News   Jul 22, 2024
 551     0 
News   Jul 22, 2024
 459     0 
News   Jul 22, 2024
 496     0 

TTC to Proceed with Drug Testing

unimaginative2

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
4,554
Reaction score
10
Location
New York
TTC report recommends employee drug testing

Blames lack of safety procedures, not drug use, for fatal accident last year; tests conclude driver was under influence when he died
JEFF GRAY

From Friday's Globe and Mail

June 13, 2008 at 5:12 AM EDT

While saying drug and alcohol use on the job among TTC workers is "not rampant," TTC officials said yesterday they didn't know how many transit workers are disciplined each year for being drunk or stoned, even as they begin considering a controversial testing regime for employees.

That idea is among the safety recommendations made in a report released yesterday on the April, 2007, subway crash that killed work-car driver Antonio (Tony) Almeida, whom the report concludes smoked marijuana on his final shift, according to toxicology tests.

While the report blames a lack of safety procedures, and not the drug use, for the accident, it also reveals that Mr. Almeida - a 38-year-old father of two - was fired a year earlier for smoking marijuana, but reinstated after his union took up his case.

The TTC's chief general manager, Gary Webster, said TTC staff had caught Mr. Almeida using marijuana on a break, sitting in his car in a parking lot. He had been returned to work under conditions that he show up "fit for duty." However, yesterday's report says his supervisors were unaware of these conditions.

Related Articles
Recent

TTC union calls marijuana report 'slander'
TTC ticket collector charged with fraud
Head-on streetcar collision puts TTC driver in hospital
From the archives

TTC worker's death on job spurs calls for drug tests
TTC driver charged with drunk driving
The report's findings have added to calls for drug and alcohol testing - vehemently opposed by the TTC's largest union - that came after a TTC bus driver was charged with impaired driving last week.

But Mr. Webster and Adam Giambrone, the city councillor who chairs the TTC, said yesterday the TTC needs to compile its records before it can say how many of its workers have been disciplined for drug or alcohol.

"I really don't want to go there. Not that many, clearly," Mr. Webster said.

Around 4:30 a.m. on April 23, 2007, an 11-person crew removing asbestos from the subway tunnel walls north of Eglinton Station finished and began to head south on a two-car work train.

The front car, a flatbed, was outfitted with eight telescoping metal platforms that allowed workers to reach the tunnel walls. Pushing it from behind was a conventional subway car, driven by Mr. Almeida.

But four of those platforms, the investigation concluded, were not properly stowed. The one directly in front of Mr. Almeida's cab was left fully extended.

It caught the side of the tunnel wall, causing it to fold backward into the subway-car cab where Mr. Almeida was seated, killing him instantly. Two workers were also seriously injured, and others there that night have suffered from post-traumatic stress, Mr. Webster said.

All of the workers have insisted they stowed their platforms properly and that the equipment must have come loose. Police and TTC management rejected this version of events after testing the equipment and recreating the accident, Mr. Webster said.

Telling the surviving crew members this in a tense meeting this week was difficult, he said, as was a recent meeting with Mr. Almeida's widow.

"What we don't want our employees to think, what we don't want Mrs. Almeida to think, is that we're blaming them," Mr. Webster said. "This is not a blame game."

The TTC has taken responsibility for the accident, pleading guilty to a Ministry of Labour charge and paying a $250,000 fine.

Mr. Webster also acknowledged yesterday that the ministry's investigation into the accident revealed that a similar work-car crash had occurred on the Bloor-Danforth line in 2002, but the TTC did not address the problem.

Mr. Webster, who has spurred a re-examination of safety at the TTC, said that in addition to tightening its training and other procedures, the TTC is modifying the work-car so that it will not move unless all of its platforms are stowed.

Bob Kinnear, president of Local 113 of the Amalgamated Transit Union, called the report a "damning reflection" of the TTC's safety practices, but accused management of trying to shift blame onto the worker who died by highlighting his drug use.

"The TTC is trying to put the onus on a dead man. ... Did they test his supervisor?" Mr. Kinnear said yesterday. "I think it is absolutely disgraceful."
 
Oh yeah, I know I'm going to feel safer if my driver is fired for smoking a joint on a day he wasn't working two weeks previously. Let's be more like the United States, am I right? :rolleyes:
 
(in regards to the death of the TTC worker)


correlation does not imply causation.


sure drug use can cause impairment but so can working at 4:30am without proper sleep, hunger, having to take a really bad shit, etc. it's always funny how the illegal act is the one that is responsible for the negative outcome. there are many factors that are legal that can and are contributing factors in many cases.
 
While the effectiveness of such a scheme might be limited, I think testing for substance use is a reasonable intrusion to privacy in an occupation where the employees are operating vehicles where mistep can cause bodily harm or death. In fact, those working in such positions should be screened daily for any reduction in capacity.

AoD
 
You guys are forgetting something. Marijuana can be detected in urine for up to four weeks. Now if they do mouth swab tests, I will have no problem with this. Mouth swabs are accurate to about 24 hours, so if they fail one of those, there's a good chance that they're a danger. However, the more common urine tests will be punishing drivers for what they do in their spare time. Honestly, should we care if a driver decides to smoke weed on his off time when he is posing a danger to nobody? Hell, if I proposed firing drivers for drinking on their off-time, everyone here would laugh at me even though alcohol is far more dangerous than marijuana will ever be.

I'm not under any circumstances saying that drivers should be allowed to drive while under the influence of substances. I'm just saying that the testing should be structured so as to make sure nobody is on the influence of anything while driving, and NOT whether they've been on a drug at some time in the past month.

BTW, yes, it is "very American". Down in the states, if you want a job, you get drug tested. It's as simple as that. Even if you want to be a grocery store clerk, if you're found to have done any drug (even weed) in a detectable time period, you aren't hired. Their government encourages it (thus preventing addicts from getting a job and bettering themselves) whereas ours basically says drug testing is a waste of time on employees.
 
Panzerfaust:

I think that's a very reasonable suggestion. The important thing is testing for the purposes of gauging the "fitness" of the individual for the work they had to do, not trying to find out whether they smoke pot on their own time. That is no part of anyone's business.

AoD
 
Don't get me wrong. No one is advocating that convenience store clerks be drug tested. But workers who: (i) have direct custody over the safety of the public and (ii) must exercise superior motor skills and judgment in carrying out their job duties, should be exposed to additional scrutiny. I don't think putting regular drug or alcohol testing into the mix is beyond debate.
 
While the effectiveness of such a scheme might be limited, I think testing for substance use is a reasonable intrusion to privacy in an occupation where the employees are operating vehicles where mistep can cause bodily harm or death. In fact, those working in such positions should be screened daily for any reduction in capacity.

AoD

i agree.
 
Don't get me wrong. No one is advocating that convenience store clerks be drug tested. But workers who: (i) have direct custody over the safety of the public and (ii) must exercise superior motor skills and judgment in carrying out their job duties, should be exposed to additional scrutiny. I don't think putting regular drug or alcohol testing into the mix is beyond debate.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be drug tested at all. I'm saying they should use the far less intrusive mouth swab method of doing it, rather than the very intrusive and very common urine test. If you swab their mouth and get a positive, that means they've done it in the past day or so and they might not be safe to drive. If you get a positive on a urine test, that means they (depending on the drug) did a drug in the last one day to four weeks, and there's no way of telling if it was recent enough to put anyone at risk. Mouth swabs are also better because alcohol can only be detected in urine for 24-48 hours or so, with similar detection times for saliva. As such, it would save money on testing for the thing they should be most worried about, that being alcohol.
 
I'm not saying they shouldn't be drug tested at all. I'm saying they should use the far less intrusive mouth swab method of doing it, rather than the very intrusive and very common urine test. If you swab their mouth and get a positive, that means they've done it in the past day or so and they might not be safe to drive. If you get a positive on a urine test, that means they (depending on the drug) did a drug in the last one day to four weeks, and there's no way of telling if it was recent enough to put anyone at risk. Mouth swabs are also better because alcohol can only be detected in urine for 24-48 hours or so, with similar detection times for saliva. As such, it would save money on testing for the thing they should be most worried about, that being alcohol.

i don't think urine tests are the way to go either. you can easily fake such a test by using someone else's urine (unless they plan on watching the urine come out of people's urethra's).
 
Yeah, and a test might show crack, smack, uppers, downers, outers, inners, horse tranquilizers, cow paralyzers, blue bombers, green goofers, yellow submarines, LSD Mach 3, and trace amounts of human urine.
simpsons_otto_mann.jpg
 
Yeah, and a test might show crack, smack, uppers, downers, outers, inners, horse tranquilizers, cow paralyzers, blue bombers, green goofers, yellow submarines, LSD Mach 3, and trace amounts of human urine.
simpsons_otto_mann.jpg


hahaha!!
 
They should crack down on drivers talking on their cell phone as well...
Why? There was an editorial in the Globe the other day pointing out that banning cell phone while driving does nothing to improve safety? Have you read those "studies" that showed that hands-free cell-phone usage was as "dangerous" as regular cell-phone usage while driving, and raised the danger level to that of a drunk driver? The science was extremely poor.
 

Back
Top