Bingo - same thing happened. Some people in the construction trades stopped taking calls to that location. The interesting thing was that non of their union brothers were upset at them not being on their job site.
Should TTC Drivers have to submit to random drug & alcohol tests?
- Thread starter avxl1003
- Start date
The third party is a given, they do the selection and track testing compliance. Managers at the company are still required to assess employees on an ongoing basis since the third party is never on site. Easy enough to do if you know what to look for.
You conveniently ignored the hard question
If a drunk bus driver wipes someone out are you willing to tell their family the unions position is no testing unless the mangers get tested as well ?
It is a straight forward question
Why not answer it in a straightforward manner ?
Yes or No ?
The debate seems to have evolved to mgt vs drivers/employees. IMO management should not expect employees to do something they would not do themselves. If harmony can be achieved by testing both mgt and drivers/employees so be it. There should be no hesitation on this. It goes a long way in showing good leadership.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion
However in my opinion there should be no hesitation on the unions part to accepting the responsibility to keep the public safe.
Insisting the management be tested as a condition is far more than hesitation.
It is an abdication of their responsibility to act in the best interest of the riders and the general public
It also opens up the possibility that testing will not occur, which might cost someone their life.
Shameful and despicable
Consider the possibility that , the unfortunate victim in the nightmare scenario might be a union member or one of their kids
personally, i'm against 'random' drug testing in the workplace. i don't use drugs and i don't advocate for their legalization, but i'm very much against the recent trend towards giving up our civil liberties in the face of both governmental and corporate fear-mongering.
I do, however, believe that any TTC operator who's in an accident while on duty, should be tested and their cell-phones investigated for coinciding use. I also strongly believe that each and every TTC operator should be viciously 'dry-buggered' with a splintered baseball bat.
I do, however, believe that any TTC operator who's in an accident while on duty, should be tested and their cell-phones investigated for coinciding use. I also strongly believe that each and every TTC operator should be viciously 'dry-buggered' with a splintered baseball bat.
Having been on both sides of the fence, I can't believe all the anti-Union comments, and the negativity toward TTC workers. I have friends who work there, and I can say it is one place I would not work....fire them first and let them fight for their job labour relations, lack of any repect down to the fact I know a few guys who have been vicously assaulted just for asking idiots politely to stop harassing other passengers. They work crap hours, split shifts and faigue is a huge factor. When they ask someone who is not paying a fare to pay a fare they get attitude, spat on or assaulted. Don't paint all the TTC workers by the actions of a few. I will defend my friends, because I know what they have to put up daily.
I ride the TTC and generally the bus and street car drivers are OK
Some are even friendly and quite helpful (helping an elderly person on of off of the bus- I admire that)
There have been a couple jerks too, however they are in the minority.
Over all on an individual basis the drivers are all right
(The booth collection guys seem to have more attitude and its not so good)
Some of the abuse they have to put up with is just not right.
No one should feel threatened at their job.
That, however is not the issue.
This is a safety issue and there should be no debate
It just highlights another negative aspect of unions and their narrow minded approach to issues
They put their need to stick it to the man ahead of public safety.
Some are even friendly and quite helpful (helping an elderly person on of off of the bus- I admire that)
There have been a couple jerks too, however they are in the minority.
Over all on an individual basis the drivers are all right
(The booth collection guys seem to have more attitude and its not so good)
Some of the abuse they have to put up with is just not right.
No one should feel threatened at their job.
That, however is not the issue.
This is a safety issue and there should be no debate
It just highlights another negative aspect of unions and their narrow minded approach to issues
They put their need to stick it to the man ahead of public safety.
As long as you're willing to do without any testing at all to protect your precious managers who won't submit to it, sure I will. We can talk to the grieving family together. Except neither of us is TTC, union or management. Which make this a silly tit-for tat exchange that everyone but you is fed up with.
How much longer are you gonna keep up your dogmatic defence of boozing, pill-popping, junk-shooting, coke-snorting managers anyway?
How the hell does anything get done in the office if that the state of affairs? It isn't he managers that are getting caught sleeping on the job. Let us know when you find one snorting the boys room.
Well clearly the managers couldn't come up with a scheme to catch sleepers, or the problems that caused the subway fire, or keep the escalators running, or…. It does go on and on. If you can find anyone reputable pointing at TTC management as even being above average, let alone as good as they could be, you let me know.
Are you, like LaRue, suggesting something about having a white-collar job somehow erases your responsibility to do it sober and drug-free? Never mind pay for performance, if we can't trust one class of workers why should we trust any?
But I'd make a substantial bet that snorting in the executive washrooms—and offices—has and will happen. And like alcoholic drivers and athletes, those guys will find ways around the tests. Which is why I think they're a sop for people (most of them managers) too lazy, incompetent or cowed to do the needed job of demanding high performance and monitoring to see that is what is delivered.
And let's not lose sight of the fact that the driver in the recent incident has not been shown to have been under the influence of anything, nor even accused. But that's neither here nor there on the testing question.
OJ, I don't think anybody is arguing that you could or should do your job drunk or stoned if you have a white collar job. The claim, though, is that it has far less public safety implications. You gave the example of a drunk manager putting together a schedule that left people tired. Well in that case there are still many checks in the system--the operators can and will complain that they are too tired, and the schedule and the manager's decisions and subsequently his employment will come under review.
On the other hand a drunk or stoned operator's performance is far more likely to come under review first by a coroner, if no other checks are in place to detect the problem.
On the other hand a drunk or stoned operator's performance is far more likely to come under review first by a coroner, if no other checks are in place to detect the problem.
Oh No
That will not do
The decision to prevent the testing rests squarely on your shoulders
It will not be a drunk manger who runs down some poor unsuspecting pedestrian.
It will be a union member does does this, the News headlines will reflect that and the fact the union would not submit to testing without conditions.
You can tell the family the mangers are to blame all you want, but all they will see is the union said no to testing.
As for boozing, pill-popping, junk-shooting, coke-snorting managers, I do not a give a rats ass about them
1. If they exist their performance will be affected and thus their long term employment is (rightfully) not secure (remember they are not protected)
2. If they are caught drinking or stoned at work, they should get canned
3. They are not the issue, as they are not driving the multi-ton vehicle with hundreds of passengers.
Oddly it appears you place the same weight on this scary thought as you place on the right to make life uncomfortable for the managers.
4. There is no need to test the managers to ensure public safety (your weak ass scheduling arguments is a shameful joke)
What is clear are the union priorities:
1. Protect the unions rights to stick to the man
2. Public safety
In that order
Lets hope that nobody get wiped out and that no family has to be told it was preventable save for union politics
The reason your Fed up with this topic is that you know your position is extremely week and indefensible
Spelling, Johnny, spelling.
I trust you have informed the TTC and the Amalgamated Transit Workers Union that I am the one making the decision; do pass on their contact info to me when you have a moment.
But I will accept that my argument might be as 'week' as yours—that managers can be as drugged up as they want as long as other managers don't notice—most definitely is. I am pleased though, that you at last acknowledge that Public safety is a union priority.
Now if only you cared that the guys running the operation were competent we'd be getting somewhere.
How you come up with these thoughts is mind boggling
1. My argument for protecting the public against drunk streetcar drivers vs. your argument to protect the public against drunk schedulers.
Yeah, thats a dead heat.
Not even close, Any rational non-biased person would agree.
2. Like to twist words do you ?
Public safety may be a Union priority as long as the Union gets to "Stick it to the Man" first and foremost
If they do not get to "Stick it to the Man", then, its not a priority.
So its hardly a real and genuine priority and paints a very ugly picture.
3. Operations, well since they are salaried, they are not protected and the bad ones will be weeded out
A close look at the operations would probably highlight the biggest hurdle to improvements is lack of co-operation from the union.
One does not have to look very far to see the first and most obvious example.
Want to eliminate risk?
Not unless you are willing to concede something to the union. Its a principle and an unspoken rule for the union (and it is shameful)
Operations in that type of environment are doomed to be a mess.
And you ASSume any high, doped up, or alcoholic members in management have nothing to do in creating this mess! What a farking idiot boot licking lap-poodle you are bon ami
Always there to put ALL blame on unions while giving your drug addled managers a free pass to do all the booze & blow they want!....:eyebrows:
Blah, Blah and more Blah.
Come on WoodPeker, shock us and post something new or intellegent
Your act got boring ....about 20 years ago
Come on Johnny boi, you're the biggest corporate clone on the BB....they come a dime a dozen....:eyebrows:
Sorry you think reading your words as meaning what they say is twisting them, John, but it's all I have to go on. I simply don't have your talent for inventing what the other guy thinks. A few more proof-reading passes might help you avoid such misstatements.
But your Point 3 makes it plain that in your view a "…conced[ing] something to the union", even if it achieves a greater good, is not to be considered. Suppose management really wanted "…co-operation from the union", instead of…, well let's call it unquestioning obedience, why would they not consider and even see the benefits in testing everyone if that's all it took to make vehicle operations safer. It would help them weed out the white-collar drunks faster, and with empirical evidence for cause wouldn't it?
Not that testing would necessarily do that, a point we keep ignoring.
On many posts I have stated that it is a union principle that their number one priority is "To stick to the Man"
ie. do not concede anything without a quid pro quo.
Neither you nor that absolute fool WoodPeker have denied this, instead both of you focused on frivolous reasons to test managers.
And that is the real issue.
Both of you place a higher value on the unions right to a quid pro quo than you do on the safety of others
Finally consider this
You could test every single managers daily and not decrease the risk of a intoxicated driver wiping someone out
Therefore there is no need to test the managers.
Other than to satisfy that self-serving need to "Stick to the Man"
And thats what makes your position selfish, irresponsible and just plain shameful
