Tube Driver Strike

Avatar Image
Deskdiary | 09:09 Wed 11th Feb 2015 | News
27 Answers
The RMT are to go on strike over the sacking of a tube driver who failed two breath tests.

On the assumption the driver did fail the tests (I find it very hard to believe the driver was "fitted up" as Mick Cash has stated), then the sacking was absolutely correct, wasn't it?

Is Mick Cash the new Vic Spanner?


1 to 20 of 27rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Deskdiary. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
What are the levels permitted? Is it the same as driving a car?

As I understand it they have a no-alcohol policy, so can only assume that the strikers think it's ok for a Driver, who is responsible for passenger safety, to be over their limit.
Glad I don't use the Tube that often.
That's why I asked. Some medications and mouthwashes contain alcohol so the minimum should take that into account....which is only a trace or slightly above.

If he's been sacked for such low levels I suppose he could argue the case.

If it's above that and similar to the DD limit then of course he should be sacked.
As a former trade union rep, I really can't believe that a union would threaten strike action if the story is so black & white. If the driver failed 2 breath tests then of course he should be reprimanded/sacked. There has to be more to it than is being reported surely.
The article doesn't tell us how he was allegedly 'fitted up'. There must be evidence that he failed the breath tests, in which case it was right to sack him.
I noticed you put the link up, but did you 'read' the comments underneath? There would appear to be a possible failure in the testing procedure. I give a further link to another article which gives slightly more detail.
Get the impression there is more to this than stated, certainly seems to be ongoing animosity. Would depend on the rules as to whether a second offence was a sacking one or not. Anyway don't these trains drive themselves these days ? If not, why not ?
Ah had not dropped down to the comments. There does indeed seem to be a legitimate dispute.
Standard practice for unions, they always try and defend the indefensible.

Rather sweeping statement?
TTT - you base that statement on what?
so when managers fail tests it's the machine's fault but when drivers fail it's their fault... interesting line of thinking.

Well, the union have said they'll abide by any finding by arbitrators, but LU refuse to go to arbitration. At this stage, the unon seems to be behaving reasonably, management do not.
Breath tests from handheld machines are not very accurate. That is why if ypu fail one given by a police officer you are subjected to further tests of blood or urine at a police station. In many instances, people who have got a fail on a roadside test, pass the tests at the police station.

It seems that the Underground management rely on handheld devices only, and the Union doubts their accuracy.

The Underground Authorities need to have a system that would stand up in a court of law. A way to test blood or urine of drivers who fail the handheld test should be implimented, because the same problem will occur again

I gather you ride a motorbike. If you got roadside breathalysed and failed, but you knew you hadn't drunk anything for several hours, would uou just say fair cop and go to court? Or would you take the additional tests at the police station hoping it would give a more accurate result?
I'd not ride at all if I'd had anything to drink gromit. Why didn't the driver get another test done himself if that's the case? to take you analogy yes I would want a second opinion. I don't believe all this old pony, he had alcohol in the system whilst driving public service trains, end of.

alice/rocket - remember the 60's and 70s, don't tell me you've forgotten all the silly things that Unions went on strike for! PMSL

So many workers must give up pay because one numpty fails a breath test.
quite remarkable how some above will defend a drunk train driver in order to back their union mates. The morals of the left never cease to amaze me.
3T unions do NOT defend the indefensible. They do and should rubbish employer cases which have been 'investigated' in a slovenly fashion

they support their members in return for subs

I am always telling my co-workers to get unionised (OK I was a union rep myself) - remember they cant sack us all !
I had a handheld breath test once. Failed badly but I knew I hadn't had enough to drink. They should take you in and get you to blow on the accurate machines (I easily passed) and if it's a close call you can give a urine example or a blood test.

Was this not offered?
PP - (OK I was a union rep myself) - yes I'd have put money on that!
Employers don't (yet) have the power of arrest that the police have so have to follow the procedure, which was doubtless agreed to by the union, as it stands.
No reason for tube trains to have drivers at all nowadays.

1 to 20 of 27rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Tube Driver Strike

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.