Amadeus Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Tube drivers strike in defence of drunk colleague http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/tube-drivers-strike-in-defence-of-drunk-colleague-30980615.html Drivers on London Underground have voted to strike over the sacking of a colleague. Members of the Rail, Maritime and Transport union backed industrial action by 299 votes to 221.General secretary Mick Cash said: "Our members have voted for industrial action and the union will now consult extensively with our representatives before deciding on our next moves in this dispute..................LU had urged union members to vote against strikes, insisting they had dismissed the Northern Line driver for failing two random breath alcohol tests, adding that it operates a zero tolerance policy for drugs and alcohol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 .........LU had urged union members to vote against strikes, insisting they had dismissed the Northern Line driver for failing two random breath alcohol tests, adding that it operates a zero tolerance policy for drugs and alcohol. I love the bit highlighted in bold. Essentially it says we have a zero tolerance policy but if you have to fail two random tests before we will actually dismiss you. I know companies that conduct such tests. If you fail you are immediately suspended from site and further tests may be made for analysis in a lab. If they are also positive you are dismissed for a first time offence. That includes if you still have alcohol in your system from the night before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 One of the comments below it is interesting: Who's been doing your fact checking? That headline is grossly slanderous. The argument is about the flawed processes of the LU's Drugs and Alcohol policy, including the urine test (which was clean of drugs and alcohol, by the way) which is suppose to be kept for 12 months after the incident but was in fact destroyed by LU management after literally 7 days. The union supports a fair and just system, and a zero tolerance policy, but does not stand for victimisation of the innocent and LU not following their own procedures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 There are complicating issues in this which RMT are exploiting to get him off the very sharp hook. However the GC was on the radio this morning and he made Scargill sound reasonable.. I've never heard such an offensive or argumentative union official and I can remember Scanlon, McGahey and Red Robbo! He did himself, the RMT or the case no favours whatsoever. Was this a secret ballot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted February 11, 2015 Author Share Posted February 11, 2015 Holy moly, fruitcake alert Nick Ferrari takes trade union boss Steve Hedley off air after he asks LBC host: 'Have you stopped beating your wife?' http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/nick-ferrari-takes-trade-union-boss-steve-hedley-off-air-after-he-asks-lbc-host-have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife-10038366.html He takes aim at his foot, the shoots, he scores! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lao Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 I know nothing about either party in the argument, but i can actually understand Steve Hedley's reasoning behind asking the question. He is trying to explain that their position is that the test is faulty but is being berated with the question "did he fail the breathalyzer?" and that is after an incredibly bias opening question, "why are you supporting a drunk driver?" the question "have you stopped beating your wife?" is an example of a loaded question, as much so as "why are you supporting a drunk driver?" because in reality he does not believe he is supporting a drunk driver, his position is that the man in question wasn't drunk and the test is faulty. Whether it is true or not that the test was faulty, or the man was drunk is not really something i can weigh in on, but i can sympathize with the man for losing his temper at bias sensationalizing journalism that won't allow time for him to make his point, without being accosted by sound bites and loaded questions. Plus the awkwardness was kinda funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Well reasoned, Lao. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 One of the comments below it is interesting: Who's been doing your fact checking? That headline is grossly slanderous. The argument is about the flawed processes of the LU's Drugs and Alcohol policy, including the urine test (which was clean of drugs and alcohol, by the way) which is suppose to be kept for 12 months after the incident but was in fact destroyed by LU management after literally 7 days. The union supports a fair and just system, and a zero tolerance policy, but does not stand for victimisation of the innocent and LU not following their own procedures. Remember that an employer does not have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the person was "guilty" they only have to have a reasonable belief that the person was guilty, In all likelihood an Employment Tribunal would uphold the decision of the London Underground to dismiss but may raise concerns that they had failed to follow a reasonable procedure. Add in that there is now a fee in place within the UK to pursue and ET claim and you probably can draw your own conclusions why strike action is being threatened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 I can understand Headley's reasoning too. He's new to the rôle and has a sacked union member to get off the hook. His stance could only be seen to be supportable if a diabetic with diabetic keto-acidosis gives a positive breath test solely because of that condition. This defence has been tried for years, especially in the USA, as the early infra-red testers could register a positive by ketones (and many other non-ethyl alcohol containing substances come to that). Headley's point that the limit is lower than to drive a car is also a complete red herring. AFAIK modern testers do not get confused by ketones and this fella gave two separate positive tests which Headley refused to confirm resorting to personal insults instead when Ferrari persisted with the question. LBC has a real bully on its programs later in the day but I've always found Ferrari fairly calm, reasonable and logical. I think he was no different this morning. Had Headley not been a complete nob he would have likely had ample opportunity to state his case and it was his attitude which got him taken off the air denying him this opportunity. How is that Ferrari's fault? How can you ever blame another for shooting yourself in the foot? All this aside, any diabetic who has DKA is just as unfit (actually perhaps much more so) to drive a train as a drunk and the driver would know this yet continued to drive risking collapse. DKA is a medical emergency and can be fatal. This is not what you want with someone driving your train. Headley's protestations of his innocence based on his illness are therefore completely unsupportable in any case. If his diabetes was poorly controlled he should not have been driving a train. The driver would have known better than anyone how well controlled his disease was. Edit : the reason for the fee for an ET was due to the hundreds of spurious claims being brought. Whilst TFL should have followed procedure better I think, based on what I've read, that this could be a spurious case. The only way would be to bring it and see what transpires instead of a strike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 BB, that post fills in a lot of gaps. I certainly agree that this whole situation is ridiculous and Headley has made a stand on the wrong case. Headley would have been much better served by focusing on procedural deficiencies and potential discrimination on the grounds of disability. We will never find out unless it does go to an ET but it would be interesting to know whether the driver ever informed TFL that he had a medical condition or if it was ever picked up as part of a health surveillance programme. Did the driver know he had a medical condition? Had the driver informed TFL? Had TFL done anything about it to mitigate the risks or make adjustments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.