Union to Strike for the Right for Drunks to Drive Trains

danothy

ukcarper wrote: »

we will just have to wait.

ukcarper wrote: »

we will have to wait and see.

I think you will have to wait and hope. I however can draw my own conclusions.

Since it seems clear cut that it couldn't have been a diabetes induced false positive (as stated on the call to vote), and since the other arguments are about technicalities rather than whether or not this was actually a false positive, I conclude that he failed the test due to being intoxicated. If something comes to light that might have caused a false positive then I'll be happy to re-evaluate the arguments, but until then I won't be indulging in the kind of straw clutching and wishful thinking you seem to be.

Remember, technicalities are intended to protect the innocent, not the guilty.

danothy

So, like, did they just give up?

Generali

danothy wrote: »

So, like, did they just give up?

They had their strike and nobody noticed except the strikers who took home less money than usual.

http://m.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-31766264

ukcarper

Generali wrote: »

They had their strike and nobody noticed except the strikers who took home less money than usual.

http://m.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-31766264

They planned the strike to cause minimum disruption

TheBlueHorse

All I know is tube drivers are paid a fortune for an incredibly easy job that 80% of the workforce could do with a weeks training. They should be on £25k and no more. Not £50k plus.

Driving a bus is far more difficult.

danothy

Generali wrote: »

They had their strike and nobody noticed except the strikers who took home less money than usual.

http://m.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-31766264

Yeah, but, if the RMT had such a strong case one would have thought that wouldn't be the end of it ...

purch

Funnily enough there is a similar story in the News today (apart from the Union hissy fit and threats)

A Bus driver in Bristol was sacked for failing a routine drug test in 2012, despite protesting his innocence.

Apparently tests that he had to pay for, taken from hair samples cleared him of ever having taken Cocaine.

So he won his case for unfair dismissal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-31947567

antrobus

purch wrote: »

Funnily enough there is a similar story in the News today (apart from the Union hissy fit and threats)

A Bus driver in Bristol was sacked for failing a routine drug test in 2012, despite protesting his innocence.

Apparently tests that he had to pay for, taken from hair samples cleared him of ever having taken Cocaine.

So he won his case for unfair dismissal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-31947567

Actually, it's slightly more interesting than that.

Mr Bailes' solicitors successfully argued he had handled hundreds of pounds of cash on the day of the test, money which could have been contaminated by cocaine.


And hence the positive result.

purch

Also, Bristol is one of the few places where Bus drivers are "represented" by RMT and not Unite.

I guess the union thinks that defending a brother who fails a alcohol test is more important than defending one who has failed a drug test.

danothy

purch wrote: »

Also, Bristol is one of the few places where Bus drivers are "represented" by RMT and not Unite.

I guess the union thinks that defending a brother who fails a alcohol test is more important than defending one who has failed a drug test.

More important, or easier?