In house Breathyliser and drugs testing.

[robroy]

I was lead to believe it was 12 weeks notice too. Then it’s agree , leave, or strike, but as there is very few strong unions now most people agree what ever industry they are in.

And that is why this job is like it is now.

Compare those sorry arsed types ''who agree'' with our Grandfathers who fought tooth and nail (and won) for workers rights and terms,... the same types who handed them all back and lost them.

My memory has gone a little fuzzy, but just remind me again how the fiasco over your employer deducting damage from your pay packet panned out in the end?

Class.

Thinks its the same old, if you dont like it theres the door attitude. So be a good little yes man and bend over and take it.

'Class' eh? Self congratulation maybe?
Hmmm (stroking beard).....Now which one of em is my old T/net namesake mate...., or is it both.

I should have been a detective, my talents are wasted being a trucking God.

[robroy]

My other point is..Can they actually make you do it?
I don't mean put your arm up your back, or two heavies sit on you , I mean can they make you in terms of you have the right to refuse, and is it legal in that context to not let you go out in the truck if you do refuse, although there is no REAL suspicion of drinking, just fulfilling their quota on random testing.

There needs to be some sort of test case on this for clarification, I know some d/heads do turn up for work in varying degrees of unfitness, but it's just another one size fits all policy as Juddian would say, decent drivers treated the same as the firm's dicks.

Still,.as long as drivers are willing just to roll over, they will go on be faced with all types of injustices, humiliation, and unfair treatment.....along with the ones who are not willing, ...and because of them..

It’s a bit of an awkward to be fair Rob. On the one hand, drink driving is a massive no no but also on that basis has the possibility of being weaponised for harassment of the workforce.
I really don’t think it’s a good look for anyone to organise or engage in a strike over being breathalysed before driving a truck, that’s the kind of thing that would surely play into the hands of certain management, the clash would be over enforcement and policy.
I personally wouldn’t have an issue with the test being done but I think it really needs a very clear policy agreed by all, even that is going to be a challenge. Imagine trying to quota the tests, hardcore offenders would simply see that as almost a timetable to gamble on drinking.
To me the only real way would be on a truly random basis, something, as stupid as it sounds, like a simple button to push when you get the keys at the desk, green then no test and red means you give a sample.
As far as I’m aware it’s 90 days to change terms so in that 90 days maybe those who drink regularly can gets of there own breathalysers and work out if they have an issue, let’s face it, everyone has different tolerances.
Don’t forget though, this is only really going to work for shift drivers. Trampers and night out men are another issue, just look at that AIM driver with the multiple fatalities, no office policy and random test was going to pick him up as he was asleep and drunk at the wheel, I’ll bet there are a few drivers out there who’ll sink 4 cans on a reduce and think they’re ok because they had some kip and a bit of food.....

Some good points made there mate.
I didn't say I was going to go on a one man strike crusade , I just wanted to know how I stood by law, and what options are open.
As Maoster says, it's the certain type of [zb] that would volunteer to do it,.also the manner in which it would be implemented would be an issue...
For example, an officious attitude, talking down to you with authority going to his head, and treating you like some 12 yr old f/whit would be a good reason to tell him to go and ram it right up his arse, whereas an approach such as.. ''Look Rob, I know you are going to pass this, but as a formality would you be willing to take it, I'm doing this only because I've been asked'' and tbh I more than likely would.
Attitude is a 'reap what you sow' situation in all aspects of life.

[R420]

I was lead to believe it was 12 weeks notice too. Then it’s agree , leave, or strike, but as there is very few strong unions now most people agree what ever industry they are in.

And that is why this job is like it is now.

Compare those sorry arsed types ''who agree'' with our Grandfathers who fought tooth and nail (and won) for workers rights and terms,... the same types who handed them all back and lost them.

My memory has gone a little fuzzy, but just remind me again how the fiasco over your employer deducting damage from your pay packet panned out in the end?

Not just fuzzy pal, but playing tricks on you ...wtf are you on about exactly?

Wasn't it you that had a thread on here a while back about your employer deducting damage and you weren't going to stand for it?

[Harry Monk]

It's strange how drugs and alcohol are so dangerous but working fifteen hours and then having nine hours off isn't.

I guess it's different when The Man is making money from it.

[HobNobRoy]

Class because RTK or any other firm introduce this sort of thing and you guys just accept it like the cameras.

Let us know how you get on after refusing to do it then we can use that as a test case if you decide to take it all the way.

Or are you the bend over yes man that you despise ?

[robroy]

Class because RTK or any other firm introduce this sort of thing and you guys just accept it like the cameras.

Let us know how you get on after refusing to do it then we can use that as a test case if you decide to take it all the way.

Or are you the bend over yes man that you despise ?

It seems Stobarts and all big firms are implementing all that type of crap, the minority kick off but the majority just pave the way shouting them down.

But anyway (Jeez I nearly got into intelligent conversation with you there wtf was I thinking ) don't worry Roy my son, (or is it Rob) I'll make sure you are the first to know.
Yep, I bend over that much and take it, that I now have an arse like a funnel, you've got me banged to rights.
It's almost like you KNOW ME. ....(hmmm again strokey beard etc etc)

[Bigtruck3]

It's strange how drugs and alcohol are so dangerous but working fifteen hours and then having nine hours off isn't.

I guess it's different when The Man is making money from it.

This post explains everything in the way you are treated and the law allows
It's unbelievably that it is allowed

[robroy]

Wasn't it you that had a thread on here a while back about your employer deducting damage and you weren't going to stand for it?

In a word ..No.

[the nodding donkey]

Class because RTK or any other firm introduce this sort of thing and you guys just accept it like the cameras.

Let us know how you get on after refusing to do it then we can use that as a test case if you decide to take it all the way.

Or are you the bend over yes man that you despise ?

There is a big difference between a company bringing in a system to breathalyse drivers (random, or if suspected of being under the influence) and actually breathalysing every driver coming through the door.

Like the driver facong cameras, they will be used when necessary, not blanket wide. There is no need to breathalyse most drivers. It's the ones reeking of booze, it's the ones know to get pissed regularly, maybe even the ones saying they 'only have a pint with a meal'... (no offence Rob ). Afterall, you only have that drivers word for it.

And most of us 'of a certain age' will remember the bad old days... be honest . We've woken up in strange beds, we've lived to tell the tales, grown up, but not everybody has, and to be honest, there is a bigger problem than the old days, when drivers might have a bit of a woolly head. These days, there seems to be a bigger number of drivers who drink before, or even during their shift..

Breathalyse, cameras, tachographs, speed limiters, log books ..
Every generation has their 'final straw', but in they end, you're not going to stop it.

[R420]

Wasn't it you that had a thread on here a while back about your employer deducting damage and you weren't going to stand for it?

In a word ..No.

Sorry, my mistake. I have found the old thread and it was "another driver" who'd had damage costs deducted. But you had refused to sign the form, however your continuation to perform your role was legally defined to be acceptance of the new terms & conditions. As you were so vehemently against this, I assume then that rather than becoming a 'yes' man by rolling over and accepting it, you have parted company and are now working for a different employer with more appealing T & Cs ?

[robroy]

Wasn't it you that had a thread on here a while back about your employer deducting damage and you weren't going to stand for it?

In a word ..No.

Sorry, my mistake. I have found the old thread and it was "another driver" who'd had damage costs deducted. But you had refused to sign the form, however your continuation to perform your role was legally defined to be acceptance of the new terms & conditions. As you were so vehemently against this, I assume then that rather than becoming a 'yes' man by rolling over and accepting it, you have parted company and are now working for a different employer with more appealing T & Cs ?

Wow! ...So you've actually trawled through 16000 + of my posts just to try and have a pop? ....Ok.

Why not just save some time mate and just call me a [zb].

Just to answer your question, as you seem to have a huge interest....I just try and not do damage.

Edit. I more just 'deal with it' than 'roll over and accept it' as a 'yes man'.
I certainly do not accept it that if and when I do, or have done, any damage, I will stand my ground and refuse to pay.
Does that answer your question,l?
Refute it or not, but I aint really bothered tbh, what your perception is of me , so you will just have to believe me...if you really care that much.

[robroy]

Class because RTK or any other firm introduce this sort of thing and you guys just accept it like the cameras.

Let us know how you get on after refusing to do it then we can use that as a test case if you decide to take it all the way.

Or are you the bend over yes man that you despise ?

There is a big difference between a company bringing in a system to breathalyse drivers (random, or if suspected of being under the influence) and actually breathalysing every driver coming through the door.

Like the driver facong cameras, they will be used when necessary, not blanket wide. There is no need to breathalyse most drivers. It's the ones reeking of booze, it's the ones know to get pissed regularly, maybe even the ones saying they 'only have a pint with a meal'... (no offence Rob ). Afterall, you only have that drivers word for it.

And most of us 'of a certain age' will remember the bad old days... be honest . We've woken up in strange beds, we've lived to tell the tales, grown up, but not everybody has, and to be honest, there is a bigger problem than the old days, when drivers might have a bit of a woolly head. These days, there seems to be a bigger number of drivers who drink before, or even during their shift..

Breathalyse, cameras, tachographs, speed limiters, log books ..
Every generation has their 'final straw', but in they end, you're not going to stop it.

Non taken ND , as you know there's a world of difference between a pint with a meal, and getting rat arsed night before a morning shift.

[R420]

Wasn't it you that had a thread on here a while back about your employer deducting damage and you weren't going to stand for it?

In a word ..No.

Sorry, my mistake. I have found the old thread and it was "another driver" who'd had damage costs deducted. But you had refused to sign the form, however your continuation to perform your role was legally defined to be acceptance of the new terms & conditions. As you were so vehemently against this, I assume then that rather than becoming a 'yes' man by rolling over and accepting it, you have parted company and are now working for a different employer with more appealing T & Cs ?

Wow! ...So you've actually trawled through 16000 + of my posts just to try and have a pop? ....Ok.

Why not just save some time mate and just call me a [zb].

Just to answer your question, as you seem to have a huge interest....I just try and not do damage.

It took 30 seconds to find the thread using the keyword 'damage' and selecting your username as the author.

I was curious to know the outcome of the above because most of your recent posts have a militant tone, boasting about how you'd not stand for this or that and how you'd tell them to foxtrot oscar etc. One would expect such a person to be a man of his words and not kowtow to bully-boy tactics from management, hence why I was enquiring if you had parted company with your employer to show them you that you won't stand for it. But from your last sentence above, it would seem that is not the case (correct me if I'm wrong). I believe the saying "all mouth and no trousers" may be fitting here and I'm willing to bet same should your employer implement random breathalyser and drug tests, or even driver facing cab cameras for that matter.

[R420]

I certainly do not accept it that if and when I do, or have done, any damage, I will stand my ground and refuse to pay.

I would like to see that as you won't have any choice in the matter seeing as the deductions would be done at source. The reality is that you would roll over and accept it because you'd have no legal grounds to contest it. You would still turn up for work the next day, and all the days after that. All mouth and no trousers.

[Harry Monk]

I certainly do not accept it that if and when I do, or have done, any damage, I will stand my ground and refuse to pay.

I would like to see that as you won't have any choice in the matter seeing as the deductions would be done at source. The reality is that you would roll over and accept it because you'd have no legal grounds to contest it. You would still turn up for work the next day, and all the days after that. All mouth and no trousers.

I can't speak for Rob, but certainly I wouldn't accept money being docked from my wages to pay for damage. Over twenty years ago I took an ex-employer to the Small Claims Court for this very thing, won, and won all of my vastly exaggerated expenses claim.

[R420]

I certainly do not accept it that if and when I do, or have done, any damage, I will stand my ground and refuse to pay.

I would like to see that as you won't have any choice in the matter seeing as the deductions would be done at source. The reality is that you would roll over and accept it because you'd have no legal grounds to contest it. You would still turn up for work the next day, and all the days after that. All mouth and no trousers.

I can't speak for Rob, but certainly I wouldn't accept money being docked from my wages to pay for damage. Over twenty years ago I took an ex-employer to the Small Claims Court for this very thing, won, and won all of my vastly exaggerated expenses claim.

Was it in your contract that they could deduct monies for damage, as in robroy's case?

[robroy]

It took 30 seconds to find the thread using the keyword 'damage' and selecting your username as the author.

I was curious to know the outcome of the above because most of your recent posts have a militant tone, boasting about how you'd not stand for this or that and how you'd tell them to foxtrot oscar etc. One would expect such a person to be a man of his words and not kowtow to bully-boy tactics from management, hence why I was enquiring if you had parted company with your employer to show them you that you won't stand for it. But from your last sentence above, it would seem that is not the case (correct me if I'm wrong). I believe the saying "all mouth and no trousers" may be fitting here and I'm willing to bet same should your employer implement random breathalyser and drug tests, or even driver facing cab cameras for that matter.

Looks like I've got well under your skin eh? ..love it.

Maybe you recall the thread as it was more than likely you who got heavily involved in it under one of your many guises....I also now remember it. ...enough said.

Boasting? ... What is there to actually boast about exactly?
If I come across as you say 'militant' or favouring confrontation over discussion and co.operation as I would interpret that, well so be it, but only when it is called for.
I look upon it more as questioning unnecessary and unfair rules, and trying my best to look after number one, in a job awash with such rules.
If I walked from my firm or any other, everytime I was met with something unfair, uncalled for that I disagreed with, or as you say 'bully boy tactics' I'd be changing jobs every week, this is the transport industry ffs, an industry synonymous with unfair treatment to employees.
I prefer the better the devil you know approach, take stuff in my stride, and keep my head down, but at the same time try and make the situation better for myself, let's face it it's the only way because nobody will back you up, it's usually a case of one or two speak out, but the majority with no fight or opinion pave the way towards more crap for everybody...so what's the alternative exactly other than looking out for yourself only??

So you can come up with any phrase or name calling you like mate , I'll just carry on making the best of a [zb] bad job, and tbh when I look at some others and the way they are treated, I haven't done too badly so far.

So enough about me and what I do....What about you?
Like you I'm also willing to bet...but maybe best to keep my suspicions and opinions to myself eh,?
Anyhow, I ain't quite as interested in you as you obviously are in me.

[Reef]

Anyone else go to Intertissue in Port Talbot? You have to blow into a breathalyser when you book in there, apparently they've turned away quite a few over the years.

Not sure what the further ongoing repercussions of a fail there are though, do they inform your company? The Police? Dunno, never failed myself and not ever likely to either.

Can't say I'm overjoyed about it but there's also nothing I can do about it either.

I submitted to a drink and also a drug test at my interview/induction signed an acknowledgement that the Co perform random tests and that I agree to it (or don't get taken on basically) but in over two years I've never been approached, tbh I think they only tend to test immedietly after an incident (if practical to do so of course)

[Franglais]

Anyone else go to Intertissue in Port Talbot? You have to blow into a breathalyser when you book in there, apparently they've turned away quite a few over the years.

Not sure what the further ongoing repercussions of a fail there are though, do they inform your company? The Police? Dunno, never failed myself and not ever likely to either.

Can't say I'm overjoyed about it but there's also nothing I can do about it either.

I submitted to a drink and also a drug test at my interview/induction signed an acknowledgement that the Co perform random tests and that I agree to it (or don't get taken on basically) but in over two years I've never been approached, tbh I think they only tend to test immedietly after an incident (if practical to do so of course)

I appreciate you weren`t there, but believing a driver to be drunk, did they tell them to drive away?

[cooper1203]

Anyone else go to Intertissue in Port Talbot? You have to blow into a breathalyser when you book in there, apparently they've turned away quite a few over the years.

Not sure what the further ongoing repercussions of a fail there are though, do they inform your company? The Police? Dunno, never failed myself and not ever likely to either.

Can't say I'm overjoyed about it but there's also nothing I can do about it either.

I submitted to a drink and also a drug test at my interview/induction signed an acknowledgement that the Co perform random tests and that I agree to it (or don't get taken on basically) but in over two years I've never been approached, tbh I think they only tend to test immedietly after an incident (if practical to do so of course)

this is what will happen I think on appointment for the job you will have to sign up for alcohol and drug tests if you refuse no job. Yes there might be small companies that don't have all these arse covering policies that are designed to place more and more blame on the driver but I suspect that they will become fewer and fewer and harder to get.

First job I had was delivering newspapers in a car. One of the other drivers got prosecuted for not having the correct insurance. He called the boss who was going to come down to take the newspapers off him and finish the round cop told the boss if you come down here for the papers I will arrest you for letting your employee go out without the correct insurance.

I assume but don't know for sure something similar being the same for letting an unfit driver through drink or drugs go out so they cover there arse and in the culture of suing everyone for everything and huge amounts of money being awarded unfortunately companies wont stand up and do their jobs correctly and police their employees.

[carryfast-yeti]

they don't have random test's at our place,but a few warehouse bods have been tested,and failed,a dope test when suspected.it's DHL policy to get the failed employee a taxi home,but one clown escaped in his car,so management informed the Old Bill,who managed to pull him over,and found no UK driving license insurance etc
as for us drivers,if you have a bump whilst out on the road,they'll breathalyse and drugs test you when you get back to the yard...and that might be 10 or 12 hours later..or even the next morning! but they still do it

[R420]

So you can come up with any phrase or name calling you like mate , I'll just carry on making the best of a [zb] bad job, and tbh when I look at some others and the way they are treated, I haven't done too badly so far.

So enough about me and what I do....What about you?

The point is that all your internet bluster and bravado about how you won't stand for this or that and questioning what happens if you refuse x, y or z is just that: bluster. I will bet if your employer brings in breathalyser and drug testing you will still keep working for them, despite your objections. That is the reason why I say 'all mouth and no trousers' because it just so happens to be the crux of it. If you are not going to vote with your feet when they force new and intrusive rules upon you to which you strongly object then you've only got yourself to blame and no-one is going to care when you come on here whinging about it, like you do. Either do something constructive about it or shut up whinging. You rant about other drivers being 'yes' men, rolling over and taking whatever crap is thrown at them, yet you do the exact same thing. Hypocritical much?

The company I worked for introduced driver facing cameras 18 months ago. It was a decent enough job; double-manned, job and knock and from the actual hours worked vs the salary made the hourly rate well above average for the area. Predictably, when we were first informed that they were coming there was much crying and stamping of feet to be heard from all corners of the yard and canteen about how "it's not right" and "I'll refuse to drive them". I made my objections known to our TM in a polite and considered manner but it fell on deaf ears, like you would expect. I deemed them to be a step too far as I object to being filmed at the best of times and I certainly was not going to stand for being filmed to that level of scrutiny whilst working so I began job hunting. In the interim period while these were being installed in the company vehicles I was able to get my hands on a hire motor each time, which didn't have them fitted, but that only lasted so long. So I handed in my notice and left. How many of the other drivers also voted with their feet specifically because of the cameras? None. A few have left for other unrelated reasons but all of the most vocal objectors are still there and still driving for them.

Ironically, the next job I applied for was driving a 26t rigid on local work, early starts but job and knock and good money for driving a rigid. Seemed a bit too good to be true but it was a well known company. Interview went fine, pay rates confirmed to be correct, just needed to do a quick assessment drive. It was at that point I spotted the driver facing cameras. I told the assessor there was no point continuing and the reasons why. "You're the 3rd driver this month that's been here for the job then not wanted it once they've found out about the cameras" he said. They have an advert up on the job sites pretty much every week and I expect the reason why they can't get drivers is because of this.

Damage deductions, drug and breath tests, driver facing cameras.. they are coming to all companies whether you like it or not. Many places already have them and it will under the standard pretense of being "for your safety" when the truth is "for cheaper insurance premiums" and "covering over arses to protect us from any liability". You'll either learn to suck it up and work in that environment or vote with your feet and retrain in a different role.

[commonrail]

I think we all have different interpretations of"bent over and bummed"
Whilst a driver may consider themselves"full of spine"...others may look at that drivers particular set of circumstances and see a man with a gaping arse hole.

Horses for courses

[robroy]

So you can come up with any phrase or name calling you like mate , I'll just carry on making the best of a [zb] bad job, and tbh when I look at some others and the way they are treated, I haven't done too badly so far.

So enough about me and what I do....What about you?

The point is that all your internet bluster and bravado about how you won't stand for this or that and questioning what happens if you refuse x, y or z is just that: bluster. I will bet if your employer brings in breathalyser and drug testing you will still keep working for them, despite your objections. That is the reason why I say 'all mouth and no trousers' because it just so happens to be the crux of it. If you are not going to vote with your feet when they force new and intrusive rules upon you to which you strongly object then you've only got yourself to blame and no-one is going to care when you come on here whinging about it, like you do. Either do something constructive about it or shut up whinging. You rant about other drivers being 'yes' men, rolling over and taking whatever crap is thrown at them, yet you do the exact same thing. Hypocritical much?

The company I worked for introduced driver facing cameras 18 months ago. It was a decent enough job; double-manned, job and knock and from the actual hours worked vs the salary made the hourly rate well above average for the area. Predictably, when we were first informed that they were coming there was much crying and stamping of feet to be heard from all corners of the yard and canteen about how "it's not right" and "I'll refuse to drive them". I made my objections known to our TM in a polite and considered manner but it fell on deaf ears, like you would expect. I deemed them to be a step too far as I object to being filmed at the best of times and I certainly was not going to stand for being filmed to that level of scrutiny whilst working so I began job hunting. In the interim period while these were being installed in the company vehicles I was able to get my hands on a hire motor each time, which didn't have them fitted, but that only lasted so long. So I handed in my notice and left. How many of the other drivers also voted with their feet specifically because of the cameras? None. A few have left for other unrelated reasons but all of the most vocal objectors are still there and still driving for them.

Ironically, the next job I applied for was driving a 26t rigid on local work, early starts but job and knock and good money for driving a rigid. Seemed a bit too good to be true but it was a well known company. Interview went fine, pay rates confirmed to be correct, just needed to do a quick assessment drive. It was at that point I spotted the driver facing cameras. I told the assessor there was no point continuing and the reasons why. "You're the 3rd driver this month that's been here for the job then not wanted it once they've found out about the cameras" he said. They have an advert up on the job sites pretty much every week and I expect the reason why they can't get drivers is because of this.

Damage deductions, drug and breath tests, driver facing cameras.. they are coming to all companies whether you like it or not. Many places already have them and it will under the standard pretense of being "for your safety" when the truth is "for cheaper insurance premiums" and "covering over arses to protect us from any liability". You'll either learn to suck it up and work in that environment or vote with your feet and retrain in a different role.

Firstly mate, when I said ''What about you'' it was rhetorical tbh, I have not got the slightest [zb] interest in your curriculum vitae, or life story, I'd already made assumptions about you as you did me.

Secondly I find it a bit strange (bordering on tragic) that you even remember , let alone go back to a post I made about...I dunno...3 maybe 4 years ago?.. on an entirely different subject (that you were shot down on anyway which was not enough to shut you up ) just to have a dig over a legitimate question I asked, about how in house breathylising applies to co. law.

You obviously have some sort of deep seated disproportional problem with me on here ..., and also if I may so, a problem with taking an internet forum far too [zb] seriously. ...as with previous guises.

Thirdly, you make all sorts of assumptions about me,.and yep, crack on fill yer boots, I ain't fussed what some random bloke on a forum thinks, ...but my turn for assumptions, you say I'm all gob and kecks, well we could all as you have done give some embroidered examples and scenarios to illustrate something, and make a point but unfortunately it all just comes across as wind and piss mate.....and you say I have a bravado problem?....yeh right.

You do not know me (afaik) but there are a few on here who do know me, and also who know how my approach to job work and firm goes, so that's good enough for me,.I have no need nor desire to justify myself to the likes of you.

As for your last paragraph, I have no intention of being driven out of a job that I am now into my 4th decade in, if I did ''They'' have won, and as for your advice that is exactly what I am doing reacting, adapting, winning some losing some, but more often than not winning but appearing to those who perpetrate things,...to lose.

As I've said to you before in your other guises mate, if I piss you off to those proportions ... maybe you should just ignore me eh? As I will you probably from now on.
Have a nice life.

[R420]

Firstly mate, when I said ''What about you'' it was rhetorical tbh, I have not got the slightest [zb] interest in your curriculum vitae, or life story, I'd already made assumptions about you as you did me.

Secondly I find it a bit strange (bordering on tragic) that you even remember , let alone go back to a post I made about...I dunno...3 maybe 4 years ago?.. on an entirely different subject (that you were shot down on anyway which was not enough to shut you up ) just to have a dig over a legitimate question I asked, about how in house breathylising applies to co. law.

You obviously have some sort of deep seated disproportional problem with me on here ..., and also if I may so, a problem with taking an internet forum far too [zb] seriously. ...as with previous guises.

Thirdly, you make all sorts of assumptions about me,.and yep, crack on fill yer boots, I ain't fussed what some random bloke on a forum thinks, ...but my turn for assumptions, you say I'm all gob and kecks, well we could all as you have done give some embroidered examples and scenarios to illustrate something, and make a point but unfortunately it all just comes across as wind and piss mate.....and you say I have a bravado problem?....yeh right.

You do not know me (afaik) but there are a few on here who do know me, and also who know how my approach to job work and firm goes, so that's good enough for me,.I have no need nor desire to justify myself to the likes of you.

As for your last paragraph, I have no intention of being driven out of a job that I am now into my 4th decade in, if I did ''They'' have won, and as for your advice that is exactly what I am doing reacting, adapting, winning some losing some, but more often than not winning but appearing to those who perpetrate things,...to lose.

As I've said to you before in your other guises mate, if I piss you off to those proportions ... maybe you should just ignore me eh? As I will you probably from now on.
Have a nice life.

What on earth are you babbling on about? I've noticed from your many posts over the years that you seem to live with the belief that everyone is out to get you, like some sort of witch-hunt. If anyone asks you a question or has the temerity to point out a discrepancy in something you've said, you straight away jump on the defensive and try to divert the focus away by making obscene accusations about aliases and all sorts of other nonsense. I have had no previous interaction with you at all until this thread and the only reason I chimed in here was to comment on your apparent hypocrisy, slagging off 'yes men' drivers for rolling over when that's exactly what you did 2 years ago, as evidenced in the old but memorable thread. If I'd known it was going to cause such a furore I'd have stuck to lurking from the sidelines, quietly tittering to myself at the wisdom you thrust upon us on a daily basis .

[robroy]

Firstly mate, when I said ''What about you'' it was rhetorical tbh, I have not got the slightest [zb] interest in your curriculum vitae, or life story, I'd already made assumptions about you as you did me.

Secondly I find it a bit strange (bordering on tragic) that you even remember , let alone go back to a post I made about...I dunno...3 maybe 4 years ago?.. on an entirely different subject (that you were shot down on anyway which was not enough to shut you up ) just to have a dig over a legitimate question I asked, about how in house breathylising applies to co. law.

You obviously have some sort of deep seated disproportional problem with me on here ..., and also if I may so, a problem with taking an internet forum far too [zb] seriously. ...as with previous guises.

Thirdly, you make all sorts of assumptions about me,.and yep, crack on fill yer boots, I ain't fussed what some random bloke on a forum thinks, ...but my turn for assumptions, you say I'm all gob and kecks, well we could all as you have done give some embroidered examples and scenarios to illustrate something, and make a point but unfortunately it all just comes across as wind and piss mate.....and you say I have a bravado problem?....yeh right.

You do not know me (afaik) but there are a few on here who do know me, and also who know how my approach to job work and firm goes, so that's good enough for me,.I have no need nor desire to justify myself to the likes of you.

As for your last paragraph, I have no intention of being driven out of a job that I am now into my 4th decade in, if I did ''They'' have won, and as for your advice that is exactly what I am doing reacting, adapting, winning some losing some, but more often than not winning but appearing to those who perpetrate things,...to lose.

As I've said to you before in your other guises mate, if I piss you off to those proportions ... maybe you should just ignore me eh? As I will you probably from now on.
Have a nice life.

What on earth are you babbling on about? I've noticed from your many posts over the years that you seem to live with the belief that everyone is out to get you, like some sort of witch-hunt. If anyone asks you a question or has the temerity to point out a discrepancy in something you've said, you straight away jump on the defensive and try to divert the focus away by making obscene accusations about aliases and all sorts of other nonsense. I have had no previous interaction with you at all until this thread and the only reason I chimed in here was to comment on your apparent hypocrisy, slagging off 'yes men' drivers for rolling over when that's exactly what you did 2 years ago, as evidenced in the old but memorable thread. If I'd known it was going to cause such a furore I'd have stuck to lurking from the sidelines, quietly tittering to myself at the wisdom you thrust upon us on a daily basis .

Jeeez H ...ME babbling??
So you evidently forgot to put your Psycho Analyst's training in your cv that you bored the arse off me with then eh?
Maybe you should ask for a refund on your training.

Seriously mate, you read far too much into stuff, and take it far to seriously, if that is what you interpret from stuff I put on this forum.... in fact I'm starting to feel slightly frightened....(not really btw. )

I can honestly say that never in my life have I thought that ''everybody is out to get me'' .....in fact the voices in my head assure me that nobody is.

[Reef]

You two seem incapable of knowing when to stop so thanks for ruining yet another thread..

LOCKED!!

[Reef]

Anyone else go to Intertissue in Port Talbot? You have to blow into a breathalyser when you book in there, apparently they've turned away quite a few over the years.

Not sure what the further ongoing repercussions of a fail there are though, do they inform your company? The Police? Dunno, never failed myself and not ever likely to either.

Can't say I'm overjoyed about it but there's also nothing I can do about it either.

I submitted to a drink and also a drug test at my interview/induction signed an acknowledgement that the Co perform random tests and that I agree to it (or don't get taken on basically) but in over two years I've never been approached, tbh I think they only tend to test immedietly after an incident (if practical to do so of course)

I appreciate you weren`t there, but believing a driver to be drunk, did they tell them to drive away?

Sorry nearly missed your question in amongst all of the childishness here..

Thankfully my awesome Moderator super powers allow me to post even when a thread is locked..

I assume the company's policy and only legal power is to deny access to their site, the fact that the driver drove there (and would therefore need to drive away) under the influence is not really their concern or legal obligation.

Like I said I don't know if they inform the drivers company but I wouldn't be surprised if they did because a) it then puts the responsibility of said driver squarely back on the haulage company's shoulders, and b) they still need someone (sober) to collect the goods (which will be on said haulage company's trailer).