Union to Strike for the Right for Drunks to Drive Trains

vivatifosi

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I'm sure that people will find away around it as they have done in the past.

No tube services in this part of the country.

This story has now been covered in a number of papers. On the comments section of one, there was a comment by another driver that there are other unions on the tube and that a few dinosaurs (his words) in the RMT would not be able to close the entire network.

princeofpounds

I used to live at the end of one of the lines. When one of the unions went on strike, the union that dominated my particular line often didn't.

To be frank, those were the best days ever. Loads of people never even went to the tube as they thought it was all on strike. Half the stations were shut and we would sail through.

A trip that took 50 minutes took about 25.

I never managed to speak to the drivers from that particular union, but if I'd had the opportunity I would have thanked them for not striking.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Police already deal with diabetics via a doctor and a blood test, should the need arise.

Diabetics don't need special treatment when it comes to drink driving - the breathalysers are unaffected by diabetes. Blood/ urine tests are offered when breath alcohol is between certain level regardless of whether the driver has diabetes. Of course anyone offered a blood test after a failed breath test should take it.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

There was one case on the TV a few months back on the Traffic Cops series. A man was arrested for driving while above the legal limit, but was later released with no charge due to diabetes. The diabetes itself was part of the reason for the accident in the first place.

Police turn up at the scene of an accident, the driver is behaving erratically and smells, vaguely, of alcohol. They arrest him on suspicion of drink driving. Subsequently, they realise he's a diabetic having a 'crash' , get a doctor and all's well.

If at any point during that process he was breathalysed and was over the limit then he's been drinking and would be dealt with the same as anyone else.

The science isn't on the side of our train driver I'm afraid.

purch

wotsthat wrote: »

The science isn't on the side of our train driver I'm afraid.

All the made up stuff is though :eek:

lisyloo

I'm sure that people will find away around it as they have done in the past.

On a single day basis, then yes people will find an alternative, however if you are continually badly affected by it, then you might choose to locate your home or business elsewhere.
It's unlikely to have any impact if it's unfrequent.

I know my husbands commute took 9 hours one day (I think there was flooding as well) so you would certainly re-consider your options if it was a regular occurence.

lisyloo

Interesting, though I do wonder what is the relevance of all this to house prices and the economy?

I feel rather strongly about the strike issue (there HAS to be a way to sort out disputes that doesn't involve affecting millions of people just trying to work) and it is affecting the way I will be voting in the general election and that in turn (scaled up) will affect the housing market.

I have in fact investigated which constituency to vote in and send off my application for a postal vote so I can vote in a marginal seat - so yes these issues DO get people fired up (engaged if you prefer).

michaels

lisyloo wrote: »

I feel rather strongly about the strike issue (there HAS to be a way to sort out disputes that doesn't involve affecting millions of people just trying to work) and it is affecting the way I will be voting in the general election and that in turn (scaled up) will affect the housing market.

I have in fact investigated which constituency to vote in and send off my application for a postal vote so I can vote in a marginal seat - so yes these issues DO get people fired up (engaged if you prefer).

Umm - doesn't one have to vote in the constituency where one resides, I think randomly registering for a postal vote in a marginal constituency might be described as electoral fraud.

I presume the best way to avoid strikes on LU is to vote in a Labour govt who have MPs funded by the unions involved and no doubt will make sure that whatever they demand is acceeded to without any dispute hence no strikes?

timbo58

princeofpounds wrote: »

Interesting, thanks. Timbo58, does that change your thinking at all? (not trying to be provocative, I'm honestly interested in your opinions as someone closer to this particular coalface)

Yes, it does.
I thought when antrobus 1st placed his reply with quotes from RMT etc that that was all that was written on the case.
Interesting to see both sides although I feel that 'of course both sides will have their own viewpoint' it doesn't make either of them the 100% correct version.

lisyloo

doesn't one have to vote in the constituency where one resides

I have two homes and I live in both properly in the spirit of the word residence.
If you have two homes you ARE allowed to choose which you would like to vote in.

I have owned a house in the constituency I am voting in for 24 years and been on the electoral role for 24 years also so there is nothing random or fraudulent about it (I'll be sure to let you know if I get questioned, but it's hardly a crime to be working away on 7th May).

Luckily for me I'm part of a married couple with the same opinion and I've kindly sent my husband's form off for him too :-))

timbo58

danielanthony wrote: »

Probably won't have changed his mind as it challenges the narrative that the workers are oppressed peasants and managers are inhuman bourgeoisie.

Well hopefully that'll shut you up then, probably best not to assume you can second guess others viewpoint for fear of looking an idiot in future.

I made it quite clear that whilst I was a union official many moons ago it was on the H&S side -these positions do not involve the majority of 'politicking' and I do not espouse the opinions you assume I do/did, I am old and hopefully wise enough to be able to admit when I have made an incorrect judgement.