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

[WoodPeckr]

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.

LMAO!!!
And what makes you think anyone takes you serious officer???

You have been dismissed as a not too bright shrink for the screws ages ago.....

 

[WoodPeckr]

No way in hell should it be a condition that must be met in order to have the drivers tested.
It is the drivers who would be putting the public at risk not the managers.
What part of that do you not understand ?

You must be too high or drunk to understand bon ami.

Why you continue to apologize and protect salaried druggies and alcoholics says a lot about you Johnny boi. All you want to pick on are hourly workers while sucking up to salaried every chance you get. You ASSume they can do no wrong, which only makes you look high of a bit tipsy....

 

[black booty lover]

Do Police services do this?

If the TTC employees have to do it then so should police, pilots, train operators, ambulence drivers, all the tansit commissions ect...

 

[JohnLarue]

You must be too high or drunk to understand bon ami.

Why you continue to apologize and protect salaried druggies and alcoholics says a lot about you Johnny boi. All you want to pick on are hourly workers while sucking up to salaried every chance you get. You ASSume they can do no wrong, which only makes you look high of a bit tipsy....

As I have said before, if there was any connection between mangers drinking and public safety then test away.
But they are not the ones driving the multi-ton vehicles.

The one and only reason you want to test managers is the quid pro quo, you selfish asshole

 

[JohnLarue]

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.

Perhaps you need a look in the mirror to determine if you have applied enough thought to your posts.

1. You take examples to ridiculously extremes, in order to muddy the waters
2. You do not directly answer a direct question. A simple yes or no will clarify your position.
3. Your posts are convoluted and difficult to read. I usually have to read your posts more than once in order to decipher the message.
The goal of writing is to communicate clearly and efficiently.
A sentence should make sense on its own, if separated from the rest of the paragraph

Who kill far more folks annually than the pros who have livelihoods at stake.

4. You nit-pick about irrelevant and minor grammatical issues.
I find this type of criticism to be somewhat annoying and of little value. Do you agree?

Take a close, objective look at your last post and ask yourself if you applied enough thought to it

 

[blackrock13]

Do Police services do this?

If the TTC employees have to do it then so should police, pilots, train operators, ambulence drivers, all the tansit commissions ect...

All the transit commission? Thanks for the laugh.

This is the in depth knowledge of the union leader in charge of the union local;


From; http://www.torontosun.com/2011/10/19/ttc-workers-to-be-drug-tested---offender-totals-secret

Amalgamated Transit Union Local 113 president Bob Kinnear vowed there would be a court challenge of the random testing policy.
“They’re taking swabs from our mouth, taking our DNA and sending it off to a lab where we have people making $12 or $13 an hour,” Kinnear said. “I’ve got to tell you, personally I’m not comfortable with my DNA being circulated or being thrown into the mail to wherever it goes.”

It kind of makes you wonder if he's of this world.

 

[oldjones]

Perhaps you need a look in the mirror to determine if you have applied enough thought to your posts.

1. You take examples to ridiculously extremes, in order to muddy the waters
2. You do not directly answer a direct question. A simple yes or no will clarify your position.
3. Your posts are convoluted and difficult to read. I usually have to read your posts more than once in order to decipher the message.
The goal of writing is to communicate clearly and efficiently.
A sentence should make sense on its own, if separated from the rest of the paragraph



4. You nit-pick about irrelevant and minor grammatical issues.
I find this type of criticism to be somewhat annoying and of little value. Do you agree?

Take a close, objective look at your last post and ask yourself if you applied enough thought to it

Back at ya Mr. Pot. Which of the several rhetorical questions in your last posts do you really imagine a human could answer? As to the question in the OP I long ago answered that. I said I believed testing as it exists today, applied in the random method suggested, is inadequate to detect drugged or drunken drivers and is really just an administrator's sop, but that if testing's imposed it should be required of all in the organization and on that basis I would not object. How could I make that clearer?

 

[blackrock13]

Back at ya Mr. Pot. Which of the several rhetorical questions in yopu last posts do you really imagine a human could answer? As to the question in the OP I long ago answered that I believed testing as it exists today, in the random application suggested is inadequate to detect drugged or drunken drivers and is really just an administrator's sop, but that if testing's imposed it should be required of all in the organization. How could I make that clearer?

Hell, why not make it part of attending a sporting event. Before you great in you get an eyes scan to find out if your pissed or stoned. We wouldn't what anyone to get more drunk, maybe get into a fight and hurt someone.

Some one even suggested earlier the police board should also be tested.

The TPS and EMR are considering random testing understanding the possible threats.

 

[JohnLarue]

As to the question in the OP I long ago answered that. I said I believed testing as it exists today, applied in the random method suggested, is inadequate to detect drugged or drunken drivers and is really just an administrator's sop, but that if testing's imposed it should be required of all in the organization and on that basis I would not object.


How could I make that clearer?

Perhaps by writing without using run on sentences.
Damn annoying when someone gets off topic and nit picky, do you not agree ?

A simple yes or no will suffice

 

[WoodPeckr]

The one and only reason you want to test managers is the quid pro quo, you selfish asshole

Please Johnny boi, you just look like an absolute brown nosing fool by defending drunks and dope addicts in management...

 

[WoodPeckr]

How could I make that clearer?

It's very clear to see.
However if your brain is in an OxyContinized stupor such as Johnny boi displays, his utter befuddlement is easy to explain on this point....

 

[JohnLarue]

It's very clear to see.
However if your brain is in an OxyContinized stupor such as Johnny boi displays, his utter befuddlement is easy to explain on this point....

You two have a little uniion love-in going on ?

 

[JohnLarue]

Please Johnny boi, you just look like an absolute brown nosing fool by defending drunks and dope addicts in management...

Thats too much.
Please point out exactly where I stated management drinking and drug use is acceptable.

To the contrary, I stated several times if there is a direct link between managers drinking and public safety then they should be tested.
Now read slowly, so that you finally get it this time.

Managers do not operate the multi-ton vehicles, therefore there is no reason to test them in order to maintain public safety.

The only reason you want them tested is because of the Quid Pro Quo.
Because of that selfish demand there may not be any testing.
So iyou are defending the rights of union drivers to be drunk while operating a bus or street car
Most decent people would be deeply ashamed of what you are insisting upon.

Bottom line is that one day, there may be an incident with a bus or a street car and the issue of alcohol may be brought into question.
If someone does get hurt, your beloved union will be crucified in the media (right or wrong, it will happen) and possibly be exposed to legal actions

The union would be better off protecting itself from that scenario by supporting testing without conditions, rather than worrying about what managers may be doing at lunch.

But then you are not programed by your Union masters to think any further ahead then the next couple of hours.
You will continue to mindlessly repeat the rhetoric you have been spoon fed and play the role of union stooge