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

[WoodPeckr]

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

LMFAO!!!
Too funny a lame half baked screw like you who is the biggest waste of time/space, who bragged how he is paid to post here, now blathers on about that which he is most guilty of!....

What's even more funny in this posting whore clown doesn't even hobby......LOL!!! Perhaps his non-hobbying is due to being raised in an Evangelical manner which causes him to spend an inordinate amount of time in the religion threads on an Escort Review Board....FFS! Heaven knows Evangelicals are pretty 'funny' people!!!

That is when he isn't busy apologizing for his fellow pigs in blue caught red handed not acting as a proper Dudley Do-Right should.....

 

[oldjones]

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

I have not ever said I'm against testing although I have said I think it an binadequate and misleading tool. But it should apply to all who have serious responsibility. Not that you've evver been interested in what I think; you've always been far more interested in telling me. You're being repetitive and tiresome, so let me just apply your sort of reasoning to the issue and I'll leave you to fulminate unbothered.

By the John LaRue Principle only those with potential to cause bodily harm need be tested. Therefore user-focussed drug-law enforcement is an entire waste of justice sytem resoiurces, and it matters not that mechanics, mechanics' supervisors, the folks who determine how often vehicles should be maintained, or the standards their drivers or maintainence workers should meet might be passed out on the floor pissed as newts. In fact it doesn't matter how drugged anyone is as long as they aren't operating vehicles—or other such devices one infers—with potential to inflict bodily harm. What that means is 'direct' bodily harm, this excluding boozing supervisors who direct workers to exceed the speed limit as one specific example cited. Thus the class of 'LaRue acceptable' drunkards, junkies, hopheads and cokefiends would include those who certify scaffolds and safety equipment, food service and sanitation inspection and possibly even medical personnel not doing actual hands-on clinical work.

What is peculiar in this, is that LaRue uses this Principle to align himself with a union, to limit testing. Shows how open-minded the Principle is.

There, wasn't that fun!!

PS: Rude of me to ignore your direct question, sorry:

What purpose would testing them serve?

It would identify drug-using managers cheating the employer out of the sober expertice they're being paid for. Once identified it might actually be possible to remove them or correct their behaviour and performance. Just like the drivers. Duh!

 

[rhuarc29]

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.

It may or may not be his usual rant, but it makes sense. As long as public safety isn't put at risk and management is doing it's job adequately, they're free to be alcoholics and drug addicts just like anyone else. If they aren't doing their job adequately, write them up. It has nothing to do with targeting unionized workers or coddling the upper echelons. It's about workers who have other's lives in their hands being alert.

@oldjones

ANY occupation that could involve public safety should probably be looked at, but I doubt mechanics will be taking drug tests anytime soon.

 

[WoodPeckr]

PS: Rude of me to ignore your direct question, sorry:It would identify drug-using managers cheating the employer out of the sober expertice they're being paid for. Once identified it might actually be possible to remove them or correct their behaviour and performance. Just like the drivers. Duh!

Reports have shown Billions could be saved by correcting this problem in companies and corporations. Just weed out the drunks and junkie workers no matter where they are....

 

[JohnLarue]

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!....

This is not a witch hunt to find drunks or drug addicts (blue or white collar) , you fool
It is preventative measures to ensure the guy driving my bus is not pissed.

Keep it Simple Stupid

You mentioned studies., For once in your life, put some facts behind your bullshit and provide these so called studies (liar)
I will bet
1. You never read them
2. You can not point to the specific conclusion
3. You embellished / exaggerated or just plain invented the conclusion to suit your rant.
4. They were union funded
5. You will not provide them as they will not stand up to scrutiny or do not exist

In addition to all the other character faults you have , I know that I am not willing to accept what you say on face value
On account of your bullshit-o-meter on full.

 

[JohnLarue]

I have not ever said I'm against testing although I have said I think it an binadequate and misleading tool. But it should apply to all who have serious responsibility. Not that you've evver been interested in what I think; you've always been far more interested in telling me. You're being repetitive and tiresome, so let me just apply your sort of reasoning to the issue and I'll leave you to fulminate unbothered.

By the John LaRue Principle only those with potential to cause bodily harm need be tested. Therefore user-focussed drug-law enforcement is an entire waste of justice sytem resoiurces, and it matters not that mechanics, mechanics' supervisors, the folks who determine how often vehicles should be maintained, or the standards their drivers or maintainence workers should meet might be passed out on the floor pissed as newts. In fact it doesn't matter how drugged anyone is as long as they aren't operating vehicles—or other such devices one infers—with potential to inflict bodily harm. What that means is 'direct' bodily harm, this excluding boozing supervisors who direct workers to exceed the speed limit as one specific example cited. Thus the class of 'LaRue acceptable' drunkards, junkies, hopheads and cokefiends would include those who certify scaffolds and safety equipment, food service and sanitation inspection and possibly even medical personnel not doing actual hands-on clinical work.

What is peculiar in this, is that LaRue uses this Principle to align himself with a union, to limit testing. Shows how open-minded the Principle is.

There, wasn't that fun!!

PS: Rude of me to ignore your direct question, sorry:It would identify drug-using managers cheating the employer out of the sober expertice they're being paid for. Once identified it might actually be possible to remove them or correct their behaviour and performance. Just like the drivers. Duh!

100% crapola and you know it
Look, I will keep it simple for you

Scenario: Bus driver likes to pound back shots at the end of the line after the patrons leave the bus before restarting his route
Assume there is also a white collar guy in the TTC admin services who has an issue with cocaine.

White collar guy lacks focus and makes some big mistakes on the departmental budget
Blue collar guy does not see a Kid and her Grandmother crossing the street and hits them
The kid is messed up with a broken leg and collar bone, Granny does not make it

Are you going to tell that kids parents their child was smashed up and their mother was killed because the union would not agree to testing unless management does?

No, you would probably twist the truth and declare inaccurately that the union wanted testing , but management did not agree with them

Oh by the way White collar guy was fired, not because he had a coke problem, but rather because he lacked attention to detail

 

[simon482]

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!....

i do think the management should lead by example, even though testing them is pointless. they show up to work high/drunk no one is gonna die.

 

[jiiimmm]

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?

Its called "reasonable suspicion" on behalf of the manager. If you pull someone off work due to this you MUST have the employee drug and or alcohol tested within a short order of time. If the employee refuses it will be treated a positive result with a whole new can of worms opened up. If the employee passes the test you the manager have a lot of explaining to do.

 

[JohnLarue]

Its called "reasonable suspicion" on behalf of the manager. If you pull someone off work due to this you MUST have the employee drug and or alcohol tested within a short order of time. If the employee refuses it will be treated a positive result with a whole new can of worms opened up. If the employee passes the test you the manager have a lot of explaining to do.

Hire a 3rd party firm to select and test the drivers & mechanics
That would reduce such manager / labor confrontations
It will be far more expensive, however anything to improve labor relations.

 

[oldjones]

…edit…No, you would probably twist the truth and declare inaccurately that the union wanted testing , but management did not agree with them…edit…

I was on the executive, and/or discipline committees in both unions I belonged to when we toughened the anti-drinking and drug use rules and made prohibitions and sanctions more explicit. In the union that had truck and transport drivers, we discussed testing at the time, although there had been no suggestions from management that they wanted it. Our conclusion was that current tests were inadequate to catch abusers 'in the act' and inaccurate as well. Our decision was that department heads were in a better position to detect the unfit than lab techs. So we made sure they understood they had that explicit responsibility.

I know I said you were on your own, but your fact-free suppositions and fantasies make that like walking past a thirsty man in the desert. I'll try harder not to disturb you again.

 

[fuji]

As long as the testing requirement also applies to the managers just back from lunch and on their way into the meeting that sets the drivers' schedules.

Why? You can probably still make a reasonable schedule after a couple of drinks but you probably can't drive. Seriously.

You wouldn't need testing to detect a level of alcohol consumption so high that you wouldn't be able to draw up a schedule.

 

[simon482]

i am kind of in shock that there are people here defending the right to be fucked up at work.

 

[fanofdo]

I have done work for a large multi-national company that had a huge accident that a person under the influence was partially responsible for. People that are in a position where their actions to cause harm to the public must submit to random drug tests now. Additionally, anyone involved in an incident, can be asked to submit to a test (probable cause) and this is done quite routinely. After the initial flap about the policy, people accept it - most applaud it and appreciate the attention to their safety. The fact is that some people consider it an invasion, these same people think differently when boarding a plane or sending their children to school on a bus when care and control is up to another individual.

This must be the standard, anyone that accepts a position that has public safety in their hands, should put that responsibility ahead of their need to self medicate.

 

[simon482]

I have done work for a large multi-national company that had a huge accident that a person under the influence was partially responsible for. People that are in a position where their actions to cause harm to the public must submit to random drug tests now. Additionally, anyone involved in an incident, can be asked to submit to a test (probable cause) and this is done quite routinely. After the initial flap about the policy, people accept it - most applaud it and appreciate the attention to their safety. The fact is that some people consider it an invasion, these same people think differently when boarding a plane or sending their children to school on a bus when care and control is up to another individual.

This must be the standard, anyone that accepts a position that has public safety in their hands, should put that responsibility ahead of their need to self medicate.

when they instituted a mandatory initial drug test then random drug testing for truck drivers crossing the border a lot of guys quit crossing the border saying "the border is a pain, gotta wait to long to cross" or any other number of excuses. the reality is they don't want to quit smoking drugs, so they stay in canada, if they can find a company that won't do drug testing. getting harder these days though since most companies know why these guys didn't want to cross in the first place.

 

[oldjones]

Why? You can probably still make a reasonable schedule after a couple of drinks but you probably can't drive. Seriously.

You wouldn't need testing to detect a level of alcohol consumption so high that you wouldn't be able to draw up a schedule.

Let's leave fairness and that old 'if you're innocent you have nothing to fear from testing' aside, although both are relevant to the Don't Need to Test managers postion. Workers do what they're required to do by management according to the standards set by management. If managers set unsafe or impractical standards, or devise improper procedures, accidents happen. That's how scheduling makes a difference, whether it's the schedule for routine maintenance or the scheduled time between stations. That difference can be life-threatening, as in the TTC subway fire of a number of years ago that was eventually determined to have resulted from frequently postponed replacement of aging systems; a scheduling—and budgetting to point out another 'safe' de[partment—issue entirely a management concern as line workers had repeatedly reported the mechanical issues.

I'm not going to revisit the stupid arguments that come up here about drinking and driving, but saying a manager can do her job after a coupla belts is exactly the same as saying you can drink and drive. Maybe you can, drug and drink testing has nothing to do with that. If we're gonna go by that, then ability's been ruled out of the equation. If your job is worth its money and drugs and alcohol deteriorate performance, why is anyone relieved of their obligation to be 100%, simply because they like to do drugs at lunch?

To say nothing of the guy who refills his Dasani bottle with vodka.

 

[oldjones]

i am kind of in shock that there are people here defending the right to be fucked up at work.

It's apparently OK as long as wearing a tie is appropriate for your position.

 

[blackrock13]

It's apparently OK as long as wearing a tie is appropriate for your position.

Ya, but what do you do on casual Fridays?

 

[simon482]

It's apparently OK as long as wearing a tie is appropriate for your position.

yeah i guess so, well that and in a union.

 

[oldjones]

Ya, but what do you do on casual Fridays?

You mean NewtPissing Day?

 

[blackrock13]

You mean NewtPissing Day?

If that's what they call it where you work, go for it.