TTC: Other Items (catch all)

[44 North]

Hm, not defending the employee or anything. But 0.04 isn't alarming to me, particularly for one of 10,000 non-driving safety-sensitive positions. If there's evidence that it was on job boozing or in the lead up to a shift it's a different story. But 0.04 could very well have carried over from a previous night of mild/moderate drinking.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Hm, not defending the employee or anything. But 0.04 isn't alarming to me, particularly for one of 10,000 non-driving safety-sensitive positions. If there's evidence that it was on job boozing or in the lead up to a shift it's a different story. But 0.04 could very well have carried over from a previous night of mild/moderate drinking.

Slight correction - it didn't say the employee tested and found to have a level of 0.04 - it said that it was above that figure, which is considered impaired by TTC standard.

AoD

 

[muller877]

Hm, not defending the employee or anything. But 0.04 isn't alarming to me, particularly for one of 10,000 non-driving safety-sensitive positions. If there's evidence that it was on job boozing or in the lead up to a shift it's a different story. But 0.04 could very well have carried over from a previous night of mild/moderate drinking.

mild or moderate? If a male who is 175 lb has 8 beers and then waits 8 hours he will blow under 0.04. It's the same as having 3 beers in 1 hour and then driving. 100% unacceptable.

I wonder how much over 0.04 he blew.

 

[Filip]

Oops - from the Star:

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...der-new-drug-policy-found-to-be-impaired.html

AoD

Yet suspended with pay. In the private sector you would've lost your job so fast your head would spin.

Absolutely ridiculous we continue to pay this alcoholic's salary while he endangers the public.

 

[44 North]

Slight correction - it didn't say the employee tested and found to have a level of 0.04 - it said that it was above that figure, which is considered impaired by TTC standard.

AoD

Oh, whoops. Didn't see it was over that, or that was their cutoff standard. I wonder how high it actually was, and I guess how high the employee was.

 

[PinkLucy]

Yet suspended with pay. In the private sector you would've lost your job so fast your head would spin.

Absolutely ridiculous we continue to pay this alcoholic's salary while he endangers the public.

It's a stretch to call him/her an alcoholic. We have no way of knowing if this was a one time thing or a chronic issue. I'm glad it was caught and hopefully it will be properly followed up.

 

[smallspy]

It is a little embarrassing, no doubt. If this is a one off, it must be a hole-in-one.

AoD

In this case, the consensus is that wasn't a fluke.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Filip]

It's a stretch to call him/her an alcoholic. We have no way of knowing if this was a one time thing or a chronic issue. I'm glad it was caught and hopefully it will be properly followed up.

Blowing over 0.04 on a Monday leads me to believe this is a chronic thing.

 

[DSC]

Blowing over 0.04 on a Monday leads me to believe this is a chronic thing.

Why?

 

[Filip]

Why?

Who drinks that much before reporting to work on a Monday if he doesn't have a problem? Let's be honest with ourselves here. This guy needs to lose his job, learn a lesson about responsibility and get help.

I have had many people close to me with an alcohol problem and unless the consequences are severe they're reluctant to see it as an issue.

No sympathy from me.

 

[salsa]

Oops...

Ben Spurr@BenSpurr
12 mins ago
Breaking: TTC says second employee, also tested on Monday, has failed a drug test.

TTC won't say what drug the employee tested positive for, only that it was a "fail." Employee was not an operator. Suspended with pay.

So that is two out of about eight TTC workers tested Monday who failed drug/alcohol test.

And this comes just a few hours after the first failed drug test, which a TTC union official dismissed as "a one-off".

 

[rbt]

So that is two out of about eight TTC workers tested Monday who failed drug/alcohol test.

Do we know if it was a truly randomized selection process? I mean, you can randomly select from a small pool of staff HR and lower management prioritized, and still call it random testing.

It makes for great corporate politics (at private firms). Early on you get rid of a few employees that you weren't happy with and in 6 months (once every employee is the pool for testing) you can announce the problem rate has dropped significantly and take credit.

 

[CapitalSeven]

Who drinks that much before reporting to work on a Monday if he doesn't have a problem? Let's be honest with ourselves here. This guy needs to lose his job, learn a lesson about responsibility and get help.

I have had many people close to me with an alcohol problem and unless the consequences are severe they're reluctant to see it as an issue.

No sympathy from me.

If you jump to conclusions like this, good thing you're not in charge of anything. There are lots of people who socialize and party on Sundays. I never do because you feel lousy and hung over on Monday morning. I think it's highly possible that this one just partied too hardy on Sunday. We have no way of knowing.

Either way, you can't drive a huge and expensive vehicle full of riders on congested streets even with .04. Disciplinary action and an evaluation are certainly in order. But you make conclusions after finding the facts, not instead of.

 

[drum118]

When the Bloor-Danforth line open, Danforth almost die with the removal of the streetcars. It still hasn't recover today compare to Bloor and the numbers shows it.

Where the most (and least) expensive condo areas are along the subway

 

[Filip]

If you jump to conclusions like this, good thing you're not in charge of anything. There are lots of people who socialize and party on Sundays. I never do because you feel lousy and hung over on Monday morning. I think it's highly possible that this one just partied too hardy on Sunday. We have no way of knowing.

Either way, you can't drive a huge and expensive vehicle full of riders on congested streets even with .04. Disciplinary action and an evaluation are certainly in order. But you make conclusions after finding the facts, not instead of.

Sorry I disagree. Clearly there is a problem here and from the TTC themselves they were aware that there is a culture of alcohol and drug abuse on the workforce. This seems to correlate well with 2/8 testing positive for impairment.

Just like you're assuming he got pissed on Sunday I assume he just drank before going to work. We will never find out.

Regarding @rbt earlier comment this is purely random and picked by a computer. The Star article explains the process.