Union to Strike for the Right for Drunks to Drive Trains

chucknorris

Can passengers join the union? I've missed the last train home from London a few times after staying for just one more beer, it would be nice to borrow a train occasionally to drive down to my station. I could use my watch alarm just in case I fell asleep and missed my stop, what could possibly go wrong?

Generali

ukcarper wrote: »

If he was drunk he should not get his job back and I don't think it would be in RMTs interest to pursue it. What have they got to gain by insisting a drunk driver gets his job back.

What does the Tube stand to gain by sacking a sober driver?

danothy

ukcarper wrote: »

Nobody seems to be prepared to put any detail to their cases

Except the LU, who have provided a statement clarifying that the testing equipment they use is not affected by diabetes, that the tests were "in accordance with standard union-agreed testing protocol", and that the case "went through the full disciplinary hearing and appeals process as well as a separate independent Director's Review": https://www.tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2015/february/lu-urges-rmt-members-to-vote-no-in-alcohol-ballot

The position you seem to be taking is basically "The RMT are pressing this issue, so there must be something legitimate to their position on the matter." I'm here to tell you that they might well be following this course of action despite having no leg to stand on. The relative clarity, consistency, and plausibility of each side's assertions suggest just that in this case.

ukcarper

Generali wrote: »

What does the Tube stand to gain by sacking a sober driver?

Not a lot but they could lose a lot if their procedures are shown to be flawed or have not been followed correctly. I suppose we will just have to wait for results of tribunal and hope future strikes are planned to have as little effect as the one this week

chewmylegoff

ukcarper wrote: »

Nobody seems to be prepared to put any detail to their cases, most on what we know from shoddy journalism and you have to dig quite deep to get any more facts and they mainly hearsay.

Well TFL have released an official statement which said he failed two breath tests and clarified that the equipment used is unaffected by type 2 diabetes. What more detail do you want?! I don't think we need to know what colour underwear the chap operating the breathalyser had on at the time....

The RMT have claimed that "brother mcguigan" should be reinstated because the test is invalid because the individual has diabetes which may have generated a false positive, a claim which has been debunked but not retracted. Given that their central argument is entirely mythical I suspect they aren't keeping a lot of facts which prove the driver's innocence up their sleeve.

ukcarper

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Well TFL have released an official statement which said he failed two breath tests and clarified that the equipment used is unaffected by type 2 diabetes. What more detail do you want?! I don't think we need to know what colour underwear the chap operating the breathalyser had on at the time....

The RMT have claimed that "brother mcguigan" should be reinstated because the test is invalid because the individual has diabetes which may have generated a false positive, a claim which has been debunked but not retracted. Given that their central argument is entirely mythical I suspect they aren't keeping a lot of facts which prove the driver's innocence up their sleeve.

They haven't clarified how close together test were or if person doing test was fully qualified to do them. As I've said we will just have to wait.

Generali

ukcarper wrote: »

Not a lot but they could lose a lot if their procedures are shown to be flawed or have not been followed correctly. I suppose we will just have to wait for results of tribunal and hope future strikes are planned to have as little effect as the one this week

The only thing that wasn't followed correctly was the requirement to turn up to work sober when you have thousands of lives in your hands each day. The rest is incidental.

ukcarper

Generali wrote: »

The only thing that wasn't followed correctly was the requirement to turn up to work sober when you have thousands of lives in your hands each day. The rest is incidental.

That is what is in dispute I don't know if that was the case and nor do you. If the procedures were followed correctly that will come out in tribunal and driver will not get his job back rightly so we will have to wait and see.

Generali

purch wrote: »

Safer to get on a National Express Coach.

The driver cannot start the engine without blowing into a breathalyser device (Alcolock) and their level is 0.08, which is basically zero.

To be clear, the actual limit for LU is 0.00. They then allow an allowance on top of that which I suppose allows for errors in equipment and procedures when deciding whether to terminate employment.

I used to live next door to a train driver in Aus and he had a very simple policy: don't drink within 24 hours of a shift starting. He wasn't a boozer but he knew the score. Some of his mates were but if they drank too much they'd call in sick.

He was on the rails for over 40 years and started shoveling coal on trains out West covering the desert parts of NSW, SA and WA. He drank tea and water if he was working the next day.

He was happy to have a beer or two at a barbie but he knew he had responsibilities. I applied to be a train driver and had a good chat with him about it. They take their safety responsibilities very seriously.

purch

I was chatting to a NatEx driver a couple of years ago, and was wondering why he had to blow into this strange contraption before starting the coach. He said that every year 50+ drivers get removed from the network due to blowing fails (NatEx can't sack them because most of the network is operated by other operators under contract), but NatEx has a zero tolerance policy and within their ,own driving staff they won't even employ anyone who has a spent DR conviction , as should all public transport operators.