Hey, there! Log in / Register
Rider catches T bus driver texting while driving across the Charles this morning
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
The T union is not against a
The T union is not against a rule that would require hands be used to drive, but it has to be collectively bargained (raises in exchange for agreeing to use hands to drive).
If you're making a parallel to BFD firefighters and drug testing
Requiring that bus drivers use hands while driving a bus is not the same as requiring all firefighters to submit to disrespectful drug testing.
"disrespectful drug testing"????
What do you mean by that? How is it disrespectful to ask a person in a safety-sensitive position to submit to a drug test? Yeah, give them some compensation for it in a contract but, by all means, they should be randomly tested. Any T personnel who are in safety-sensitive positions are. It only makes sense.
Respect
When you have someone of whom you expect to risk life and limb running into burning buildings, and you tell him/her, "We now want you to take drug tests, because we don't trust you," I think that's disrespectful.
"Disrespectful" is a fuzzy term, and I'm using it to reflect my belief asking them to submit to drug testing without suspicion is a big deal.
Now, people might judiciously decide that drug testing really is appropriate, or a politician might grandstand and throw out the idea to make it look like they're taking action. In either case, I think it's a big deal, and there would have to be give&take.
Here's an idea to help gauge
Here's an idea to help gauge the appropriateness of drug-testing all firefighters.
It's predicated on this assumption: when a firefighter is impaired or goes down, as is more likely to happen with drug use, s/he will likely put his/her fellow firefighters at mortal risk.
So ask the individual firefighters privately whether they'd prefer their fire company be tested, or they trust their company without testing.
You'd have to design it so that the firefighters actually trust the intent and impact of the question.
I really have no idea how that would turn out. I imagine it might be determined by subtleties or traditions.
Neil, Firefighters are not
Neil,
Firefighters are not the only ones who have to trust in firefighters. If my house burns down because my upstairs neighbor's cigarette fell on their bed, I hope that the firefighters tasked with helping me make it out of there are not impaired. Random drug testing strikes me as completely fair when the public trust is at issue. Much more fair to us as citizens than privately asking firefighters if they're cool with their co-workers doing drugs or drinking on the job.
Devin
I live in a 6-unit cheap old wood-frame tinderbox in fair cond.
I'm 30something, a white collar worker on staid engineer-type things, and I've never been a fan of drugs nor used them myself.
I trust my local firefighters, and lean towards thinking that drug testing firefighters is not appropriate from a citizen perspective.
I now think that a better question question is whether testing would be appropriate for protecting the firefighters. The people who can best answer that are the firefighters themselves.
Why do I feel this way? When people call for drug-testing of firefighters, it usually (not always) sounds like they have already have chip on their shoulder about firefighters or are being reactionary. That reduces credibility. To those of us who grew up with first responders as our heroes, and who as adults have a lot of respect for them, armchair dictates to them by people who have little idea what they're talking about don't sound right at all.
i think the credibility problem...
at this point lies with the firefighters, and has since the tai ho fire in west roxbury when the two men who died tested positive for alcohol and cocaine.
i have no chip on my shoulder about firefighters. i am friends with many, and have a great respect for the work that they do.
but i also believe that people in public safety, who could routinely put others lives at risk in the course of their job, should not see an undue duress in taking a drug test.
if they have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to fear.
Speaking of credibility-destroying
You realize that "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" is a cliched anti-American saying?
It usually only gets voiced when someone tries to institute unconstitutional Soviet-like police state methods in the US. Everyone cringes or rolls their eyes or starts foaming.
I'm not saying that drug-testing firefighters necessarily constitutes a civil liberties incursion, but you picked a terrible idiom if you wanted to persuade the people who care about such things.
Suddenly I'm here thinking, "Oh, perhaps this is actually a civil liberties issue, since we just got the telltale phrase..." :)
unconstitutional soviet-like police state? anti american?
dude, it's a freakin' pee test, not the red terror :)
Hey
You said the telltale phrase, not me. :)
Do you trust 'em???
Some have tested positive for drugs/alcohol and others have been arrested on OUI and drug charges....I don't trust a fireman anymore than I trust a garbage man or a stock broker. They are only human and can do wrong just like anyone else. But, unlike the stock broker or garbage man, your life could be in their hands. Don't you want to be 100% confident that the guys holding that net below you are 100% sober and won't miss you if you jump???
I just said I trust firefighters
However, I assume stockbrokers are coked up. :)
Then I should have said, "you trust them?"
So, as is, without random testing and with all those reports of some of them being drunk or on drugs, you're jumping into that net? Good luck to ya buddy.
Yep
I'm an engineer-type who tends to automatically consider a depth and breadth of things that could go wrong in a situation, but this just isn't registering very high on my internal risk-o-meter.
Were I in charge, and hearing lots of calls for drug testing (not just from a vocal handful of people), I would first bring the concerns to the fire department officials, and then see what they said.
We'd have to be clear about distinguishing what's public safety, what's morale/rights/perspectives of the firefighters, what's union negotiating ground, and what's cost.
I think
It's already against the rules. In fact I think federal law prohibits it. In any case, the T has suspended people for it before.
http://www.wbz.com/pages/3077022.php?
Collective Bargaining?
Baloney. Current MBTA rules prohibit drivers from using cell phones and other electronic devices. Penalties: 1st time: 3 day suspension; 2nd time: 10 day suspension; 3rd time: discharged.
Twitter - They should call it an asocial network. See a problem on the T? Call T Police at 617-222-1212. You know, actually speak to a human being?
what is twitter???
next time just call 1-800-392-6100! http://www.mbta.com/customer_support/contact/
Surprising for a bus driver
Not unusual for a Boston private car driver.
Just yesterday, I saw a woman who appeared to be operating a minivan and a phone/PDA in this manner.
She looked like a woman who'd be devastated if she maimed or killed a pedestrian, but somehow this didn't prevent her from doing something grossly irresponsible.
As opposed to...
She looked like a woman who'd be devastated if she maimed or killed a pedestrian,
As opposed to....
as opposed to the physician
who was texting in Needham on Earth Day (while driving a Prius!) and got into a fatal head-on collision.
...someone in a Hummer?
?
As opposed to...
As opposed to if she missed.
Occasionally there's gonna
Occasionally there's gonna be someone whose first thought is that their insurance will go up, who will fly into a rage over pedestrian making them hit pedestrian, and go finish off pedestrian with the tire iron.
This person looked way on the other end of the spectrum. Probably educated bleeding-heart liberal mom who empathizes heavily and (except when checking work email while driving) thinks of herself as very socially responsible.
If the TV news programs put half the effort into auto safety info pieces as they have into Brisman murder coverage, I bet you we'd avert several more human tragedies right there.