I'm all for equality except that the job requirements aren't equal. Managers aren't dealing with the public such that the publics safety is in their hands. Unless the company has a no alcohol lunches it really shouldn't be an issue.
Should TTC Drivers have to submit to random drug & alcohol tests?
- Thread starter avxl1003
- Start date
Mangers do not directly have control over multi-ton vehicles traveling @ 50 + kph carrying hundreds of passengers.
Your statement illustrates the basic root of all that is wrong with unions
For you the primary consideration is not the general publics safety nor doing what is right
No, for you the primary consideration is the us vs. them struggle and ensuring that there is no union give without any take.
Shame on you
If you must have a win over management in order to do what is right and ensure public safety, fine.
Managers should be subjected to the same testing as drivers.
No city employee should be intoxicated while on the clock.Just make sure you can sleep well at night knowing that your uncompromising approach may cost some white collar shmuck his job if he has one too many @ lunch before returning to misfile papers.
He would have absolutely no impact one way or another on public safety, but he will have to be the sacrificial lamb, so that the union can claim they fought hard on this one.
Any relationship that is based on such mistrust, pettiness and lack of co-operation is doomed for failure.
Sure, but how would you feel about letting some manager with a $200/day cocaine habit control a budget worth megabucks? That, too, is a serious responsibility.
Or, if you want to look at it the other way, fair is fair. If we're gonna demean the little guys at the bottom by making them give us samples, we're gonna make everybody do it. If it's not too onerous for the frontline staff, then it's not too onerous for the guys who made the decision, either. Solidarity, comrade!
This IS how it should be!
This has been policy where I worked and it works fine! In the spirit of cooperation testing requirement apply equally to both salaried and union members. Since being instituted the '3 martini' management lunches have been markedly cut down....
Truck drivers in the U.S.A. are tested for pre employment and at weigh scales at random ,out here in the oil fields its also a condition of employment , We had small fender bender at site , had a Drug and Alcohol test done on the 2 drivers done within minutes and then shut down the site for 2 Days on a safety standown . We all lost big money on that . Weed stays in body 30 to 90 days depending on your fat content , there is ways to beat the test but you need at least 1.5 hours notice .
You do not understand what spirit of co-operation meansIn the spirit of cooperation ....
By your logic, the union will not do what is right to ensure public safety, unless they get something
Instead they put a condition on management which must be met in order to do the right thing.
That is not co-operation, thats child like logic and boarderline extortion.
"Cave into our demand or there will be no testing and you can never be sure if the public is safe from our members irresponsibility."
WTF ???????
There should be random manditory testing which can be applied to any driver.
There should be no conditions or concessions to make this happen and it is a condition of employment
I ride those buses / streetcars / subways and do not like the idea of the union using my safety as a bargining chip
It should be bus drivers and mechanics that work on the buses as well. I support this industry wide to all bus and truck companies.
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.
truck drivers in canada are also subject to that. mandatory pre employment drug testing. if you are going to be a cross border driver, tested as well.
I have friends who drive, some for TTC. For pot, they don't test for present impairment, they test to see if it is in your system.
It being much less harmful than boooze, but you can drink all the booze you want in a month, as long as you are not impaired when you go to work.
It all comes from the U.S. which villifies weed.
And someone stated fatigue... that is a chronic problem for truckers especially. You should really see how far commercial operators drive in a day.
I still stick to my belief - present impairment - no prob with a test and no way you should be working. 30 day old weed in the system from smoking socially one weekend - that is a witch hunt.
It being much less harmful than boooze, but you can drink all the booze you want in a month, as long as you are not impaired when you go to work.
It all comes from the U.S. which villifies weed.
And someone stated fatigue... that is a chronic problem for truckers especially. You should really see how far commercial operators drive in a day.
I still stick to my belief - present impairment - no prob with a test and no way you should be working. 30 day old weed in the system from smoking socially one weekend - that is a witch hunt.
I ask two questions on this before I can really answer:
1) how much is it going to cost?
2) do we have any data on how many incidents occur where the TTC drivers are intoxicated by drugs or alcohol?
Discussing things in a vacuum is fine, but I like a little cost-benefit analysis with my philosophy.
1) how much is it going to cost?
2) do we have any data on how many incidents occur where the TTC drivers are intoxicated by drugs or alcohol?
Discussing things in a vacuum is fine, but I like a little cost-benefit analysis with my philosophy.
There is some merit to your concern
However how do you measure the benefit?
Its is difficult to estimate the cost to the TTC if a driver gets in an accident and a death occurs when the question of impairment is in the mix.
Many would say the cost is irelavant realtive to the safety of the general public
Actually the cost is never irrelevant, and people who say it is, are simply not thinking clearly.
Let's say this program would cost $5. And I could install better safety equipment on the buses that would prevent more injuries for drug testing for the same sum.
There is no system with infinite resources.
I would have thought my post made it quite obvious at least one passenger-endangering and potentially dangerous effect a drug-addled manager might have, but one would have to use insight rather than prejudgement to get the message.
Anyway, it hardly matters , since you accept the premise that all should be subject to the same standards and scrutiny of their urine or breath.
As to cannabis and driving and the usefulness of testing to get drug-addled drivers outta their seats, it should be noted that current chemistry can't distinguish between toking up ten minutes prior, and having had a joint a couple of days ago. But a conscientious and observant manager could likely spot the driver she should take the keys away from without asking for a urine sample. Testing will likely discourage that sort of mangerial acuity, and encourage reliance on inneffective mumbo-jumbo.
But anything to keep those uppity union bastids in line eh?
LOL!
Seem to know about co-operation far better than you, our perpetual management boot licker!
I just pointed out how well it has worked out for us with BOTH salaried and union members being treated equally here. None of that 'special entitlement' for salaried you seem to prefer.
You know johnny boi, it's cement-heads like you that created the need for unions in the first place. It was a pleasure keeping uppity arrogant management types like you, in line and firmly slapping them down as needed!...
You do not get itLOL!
Seem to know about co-operation far better than you, our perpetual management boot licker!
I just pointed out how well it has worked out for us with BOTH salaried and union members being treated equally here. None of that 'special entitlement' for salaried you seem to prefer.
You know johnny boi, it's cement-heads like you that created the need for unions in the first place. It was a pleasure keeping uppity arrogant management types like you, in line and firmly slapping them down as needed!...
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
Slapping them down as needed?
More like you would be your obnoxious self to the point where they caved rather than try and reason with an uncomprimising illogical fool
Last edited:
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, this 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
Last edited:
Initial test is $75.00, monthly fee with a quality consortium (ie.Driver Check) about $4.00 per month per driver. Random tests as they come up are free. (included in the monthly fees) Random testing is done on a quarterly basis. In a pool of 40 drivers, 4 or 5 will be selected every quarter on a random basis. The bigger the pool, the more tested.
