Union to Strike for the Right for Drunks to Drive Trains

danothy

ukcarper wrote: »

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.

I watched a Blue Peter segment on the introduction of breathalysers in the 60s when I was young. Even back then they accounted for diabetes.

ukcarper

danothy wrote: »

I watched a Blue Peter segment on the introduction of breathalysers in the 60s when I was young. Even back then they accounted for diabetes.

Your quite good at asking questions why don't you try answering the question. Why do you think TFL won't go to arbitration?

danothy

ukcarper wrote: »

Your quite good at asking questions why don't you try answering the question. Why do you think TFL won't go to arbitration?

I did answer your question, I said I don't know. You would have to ask them. I don't even know that they won't. I could speculate from the assumption that they won't on why, maybe that is what you want. One possibility is that, despite it being an easy win, letting the union make a tool of itself over this issue may be considered to be more valuable in terms of PR by TfL/LU. Incidentally, this isn't "the" question, "the" question is whether the test found alcohol or diabetes.

I suppose the corollary of the question you ask (which is seemingly intended to imply that the answer is diabetes) is "why would the RMT attempt such a desperate gambit if it actually had a legitimate grievance?". I shan't ask you to answer that though, as I am satisfied with my own conclusions.

ukcarper

danothy wrote: »

I did answer your question, I said I don't know. You would have to ask them. I don't even know that they won't. I could speculate from the assumption that they won't on why, maybe that is what you want. One possibility is that, despite it being an easy win, letting the union make a tool of itself over this issue may be considered to be more valuable in terms of PR by TfL/LU. Incidentally, this isn't "the" question, "the" question is whether the test found alcohol or diabetes.

I suppose the corollary of the question you ask (which is seemingly intended to imply that the answer is diabetes) is "why would the RMT attempt such a desperate gambit if it actually had a legitimate grievance?". I shan't ask you to answer that though, as I am satisfied with my own conclusions.

What desperate gambit offering to go to go to ACAS. I'm not sure how you can reach a valid conclusion without access to all the facts. If he had drunk to much he deserves to be sacked if he hasn't he doesn't. I can reach a decision on that as I don't know the facts but I'm not so blinkered to be taken in by the right wing press.

Rolandtheroadie

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Or at least someone who had been drinking and whose blood alcohol was in excess of the limit permitted, a limit which is there for the safety of the people using the network. The RMT are always very quick to emphasise the health and safety issues arising from pretty much any changes that TFL want to make - but suddenly not so concerned about health and safety of passengers when the job of "brother mcguigan" is on the line.

Blood alcohol? I thought "brother mcguigan" wasn't allowed a blood or urine sample after his breath test.

Generali

timbo58 wrote: »

Clearly the RMT are going to paint this issue the way they want it to be painted, just as TfL will paint it their way.

I think it's bit rich that an entire thread provocatively entitled has already acted as this mans judge & jury based on a few heavily biased stories (from both sides).

The title merely reflects the deed. Man gets caught twice going to work drunk. Man is fired as this is gross misconduct. Union calls for a strike to have man reinstated.

My only argument is why he was allowed to show up drunk twice.

Rolandtheroadie

Generali wrote: »

The title merely reflects the deed. Man gets caught twice going to work drunk. Man is fired as this is gross misconduct. Union calls for a strike to have man reinstated.

My only argument is why he was allowed to show up drunk twice.

I had a bit of a search at the time, but couldn't find out if he had twice turned up for work over the limit, or was breathalised, failed, then breathalised again.

wotsthat

ukcarper wrote: »

Why do you think TFL won't go to arbitration?

They don't want to take the slightest risk they'll have to reinstate the driver. The union will be all for arbitration as they've nothing to lose.

There's an asymmetrical risk/ reward on offer for the different parties.

danothy

ukcarper wrote: »

What desperate gambit offering to go to go to ACAS. I'm not sure how you can reach a valid conclusion without access to all the facts. If he had drunk to much he deserves to be sacked if he hasn't he doesn't. I can reach a decision on that as I don't know the facts but I'm not so blinkered to be taken in by the right wing press.

Are you allergic to question marks? I'm referring to the desperate gambit of trying to pass off a positive breathalyser test as a result of diabetes induced false positives, when this has been something that has been taken into account for almost half a century when performing such tests.

The question, as I said, is who is lying about the quality of such tests. The "fact" that it hasn't gone to arbitration doesn't mean that TfL/LU are, nor does it even tip the balance of probabilities towards them lying in my view, given the detail of the rebuttal of that claim provided by TfL/LU.

ukcarper

danothy wrote: »

Are you allergic to question marks? I'm referring to the desperate gambit of trying to pass off a positive breathalyser test as a result of diabetes induced false positives, when this has been something that has been taken into account for almost half a century when performing such tests.

The question, as I said, is who is lying about the quality of such tests. The "fact" that it hasn't gone to arbitration doesn't mean that TfL/LU are, nor does it even tip the balance of probabilities towards them lying in my view, given the detail of the rebuttal of that claim provided by TfL/LU.

The whole thing could be simply resolved by going to arbitration and you don't know whether the confidence that TFL have in there blood test machine is justified.

When people resort to criticising grammar in normally means their argument is weak.