Union to Strike for the Right for Drunks to Drive Trains

danothy

ukcarper wrote: »

The whole thing could be simply resolved by going to arbitration and you don't know whether the confidence that TFL have in there blood test machine is justified.

Well I know that it's a breathalyser, and not a blood test machine for a start ...

ukcarper

danothy wrote: »

Well I know that it's a breathalyser, and not a blood test machine for a start ...

Yea slip of keyboard if it was a blood test there would be no argument.

Generali

ukcarper wrote: »

Yea slip of keyboard if it was a blood test there would be no argument.

I have my doubts.

ukcarper

Generali wrote: »

I have my doubts.

I get impression if he had a blood test which found he was under the limit some of you would still blame the union.

purch

Why all this talk about Blood Tests ?

If a company has a disciplinary policy that states that if you blow a positive reading on a properly calibrated breathalyser then you are dismissed, then that is what should happen.

Trying to muddy the waters by making completely false claims about Diabetes should not change anything.

Claiming you should be allowed a blood test, when the policy does not require one does not change anything.

The company has a policy which states that the result given by the breathalyser is final.

It is part of the contract of employment.

If you don't like the policy, don't sign the contract.

Generali

ukcarper wrote: »

I get impression if he had a blood test which found he was under the limit some of you would still blame the union.

Not me.

The point of my OP is that the strike is completely fatuous and without foundation: the driver is a drunk and was rightly sacked. If he wasn't a drunk he shouldn't have been fired and the union would be right to support their member.

Of course if the driver had been demonstrably sober the union would have taken LU to court and management would have been forced to reinstate the driver. That the union proposed strike action tells you all you need to know about the strength of their case.

ukcarper

Generali wrote: »

Not me.

The point of my OP is that the strike is completely fatuous and without foundation: the driver is a drunk and was rightly sacked. If he wasn't a drunk he shouldn't have been fired and the union would be right to support their member.

Of course if the driver had been demonstrably sober the union would have taken LU to court and management would have been forced to reinstate the driver. That the union proposed strike action tells you all you need to know about the strength of their case.

But that is what is in dispute and I would say the fact that the union is prepared to go to arbitration and accept the result while LU aren't also tell us a lot.

Generali

ukcarper wrote: »

But that is what is in dispute and I would say the fact that the union is prepared to go to arbitration and accept the result while LU aren't also tell us a lot.

Yes, it tells us that the union don't have a case to take before a court so are hoping that arbitration will come up with a 'split down the middle' judgement.

I'm not sure why you seem to be defending the union's position. Do you really want drunks driving trains? I don't.

purch

Generali wrote: »

I'm not sure why you seem to be defending the union's position.

This thread in many ways sums up this forum.

Argument for arguments sake, usually for no good reason, and nearly always without any or at best scant knowledge of the facts.

If you know absolutely nothing about how modern breathalysers work. Argue that diabetes can affect the test results.

If you know nothing about the TfL/LU disciplinary system, argue that there should have been a blood test.

When all that fails argue that TfL/LU must have something to hide because they have not allowed this to go to arbitration.

This stuff is beyond embarrassing.

Employees in the UK have very strong and well protected rights.

Any employee who is dismissed without good cause, and where it can be shown that the employer did not follow it's contractual obligations can easily get recourse through an employment tribunal.

So despite the obvious conclusion that anyone with any sense would draw from what we know about this matter, that the employee failed a legitimate breath test and that the employer followed their own procedures correctly and did nothing that would break their contract with the employee, there are people on here who would argue that the Union has the right to call a ballot and a strike over the matter.

If the Union said that they were fully supporting their member who was taking the employer to an employment tribunal to seek redress for wrongful dismissal, because they had a case then any right minded person would support that action.

But they aren't doing that because they haven't got a case, yet some people on here still support them.

Strange.

Graham_Devon

purch wrote: »

Why all this talk about Blood Tests ?

If a company has a disciplinary policy that states that if you blow a positive reading on a properly calibrated breathalyser then you are dismissed, then that is what should happen.

Trying to muddy the waters by making completely false claims about Diabetes should not change anything.

Claiming you should be allowed a blood test, when the policy does not require one does not change anything.

The company has a policy which states that the result given by the breathalyser is final.

It is part of the contract of employment.

If you don't like the policy, don't sign the contract.

Agree to a point.

But we do have discriminatory laws in this country now, for good or bad.

A company cannot just do as it pleases and avoid all disability, race, gender legislation etc.

It's not really that strange. If my company suggested that if you don't like their policy of "if you cannot sit upstairs you are sacked" when someone was disabled and there was no provision to get up the stairs, we'd be taken to the cleaners.

Companies need to show they have made reasonable efforts to accomodate all known disabilities and medical conditions etc.