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

[Kenny-sauga]

Just FYI...reandom testing is part of employment contract in many industries, more so in US. Some type of jobs (drilling) require you not to drink when you are "on" work for straight 28/35 days...been there, still there!!!

So what exempts a TTC goof....is beyond any logical reason. They serve public. A bit far strecthed but pilots are subjects to random testing and are required as a condition of work not to drink 8 hours before going to work. The difference is only the speed, number of people, and controls. And heck yeah!! roads are LESS safer than skies! duh...

 

[oldjones]

Well about the same as letting a wife beater take responsibility for the same. Are you accusing anyone at the TTC in a management position with having a cocaine habit. With your thinking, we should give test all money managers, but that not going to happen is it? A driver with that habit can kill a few people, the manager will just steal some money, no contest. Money can be replaced. Peoples lives are a little tougher to replace.

Do you really think that managers have such little contact or influence over the safe operation of the TTC? Who sets the schedules, the maintenance standards and timings, the training standards, or, for that matter the drug testing program.

And if they have that coke habit, you said would be relatively harmless? And if their supplier drove a bus, or enforced standards of performance?

 

[oldjones]

The managers do not drive the vehicle , no real need for testing
Scheduling ? Come on, we both know that is double speak for unions will not give unless they get something back in return, ie sticking it to managers.

Anything to keep union bastards in line ?

Hardly, tis is a matter of keeping people safe and prior to your ill-conceived and self-absorbed demand, the difference between a driver vs. a union driver seemed irrelevant

If you and your kids are in the smart car and are hit by a bus, street car or dump truck with an intoxicated driver, do you think it Will make any difference if the driver was a union man?

The only difference might be that it was preventable save for a union demand of equal treatment for managers which resulted in no testing at all

The only part that is germane is the silly contention that only bus drivers can harm others due to their intoxication. Like the guy who schedules drivers so they have to break the speed limit to comply, or who signs off on service reports he didn't check because he was seeing double has no safety impacts?

What is all that other stuff about?

 

[Kenny-sauga]

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

 

[blackrock13]

Do you really think that managers have such little contact or influence over the safe operation of the TTC? Who sets the schedules, the maintenance standards and timings, the training standards, or, for that matter the drug testing program.

And if they have that coke habit, you said would be relatively harmless? And if their supplier drove a bus, or enforced standards of performance?

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.

 

[Kenny-sauga]

Next time...watch for the bus OJ is driving

 

[blackrock13]

Next time...watch for the bus OJ is driving

Be careful now. It's not good practise to give pekkerhead a straight line like that. He'll comeout with some idiotic comment about short buses in no time. You don't have to feed the troll.

Oj, I don't for a second think you drive a short bus.

 

[JohnLarue]

The only part that is germane is the silly contention that only bus drivers can harm others due to their intoxication. Like the guy who schedules drivers so they have to break the speed limit to comply, or who signs off on service reports he didn't check because he was seeing double has no safety impacts?

What is all that other stuff about?

Your on glue.
I travel the buses and often they are late because of traffic, no mad rush from the driver to get back on schedule, they just go with the flow.
Any pressure to catch up would be met with a very defend-able grievance. The union would not permit pressure to exceed the speed limit
Same goes for safety inspections of the vehicles

No way in the world an impaired manger can have anything more than an infinitesimal affect on public safety.
While an impaired driver controlling a multi-ton street car can do a lot of damage.
That is not a relevant or useful comparison

So please stop pretending your demand is anything but what it is
" Any concession by the union is accompanied by a corresponding condition, regardless of the fact the concession was the right thing to do"
That is a union principle

 

[black booty lover]

Without reading this whole thread, the answer is absolutley not. Where does it stop after that?

Just because they are TTC drivers they should be subjected to random testing?

How would you feel if you had to take some type of random test at work???

 

[blackrock13]

Without reading this whole thread, the answer is absolutley not. Where does it stop after that?

Just because they are TTC drivers they should be subjected to random testing?

How would you feel if you had to take some type of random test at work???

Well, a perfect example of why you should read at least a few of the posts as many who posted said they are subject to these horrid random test your scorn. The fact that the TTC driver are responsible for the safety of the public every working day and almost every working hour.

 

[Jimmie_boy]

Without reading this whole thread, the answer is absolutley not. Where does it stop after that?

Just because they are TTC drivers they should be subjected to random testing?

How would you feel if you had to take some type of random test at work???

Most of us don't have the safety and lives of up to 60 or 70 members of the public to be responsible for while at work. In this case the safety of the public must override the ego and priviledge of the TTC drivers. Plus as a taxpayer it's me that's on the hook when the lawsuit with the TTC is settled. So until the Union starts to pay the financial penalties for their members misdeeds thay must answer to those who do.

 

[JohnLarue]

Without reading this whole thread, the answer is absolutley not. Where does it stop after that?

Just because they are TTC drivers they should be subjected to random testing?

How would you feel if you had to take some type of random test at work???

If I am responsible for the safety of 25 to 200 people, then no problem taking the test

Where does it stop ?
Well according to many there is zero tolerance for impairment while operating a vehicle.
While I do not think absolute zero is a reasonable level, when you are responsible for the safety of the general public, yo had better be sober when driving
Airline pilots, ship navigators and heavy construction equipment operators should also be routinely tested, not just the TTC

Stop for a moment and imagine someone cared about being seriously hurt in a bus accident and you find out that the bus driver was legally impaired
I suspect you might sing a different tune

 

[black booty lover]

Touche!!!! to the last 3 responses

 

[JohnLarue]

Touche!!!! to the last 3 responses

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

 

[kid_kuh]

In my past profession, Ive noticed a fellow employee driving a 15 tonne truck driving erratically and almost fell asleep. He later got fired for drinking on the job and other stuff. He wasn't responsible for the lives of 20 - 200 people on the truck. What about the other motorists, pedestrians and properties. Like the old saying goes "One bad apple can spoil the bunch".

 

[jhonny]

If you job has anything to do with public safety then they should be tested. This is no different for most airlines. If it does not happen all it will need will be for one accident and someone to be killed or injures seriously and the law suits will start then the public enquiry.

 

[milehigh]

It is the norm for most drivers and safety equip. operators to abide by the rules, and they tend to look after each other in this regard. Example - most will not drink within 12 hours of on duty time. But you always gets the small percentage of idiots who abuse - and you tend to get that small percentage of idiots no matter which line of work you are in.

Weed really needs reform and guidelines. The majority will do the right thing. The minority can get tested for present impairment and suffer the consequences.

I am tested and I strictly abide...but lets get tests realistic.

 

[rama putri]

Ditto, nuff said, random drug testing should be invoked.

Ditto. Also get rid of the unions.

 

[TeeJay]

Why would they have to? Its not like school bus drivers (or taxis) need to

 

[WoodPeckr]

Sacrebleu!

You do not get it
There shouild be no condition tied to a union doing what is right.
There is no need for management to be tested as they are not driving the vehicles...

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!....