Union to Strike for the Right for Drunks to Drive Trains

ukcarper

danothy wrote: »

There's no repainting gone on at all. It's clearly not disputed that the breath test was over the limit, and it's been known since they were invented that diabetes can imitate alcohol on the breath. There's only one question, and that is "Who is lying about the particular breath test used?".

So, do TfL/LU use devices that can't differentiate between a diabetic low and a drunk like the RMT say, or like TfL/LU say, do they use devices that can? Given that TfL/LU are specific about what kind of devices they use and their capabilities (i.e. that they are not affected by diabetes), while the RMT appear to simply say "nuh-uh", I know where I'm placing my bet.

Why have London Underground refused to go to ACAS which RMT are prepared to and they say they are prepared to accept result.

danothy

ukcarper wrote: »

Why have London Underground refused to go to ACAS which RMT are prepared to and they say they are prepared to accept result.

I don't know. Do you think it provides some sort of indication as to which party is lying about the breathalyser capabilities?

ukcarper

danothy wrote: »

I don't know. Do you think it provides some sort of indication as to which party is lying about the breathalyser capabilities?

I would have though that if London Underground are sure they are correct why wouldn't they go. I would guess there is a lot more to it that we know and all this thread is doing is showing peoples prejudices.

danothy

ukcarper wrote: »

I would have though that if London Underground are sure they are correct why wouldn't they go. I would guess there is a lot more to it that we know and all this thread is doing is showing peoples prejudices.

Ahh, so they must be lying about which breathalyser test they use, or why wouldn't they go ... I see. Quite a bold faced lie on their behalf to issue a statement about which specific technology they are using when it could so easily be verified or disputed.

ukcarper

danothy wrote: »

Ahh, so they must be lying about which breathalyser test they use, or why wouldn't they go ... I see. Quite a bold faced lie on their behalf to issue a statement about which specific technology they are using when it could so easily be verified or disputed.

Why won't they go to ACAS if they are 100% sure, I don't know the full facts and I suspect you don't.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

Why have London Underground refused to go to ACAS which RMT are prepared to and they say they are prepared to accept result.

Exactly.

These things should be easily sorted out, WELL before it gets to strike action.

All the blame gets put on the unions, but it's not ONLY the union that can avoid strikes. Companies can too. This strike wouldn't go ahead if, as you say, London Underground would go to ACAS.

All these things are easily avoidable, so I don;t know why people are so adamant that the blame always lies on the union side.

The union will pull off the strike if London Underground are willing to co-operate. It's therefore unfair to simply state it's the unions fault. There must be a reason London Underground would prefer a strike over just going to ACAS.

Seems to me some just detest unions and all they stand for, regardless of the actual situation.

danothy

ukcarper wrote: »

Why won't they go to ACAS if they are 100% sure, I don't know the full facts and I suspect you don't.

So on that basis you do think they are lying about the capabilities of the breathalyser? Or don't you? I can't tell.

ukcarper

danothy wrote: »

So on that basis you do think they are lying about the capabilities of the breathalyser? Or don't you? I can't tell.

To be quite honest I don't know and they might be mistaken or lying, I don't know the intricacies of the breath test used and I suspect you don't. The strike could easily be avoided by going to arbitration and if TFL are correct the driver will be sacked.

Graham_Devon

danothy wrote: »

So on that basis you do think they are lying about the capabilities of the breathalyser? Or don't you? I can't tell.

It's very clear what UKCarper is stating, and it's very clear you are doing your utmost to twist it to suit your position.

Carper is simply stating if there is nothing to hide, why not simply fulfill the requirements and end all this fuss?

As it is, it would appear there is a greater likelihood that something is amiss here, hence London Undergrounds refusal to go to ACAS and allow a strike to take place.

If everything that London Underground has stated is correct, the driver will be dismissed and that will be the end of it. It appears London Underground are willing to undergo a FAR more expensive strike in order that they do not have to go to an independent board.

purch

Funny how anyone would consider a thread on a totally pointless internet forum as "judge and jury" over anything