laRue, lets take your "stick it to the man' ' assumption and park it for awhile and while you are at it enough of your self serving outrage that anyone disagreeing with you is shameful and irresponsible....if you think that humps like Ford and Stintz care one ass about the safety of TTC passengers, then you are as witless as you claim Woodpeker is...this all about consolidating their core supporters, and bashing unions, which is very popular these days...testing drivers is politically expedient...it has nothing to do with public safety...its all about firming up political support...in other words.."stick it to unions"
Should TTC Drivers have to submit to random drug & alcohol tests?
- Thread starter avxl1003
- Start date
Sure, if thats what the union hall hand outs are telling you, go ahead and believe that.
I think this is about public safety
Given recent events there is some concern that drivers may be taking allot of liberties (Rip Van Winkle and the driver with the pot)
Maybe none of them are drinking before taking control of a hundred ton street car
But if one is, then he / she has got to be stopped.
And your argument does not address the quid pro quo issue.
Old Jones and WoodPeker are admit that if drivers are required to be tested then they must have something in return ie make the managers life more difficult without any tangible benefit,
Again quid pro quo before public safety which is despicable
If that union has nothing to hide, why not just take the tests ?
If what you say is true then the union is playing right into the union basher hands
They will look guilty as hell, if they refuse the testing or insist on conditions and Ford can make a lot of political hay out of that refusal.
Johnny boi YOU are the biggest fool here who bends over backwards defending and apologizing for drug addicts and alcoholics as long as they be salaried or in management. It's those union members YOU want to stick it to every chance you get!
As I stated before it is Troglodytes like you who cause unions to form. If all the bottom feeding backwoods jackoffs like you vanished so would unions!.....:eyebrows:
Your 'logic' for refusing to test managers even with a quid pro quo, adds up to a determination to 'stick it to the union.
Drunk and drugged employees—white or blue collar, union or not—are cheating, working below the standard they're paid for, and in some cases are a clear and present danger to themselves and others. Testing is one method that might control this. But one group refuses to be tested—just outta spite, as far as you have supplied any rationale for the refusal—even if acceptance would result in all being tested.
That is the LaRue position. Thanks be you don't actually speak for managers any more than I speak for unions.
Since you asked: I deny there is a patricle of truth in the silly fantasy you led off with. Do you believe in the Tooth Faerie too?
I see you are having a comprehension problem here.
That was not the question
The real question is
"Do you deny that its a union principle that they must demand something in return for any concession they make?"
Not necessarily trying to open a new can of worms, but if anyone's going to be drug tested I'd like to see cops drug tested.
if a union were to concede to this now without asking for anything in return later on at the bargaining table things might go a bit easier. shame the way it works now but sometimes you have to be nice to get shit in return later on. i worked with a guy, he was union i wasn't and i would go out of my way to help him out so that he would do minor shit for me that made my life a lot easier during my shift, i was also the only person in the plant he got along with.
Its the stunned wonder talking again
If they are salaried and they are drunks, they will soon get shelved or let go
i.e no union protection
And it is rightly so, that they get shelved or let go
Thats the way the real world works and its one hell of a lot better than protecting that behavior just because someone paid their dues.
I agree,.
Unfortunately unions look at management as the enemy.
At one point in history, that was appropriate, especially wrt issues concerning worker safety.
But in todays world that adversarial approach is doomed to failure
Unions had better wake up as they have a lot more to lose on a relative basis
Today companies can and will go offshore for production needs if they continue to find they have an adversary rather than a partner when dealing with labor.
Of coarse WoodPeker will spout off all kinds of foolish insults and insinuations that off shoring is my fault and its already happened.
# 1. He is the Poster boy for why any management team would look elsewhere for workers.
Can you imagine trying to make a quality product, keep existing clients happy, keep the lower cost competition at bay and grow a business with that loudmouthed uncompromising idiot as your labor partner ?
# 2. The off shoring of jobs will continue unless unions lose the us vs. them approach including the quid pro quo demands as a matter of (outdated) principle
I'm beginning to believe YOU are one of those OxyContinized salaried idiots I've seen in a few corps over the years.....
Our Corporation has had random testing for ALL employees (union & non-union) right up to the top CEO for years and it works fine!
We don't protect or condone dopers or alcoholics like you!
Again Johnny....As I stated before it is Troglodytes like you who cause unions to form. If all the bottom feeding duplicitous backwoods jackoffs like you vanished so would unions!.....
Really ?I'm beginning to believe YOU are one of those OxyContinized salaried idiots I've seen in a few corps over the years.....
Our Corporation has had random testing for ALL employees (union & non-union) right up to the top CEO for years and it works fine!
We don't protect or condone dopers or alcoholics like you!
Again Johnny....As I stated before it is Troglodytes like you who cause unions to form. If all the bottom feeding duplicitous backwoods jackoffs like you vanished so would unions!.....
So how can I make you disappear ?
Because you are just like that annoying turd that just will not flush away
LMAO!!!
You don't bother me Johnny boi.....
In the past I've had chunks of guys like you in my stool....
Well you bother me to a great extentLMAO!!!
You don't bother me Johnny boi.....
In the past I've had chunks of guys like you in my stool....
And I am not the only one
Neither do I , but the managers do not drive the buses or streetcars loaded with the public, so there is no need to test them
Many enlightened companies disagree with your here.
They don't want ANY employees working for them being drunk or high, be they hourly of salaried for the lose in productivity they pose and cost them. Guess your backwoods outfit hasn't discovered this yet!...
No way in hell should it be a condition that must be met in order to have the drivers tested.Many enlightened companies disagree with your here.
They don't want ANY employees working for them being drunk or high, be they hourly of salaried for the lose in productivity they pose and cost them. Guess your backwoods outfit hasn't discovered this yet!...
It is the drivers who would be putting the public at risk not the managers.
What part of that do you not understand ?
This issue is not about driving productivity.
The issue is public safety.
Now are you sure you want to discuss driving productivity improvements @ the TTC ?
That is an entirely different issue and a can of worms that union does not not want opened.
You do not think these things through very often do you?
JL, you are one of the few members who even attempt a discussion with Pekkerhead. It's clear in the various threads and the lack of responses to whatever he posts that most members don't give any value to his brays. Woodie, thought? The definition of unnatural.
If that were the case, that this is a public safety issue, no one would be allowed to drive for pay without being tested. Every time. And for that matter there'd be even more reason—as in fact there is—to test all the 'amateur' drivers. Who kill far more folks annually than the pros who have livelihoods at stake.
It's about giving people the illusion that there is a) a problem, and b) that something is being done about it. Useful or not.
I wouldn't be calling attention to thoughtfulness if I were you JL. Not without demonstrating at least a smidge first.
