Union to Strike for the Right for Drunks to Drive Trains

ukcarper

I think there is a difference between alcohol in blood and alcohol on breath. Unlike most poster here I can't see it is in the RMTs interest to pursue this if they think he was over the limit.

danothy

ukcarper wrote: »

I think there is a difference between alcohol in blood and alcohol in blood.

By any reasonable measure there is not ...

ukcarper wrote: »

Unlike most poster here I can't see it is in the RMTs interest to pursue this if they think he was over the limit.

They're just chancing their arm, hoping something will stick ... if they don't win it's not like he can lose his job again.

Aberdeenangarse

ukcarper wrote: »

I think there is a difference between alcohol in blood and alcohol in blood.

Would that be the same difference as p1ssed driving a Train and p1ssed driving a Train?

ukcarper

danothy wrote: »

By any reasonable measure there is not ...



They're just chancing their arm, hoping something will stick ... if they don't win it's not like he can lose his job again.

Thanks I've put right my error.

What can stick it's not exactly good publicity defending someone who was categorically over the limit.

purch

ukcarper wrote: »

You would not lose your driving licence on the strength of a hand hell breathalyser which is what I believe LU used.

So what ?

That has nothing whatsoever to do with this case.

The employer has in this case entered into a contract with its employees that includes a provision that they will undertake random tests for alcohol, and that the result provided by the breathalyser will be considered as final.

The employees have agreed to this by signing their contract of employment.

In this case the employee has broken their contract of employment by having excess alcohol in their system.

ukcarper

purch wrote: »

So what ?

That has nothing whatsoever to do with this case.

The employer has in this case entered into a contract with its employees that includes a provision that they will undertake random tests for alcohol, and that the result provided by the breathalyser will be considered as final.

The employees have agreed to this by signing their contract of employment.

In this case the employee has broken their contract of employment by having excess alcohol in their system.

Have you any evidence that is what the employee has sign.

purch

Embarrassing

ukcarper

If you do some research and dig a bit deeper than TFL press releases and the right wing press you will find there is more to this. http://aslefshrugged.blogspot.co.uk scroll down and read a tube drivers take obviously a bit biased but not more so than right wing press.

danothy

ukcarper wrote: »

If you do some research and dig a bit deeper than TFL press releases and the right wing press you will find there is more to this. http://aslefshrugged.blogspot.co.uk scroll down and read a tube drivers take obviously a bit biased but not more so than right wing press.

From the blog you link:

While it is true that certain types of diabetes can cause an excess of acetone which can give a false positive reading on old style semi-conductor breathalyzers the new fuel cell types are supposed to be immune from such problems ... Having been the subject in a random D&A test last year I think I can identify the breathalyser used as the Lion Alcolmeter ® 400

So, LU seemingly do use the right meters. Fancy that.

ukcarper

danothy wrote: »

From the blog you link:


So, LU seemingly do use the right meters. Fancy that.

I see you ignore "very unlikely" manufacture is obviously not confident enough to say "will not".