No !
The way this works is you reply with a logical, well thought, out counter argument supporting your point of view or discrediting the point of view you do not agree with

I'm sorry Dr.Phil, please tell me more...

 

[oldjones]

Yes, I'm sure unions would be understanding when a manager denies a worker their shift because he/she "thinks" the worker is intoxicated. Without a physical test, what kind of paper work would be sufficient to not screw over that manager? I agree with the premise of what you're saying, but it doesn't work in practice.

When I did it—told the guy he wasn't in any condition to drive and got the truck keys—I took the union stteward with me. Easy to do in a small operation, which the TTC isn't, but if their people can't figure out with the union how to get the drunks and drug addled off-shift, they don't deserve their jobs. No one in any union is advocating drunks should take buses out; protecting union members from an arbitrary decision's quite another matter. That accounts for the paperwork, evidence and due process stuff in a bigger organization, which includes the testing. Sadly, testing is like asking the virtuous to prove it, if that's the best those virtuous managers can come up with, let them be first in line.

And y'know, giving the accused 'their day in court' is usually seen as a good thing in our society.

 

[rhuarc29]

When I did it—told the guy he wasn't in any condition to drive and got the truck keys—I took the union stteward with me. Easy to do in a small operation, which the TTC isn't, but if their people can't figure out with the union how to get the drunks and drug addled off-shift, they don't deserve their jobs. No one in any union is advocating drunks should take buses out; protecting union members from an arbitrary decision's quite another matter. That accounts for the paperwork, evidence and due process stuff in a bigger organization, which includes the testing. Sadly, testing is like asking the virtuous to prove it, if that's the best those virtuous managers can come up with, let them be first in line.

And y'know, giving the accused 'their day in court' is usually seen as a good thing in our society.

Thanks for pulling that guy off the road for us. If only common sense was the rule of law, rather than the exception. I still think giving managers the power to pull a guy off the job based on a gut feeling the worker is drunk/high/overtired is opening a whole new can of worms. One that a random test could do away with. Ever tell a friend that he's too drunk to drive? How many "no, no, I'm fine" and "fuck you, I need this car to drive to work tomorrow"'s did you get? Now you're telling a drunk guy he isn't going to get paid for the day and expect him to be reasonable?

 

[train]

The fact that other groups aren't tested is the weakest of arguments. We seem to be forgetting that the public at large is routinely randomly tested - it's called the Ride Program. I don't see people up in arms about people's rights and freedoms being violated there.
Yes there are plenty of other groups that should be also be tested if the criteria of public safety is used. Why is that an argument against. Seems to me its even more reason to get moving on this. So let's do it. Next on my list would be airline pilots

 

[JohnLarue]

LOL!!!
Now it comes out.
Johnny boi stop your incessant lying. Guess it's kinda hard for ya since lying comes part and parcel with management and their lickspittle apologists. Seen this time after time where management were promoted in direct proportion to how skillful a LIAR they became. Lap puppies like you are a dime a dozen, FFS!
Point of fact Johnny boi you are the biggest corporate wimp on this board, as they play you like a fiddle!....

Not one word of that is factual
Its 100 % pure WoodPeker scatology, mixed in with inaccurate assumptions and grade 5 level insults.
You are never going to grow up are you?

I even left you an opening too, however I knew you were too stupid to follow simple logic and make a coherent factual argument

 

[JohnLarue]

I'm sorry Dr.Phil, please tell me more...

Well what did you want to know Einstein?
It appears you mis-informed on multiple issues , so you will need to be more specific.

 

[JohnLarue]

Sadly, testing is like asking the virtuous to prove it, if that's the best those virtuous managers can come up with, let them be first in line.

The managers are not ones who are driving the vehicle
Therefore they do not have the potential to cause bodily harm
What purpose would testing them serve?
And do not try and sell that weak ass line about scheduling being the root cause of any TTC accident

The only purpose is to satisfy the union need for a win against management to offset their concession for testing
And that places union politics ahead of public safety.
Shame on you for supporting that

 

[blackrock13]

Not one word of that is factual
Its 100 % pure WoodPeker scatology, mixed in with inaccurate assumptions and grade 5 level insults.
You are never going to grow up are you?

I even left you an opening too, however I knew you were too stupid to follow simple logic and make a coherent factual argument

Putting Pekkerhead on 'ignore' works wonder JL. He's a waste of time/space. and most TERBIES know it. I know you do too.

 

[WoodPeckr]

The managers are not ones who are driving the vehicle
Therefore they do not have the potential to cause bodily harm
What purpose would testing them serve?
And do not try and sell that weak ass line about scheduling being the root cause of any TTC accident

The only purpose is to satisfy the union need for a win against management to offset their concession for testing
And that places union politics ahead of public safety.
Shame on you for supporting that

Again you ignore the fact there are members in management just as guilty of being alcoholics and drug addicts. YOU only target those in the union while coddle non-union workers. This is your usual rant. I point out how corporations who are less biased and more rational than YOU feel all workers should be subject to random testing and it works fine for them! You again prefer to coddle dopers and drunks as long as they are non-union in spite of studies that show how much extra a fiscal burden they are to any organization due to their addictions.

Our union and management realized this and decided to treat all workers the same. While you would rather cater and apologize for your privileged entitled manager class, while only singling out unionists to go after!....