Sidevalve:
on balance I don’t think it’s unreasonable.
Sorry mate but I think it’s totally unreasonable. If they said you weren’t to consume non prescription drugs prior to a shift I’d totally agree, purely because that is illegal. Alcohol on the other hand isn’t. Let’s not muddy the waters with the whole drink drive spiel because that won’t wash as your company policy doesn’t state that you cannot drink at home when on a day run so it really has no legs.
That smacks of an underemployed middle manager desperately trying to justify his/her wages I’m afraid.
+1…When you’re tramping your truck is your home.
He should ask if his guvnor is setting an exsmple by not having the odd bottle of Bud or glass of wine at home through the week.
Do these ■■■■ s think they OWN you just because they employ you or what?
Ffs how much more driver controlled can this ■■■■ job go eh?
His boss is confusing having a quiet drink with your meal, with going out and getting rat arsed apparentlly.
I don’t think the firm should tell you that you cannot drink alcohol if sleeping in the cab but they probably should make you aware of the fact that, theoretically, if you drink enough to be over the drink drive limit then you could be charged with Drunk in charge of a motor vehicle. I stress theoretically, but car drivers have been done for this.
Here is some stuff from a solicitors blurb, who I accept have an interest in talking up the risks etc. :-
But I was only sat in my car and I didn’t intend to drive!
Unlike many other criminal allegations where it is down to the CPS to prove you have committed an offence, with the offence of being drunk in charge if you intend to defend the allegation it is up to the accused to prove that you had no intention of driving the vehicle. These defences are referred to as “statutory defences”. There is a statutory defence available to the offence under s 4 and 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Section 4
The defendant must prove that it was more likely than not that he would not have driven so long as he remained unfit to do so in which case, he is not considered to be in charge.
Section 5
The defendant must prove that it was more likely than not that he had no intention of driving whilst the level of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine remained above the prescribed limit in which case, he is not considered to be in charge.
With the driver who sleeps it off in their car, there is always a risk that the police may allege that they would have driven when awake but still over the limit.
Sidevalve:
on balance I don’t think it’s unreasonable.
Sorry mate but I think it’s totally unreasonable. If they said you weren’t to consume non prescription drugs prior to a shift I’d totally agree, purely because that is illegal. Alcohol on the other hand isn’t. Let’s not muddy the waters with the whole drink drive spiel because that won’t wash as your company policy doesn’t state that you cannot drink at home when on a day run so it really has no legs.
That smacks of an underemployed middle manager desperately trying to justify his/her wages I’m afraid.
The ruling was put in a few years ago after a driver at another mill was seen by a customer having “more than a few” in a village pub one night, still in company uniform, then rocking up to the customer’s farm early doors to deliver, still smelling of beer.
Not good for the company’s image quite apart from any safety issues.
Trouble is that a ruling like that has to be absolute, no point in it stating that you can have enough ale to still be under the limit because there’s always one ■■■■■■■ who’ll abuse the privilege.
manski:
I don’t think the firm should tell you that you cannot drink alcohol if sleeping in the cab but they probably should make you aware of the fact that, theoretically, if you drink enough to be over the drink drive limit then you could be charged with Drunk in charge of a motor vehicle. I stress theoretically, but car drivers have been done for this.
Here is some stuff from a solicitors blurb, who I accept have an interest in talking up the risks etc. :-
But I was only sat in my car and I didn’t intend to drive!
Unlike many other criminal allegations where it is down to the CPS to prove you have committed an offence, with the offence of being drunk in charge if you intend to defend the allegation it is up to the accused to prove that you had no intention of driving the vehicle. These defences are referred to as “statutory defences”. There is a statutory defence available to the offence under s 4 and 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Section 4
The defendant must prove that it was more likely than not that he would not have driven so long as he remained unfit to do so in which case, he is not considered to be in charge.
Section 5
The defendant must prove that it was more likely than not that he had no intention of driving whilst the level of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine remained above the prescribed limit in which case, he is not considered to be in charge.
With the driver who sleeps it off in their car, there is always a risk that the police may allege that they would have driven when awake but still over the limit.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
if your in bed asleep having 11 hours off and over the limit then your going to court at plods discretion.
if the truck parked next to you went on fire,or the diddycoys started robbing you then excuses or not,you would drive drunk,hence your always running the risk of an encounter with a woodentop with the usual sense of as much perspective as a traffic cone,hence your going to court and guilty unless you wriggle out of it ( which you wont as you will be drunk in charge)
Sidevalve:
on balance I don’t think it’s unreasonable.
Sorry mate but I think it’s totally unreasonable. If they said you weren’t to consume non prescription drugs prior to a shift I’d totally agree, purely because that is illegal. Alcohol on the other hand isn’t. Let’s not muddy the waters with the whole drink drive spiel because that won’t wash as your company policy doesn’t state that you cannot drink at home when on a day run so it really has no legs.
That smacks of an underemployed middle manager desperately trying to justify his/her wages I’m afraid.
The ruling was put in a few years ago after a driver at another mill was seen by a customer having “more than a few” in a village pub one night, still in company uniform, then rocking up to the customer’s farm early doors to deliver, still smelling of beer.
Not good for the company’s image quite apart from any safety issues.
Trouble is that a ruling like that has to be absolute, no point in it stating that you can have enough ale to still be under the limit because there’s always one [zb] who’ll abuse the privilege.
Rubbish…make the rule you must turn up for work fit for work…as with any other issue.
Then sack the ‘‘one ■■■■ ‘’ that abuses the privilege’’ (hardly a '‘privilege’'btw ) and leave the rest who are responsible alone. :
Still say it’s a ■■■■■■■■ and a liberty by your firm.
They only do this sort of unreasonable stuff because drivers comply without question and allow them to.
robroy:
Rubbish…make the rule you must turn up for work fit for work…as with any other issue.
Then sack the ‘‘one [zb] ‘’ that abuses the privilege’’ (hardly a '‘privilege’'btw ) and leave the rest who are responsible alone. :
Still say it’s a ■■■■■■■■ and a liberty by your firm.
They only do this sort of unreasonable stuff because drivers comply without question and allow them to.
It’s hardly a deal breaker is it? FWIW they do tend to leave you alone to get on with the job, they pay well and whilst the kit ain’t flashy it’s well maintained and they run legit.
I can put up with missing out on the odd pint of beer for that.
robroy:
Rubbish…make the rule you must turn up for work fit for work…as with any other issue.
Then sack the ‘‘one [zb] ‘’ that abuses the privilege’’ (hardly a '‘privilege’'btw ) and leave the rest who are responsible alone. :
Still say it’s a ■■■■■■■■ and a liberty by your firm.
They only do this sort of unreasonable stuff because drivers comply without question and allow them to.
It’s hardly a deal breaker is it? FWIW they do tend to leave you alone to get on with the job, they pay well and whilst the kit ain’t flashy it’s well maintained and they run legit.
I can put up with missing out on the odd pint of beer for that.
I know what you’re saying, but it shouldn’t be an either/or, it’s unrelated.
A matter of principle…innit.
) and leave the rest who are responsible alone. : 
