Re: Drunk cityrail driver

[Mark and Roz CREELY <mcreely@pnc.com.au>]

It is not the fact that we consider it an invasion of privacy etc. , and
yes there are instances of delaying tactics in certain circumnstances, but
the problem is that managers have a nasty habit of abusing things that have
been put in place to protect us all.

Example, they use random breath and drug  testing to target individuals who
may not agree with their philosophies, or who may have had altercations
with.

They also have this habit of testing people who report certain
irregularities with signals and the system of safeworking, as was the case
on State Rail when Trackwatch reports were introduced(Trackwatch reports
are submitted by safeworking employees when there is a problem with the
perway , signals and anything else that may impair the safe running of
trains).

So needless to say as can be seen by these two examples (and there are many
more) that the system has been abused.

I think most Drivers etc. welcome random testing as long as it used fairly
and in the right circumnstances.



David Bradshaw wrote:

> In article <3A40A7E8.72B91264@ozemail.com.au>,
>   trainman@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> > David Bradshaw wrote:
> >
> > > I understand that there has been consideration of random testing at
> > > times other than sign-on. This appears to be a good idea, and
> > > preferably it would be done in an efficient manner so that trains
> would
> > > not be delayed by testing (ie have the testers already waiting at
> the
> > > station, rather than the driver having to wait to be tested).
> > >
> > > Has there been any progress with this idea?
> >
> > They have realised that there would be too much delay to trains if
> they
> > tried that.  The driver would secure his train, then demand to go to a
> > private area for the test.  Then, just for fun, ask to see the
> calibration
> > certificates for the breathalizer, then check the operator is
> accredited in
> > its use.  I think the record is a 40 minute delay last time they
> tried this
> > trick.
>
> Interesting. Out of curiosity, why are some drivers so opposed to the
> idea of RBT? Is it considered an invasion of privacy by the drivers?
>
> I have read another poster stating that drivers are well within their
> rights to do as you stated above, which would tend to suggest to me
> that the regulations need changing - not to remove legitimate rights
> from the drivers, such as a right to see calibration certificates or
> accreditation, but rather to reduce nuisance delay tactics. Is there
> any reason why a police officer should not be able to simply board a
> train at a stop, display the relevant certificates and credentials, and
> request that the driver undergo a brief test then-and-there (similar to
> a automobile drivers test)?
>
> Thanks for your replies. I find this topic interesting, as obviously
> the public's welfare is a factor in the debate, as are the legitimate
> rights of drivers to conduct themselves with dignity and privacy.
>
> Cheers, David.
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/