RMT backs drink driving

[ayjay]

If there are conditions which can affect the reading why has the union not tested the driver for these conditions?

 

Barry's link in post 11 says:-

 

He was one of several drivers subject to random testing but the only one to fail. The RMT claims that Mr McGuigan suffers from diabetes which they say can affect breathalyser testing.

 

If you give plod a positive breathalyser they can follow it up with a blood test - had this been done in this case there would be no argument, as it stands this case is open to doubt.

[corydoras]

He was one of several drivers subject to random testing but the only one to fail. The RMT claims that Mr McGuigan suffers from diabetes which they say can affect breathalyser testing.

If his diabetes is that bad he perhaps should not be driving at all? My mates wife suffers from this. She is not allowed to drive, it's doubtful that the DVLA will ever give her her licence back.

Edited February 12, 2015 by corydoras

[barry luxton]

If his diabetes is that bad he perhaps should not be driving at all? My mates wife suffers from this. She is not allowed to drive, it's doubtful that the DVLA will ever give her her licence back.

that is exactly the advice that is given to diabetics and they also have self test kits. The argument that his illness affected the result has been dismissed. if it was the case the union or the guy himself can sue for unfair dismissal, why isn't that the way forward as opposed to disrupting the commuters. Load of selfish anarchists' who enjoy watching everyone else suffer just because they can.

[Andrew]

And that thuggish union rep is not helping the blokes case with foul remarks like that on the radio interview.

How can anyone take the eedjit serious when he spout bile like that ?

[big_cod]

that is exactly the advice that is given to diabetics and they also have self test kits. The argument that his illness affected the result has been dismissed. if it was the case the union or the guy himself can sue for unfair dismissal, why isn't that the way forward as opposed to disrupting the commuters. Load of selfish anarchists' who enjoy watching everyone else suffer just because they can.

 

Remember mr pleb barry dont hold your breath.

 

There has been the predictable press outrage with the usual shoddy journalism, several inaccurately report that AMcG was driving a train while drunk or that he failed two tests on two separate dates. Management are sticking to their version of the story, declaring that RMT are asking its members to “defend the indefensible” but still haven’t given a reason why they have rejected RMT’s offer to call of the strike if they agree to abide by the Employment Tribunals decision and give AMcG his job back if it is decided that he has been unfairly sacked.

Until they can offer up an explanation for refusing this option we are left with two possibilities; either they know that AMcG was unfairly dismissed and that they will lose at the Tribunal or they simply don’t care if there’s a strike, possibly they even welcome one.

paul.

[corydoras]

Remember mr pleb barry dont hold your breath.

 

There has been the predictable press outrage with the usual shoddy journalism, several inaccurately report that AMcG was driving a train while drunk or that he failed two tests on two separate dates. Management are sticking to their version of the story, declaring that RMT are asking its members to “defend the indefensible” but still haven’t given a reason why they have rejected RMT’s offer to call of the strike if they agree to abide by the Employment Tribunals decision and give AMcG his job back if it is decided that he has been unfairly sacked.

 

Until they can offer up an explanation for refusing this option we are left with two possibilities; either they know that AMcG was unfairly dismissed and that they will lose at the Tribunal or they simply don’t care if there’s a strike, possibly they even welcome one.

 

paul.

I don't understand how you can try to rationalise this aaway. Driving or attempting to drive a train whilst over the limit should be Gross Misconduct. End of Story.

[barry luxton]

load of cods big cod.

 

A strike should be the last resort not the first.

 

To disrupt hundreds of workers where a percentage of less than 50% voted and less than 50% voted for a strike and to disrupt many hundreds of thousands commuter's, just because they can is the absolute last line of defence, surely not the first.

 

Any other worker in the u k who has a grievance or has been unfairly dismissed, the employment tribunal is a powerful tool. If the bloody union had gone down that route first and foremost, if the guy had been treated unfairly it would be dealt with. Personally I don't think the guy will go down the route of a tribunal because he's been caught bang to rights, whatever paper you read. Then the union might just earn a little respect off the public and not condemnation for supporting someone who certainly appears to be not fit for purpose. Either under the influence or just as worse not fit for work due to ill health.

 

Roll on driverless trains to ease the pain on the travelling public.

[big_cod]

If he is found to intoxicated over the limit he should be sacked no question about that but there seems to be something not quite right here lets just wait and see i agree anybody who is under the influence should not be sat in charge of a train or on the road but and its a but whats there driving limit is 35 ,30 20, 15 , 10 or zero you can have a beer and and its still in your liver for at least 2 days .

 

paul.

Edited February 13, 2015 by big_cod

[big_cod]

 

load of cods big cod.

 

A strike should be the last resort not the first.

 

To disrupt hundreds of workers where a percentage of less than 50% voted and less than 50% voted for a strike and to disrupt many hundreds of thousands commuter's, just because they can is the absolute last line of defence, surely not the first.

 

Any other worker in the u k who has a grievance or has been unfairly dismissed, the employment tribunal is a powerful tool. If the bloody union had gone down that route first and foremost, if the guy had been treated unfairly it would be dealt with. Personally I don't think the guy will go down the route of a tribunal because he's been caught bang to rights, whatever paper you read. Then the union might just earn a little respect off the public and not condemnation for supporting someone who certainly appears to be not fit for purpose. Either under the influence or just as worse not fit for work due to ill health.

 

Roll on driverless trains to ease the pain on the travelling public

 

 

Looking more at this barry you condemed the triver to be guilty the limit is just 10% of the legal driving limit do you know just what that is its near on zero on the road you can have beer and its in your liver 2 days later and the guy has diabetes the more you look at this the more it could end up being not as it seems if he is proven all well and good but not lets hang him yet .

 

Remember the pleb story barry you were hellbent on guilty it could all end being a load of cods whollop !

 

 

 

paul.

Edited February 15, 2015 by big_cod

[barry luxton]

how many coppers where found to be wanting re plebgate big cod, how many where sacked is it finished I don't think it is

 

you miss the point, why does this union wash it's dirty laundry making the public suffer first and foremost before any industrial tribunal. It's because they are nasty and thuggish and couldn't give a toss.

Edited February 15, 2015 by barry luxton