What a week to be suspended from work

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
21

truckman020:
ovlov jay says the friend is a grass,i agree,don’t see any point in grassing fellow workers to the employers,had a similar thing happen to me,i made the cardinal sin of sleeping in between jobs,each job is between 30 to 1 hour for re loading,nothing else I can do in between those times so I do what every driver does,put my head back,another driver had a bee in his bonnet about something I am supposed to do but is nothing to do with me and told management that I was asleep in the cab,i was going to let it go and forget it,a few days later I got the third degree about helping him and questioned about the times I get back,the only way management would know about me sleeping is if he grassed me up as I start at the depot but go to another not far away and work out of there all day,as a result I don’t talk to this driver anymore and I don’t say anything in front of him in case he does the same again

Did you not confront him about it ?
Or better still find some subtle way of getting him back.
Or even better still, ‘talk it over’ with him where there are no witnesses or cameras. :smiling_imp:

22

the maoster:

madmackem:

the maoster:
A nodding aquantance from a sister depot has just been suspended on full pay for a fortnight for failing a drugs test at a customers site. Is he a crack addict? Does he chase the dragon between trailers? Nah, he twisted his back whilst gardening and his doc recommended cocodemol (which obviously contain some substance these tests don’t like), so the upshot is he’s sat on full pay while an independent lab tests his test.

He’s a smart cookie so I’d imagine that when he returns knowing that Co policy is a return to work drugs test I reckon he’ll shove half a dozen more down his neck the night before.

Where was he delivering that required him to have a drugs test done?

Sainsbury’s. Apparently he kissed a stack of pallets whilst manoeuvring, Co policy they tell me.

DHL run site?

I can confirm that if a driver, visiting or otherwise, has an accident on our site (DHL run for Sainsburys), they will be required to undertake a drug & alcohol test. I can also confirm that co-codamol will test non negative for opiates on the pee dip test, requiring an independent technician to attend site (up to 2 hr wait) to collect a further evidentiary sample for lab testing. This will take anywhere from 3-10 days to come back depending on how busy the lab is.
Co-codamol is a well known tool for a few days off…Tescos at Daventry had people selling them in the warehouse a few years back to colleagues who would “accidentally” nudge a pallet in the racking, requiring a drug screen…

23

DonutUK:

the maoster:

madmackem:

the maoster:
A nodding aquantance from a sister depot has just been suspended on full pay for a fortnight for failing a drugs test at a customers site. Is he a crack addict? Does he chase the dragon between trailers? Nah, he twisted his back whilst gardening and his doc recommended cocodemol (which obviously contain some substance these tests don’t like), so the upshot is he’s sat on full pay while an independent lab tests his test.

He’s a smart cookie so I’d imagine that when he returns knowing that Co policy is a return to work drugs test I reckon he’ll shove half a dozen more down his neck the night before.

Where was he delivering that required him to have a drugs test done?

Sainsbury’s. Apparently he kissed a stack of pallets whilst manoeuvring, Co policy they tell me.

DHL run site?

I can confirm that if a driver, visiting or otherwise, has an accident on our site (DHL run for Sainsburys), they will be required to undertake a drug & alcohol test. I can also confirm that co-codamol will test non negative for opiates on the pee dip test, requiring an independent technician to attend site (up to 2 hr wait) to collect a further evidentiary sample for lab testing. This will take anywhere from 3-10 days to come back depending on how busy the lab is.
Co-codamol is a well known tool for a few days off…Tescos at Daventry had people selling them in the warehouse a few years back to colleagues who would “accidentally” nudge a pallet in the racking, requiring a drug screen…

Whoa !..Just hang on a minute here before we go any further.
Are you seriously telling me that drivers actually allow themselves to go through the humiliation of undergoing a urine test, by some jumped up self important security guard…or anybody for that matter.
That is just one step away from the rubber gloved finger up the arse,…or are they readily accepting that now as well. :open_mouth:
I knew things were bad in terms of drivers just rolling over, but Jeeez H Christ. :open_mouth:
You guys must be on some extra good rate of pay to take all that lying down, (or in the pre mentioned scenario bending down.)
Maybe it’s just me. :neutral_face:

24

When I worked for Iceland last year Rob (still DHL then), some knob in a 7.5 tonner clashed mirrors with me on a tight road.

All that happened was a cracked plastic mirror casing. I Reported it when I got back so that some knobhead didn’t make a big song and dance about it, and went round to the workshop. The lad said he had a plastic mirror backing piece but couldn’t fit it until I had reported it to the traffic office because he had to have ’ authorisation ’ :unamused:

It would have taken about 10 seconds to fit. I went to the traffic office and ended up with a urine test, a drugs test, I had to draw a picture of the area including a description of the other vehicle and reg mark.

I explained to the bellend in the office that I wasn’t in the habit of looking at reg plates when a truck is coming towards me on a tight section of road. This whole industry has become a laughing stock. Anyway, must go…tee is booked shortly :laughing:

25

robroy:

DonutUK:

the maoster:
Sainsbury’s. Apparently he kissed a stack of pallets whilst manoeuvring, Co policy they tell me.

DHL run site?

I can confirm that if a driver, visiting or otherwise, has an accident on our site (DHL run for Sainsburys), they will be required to undertake a drug & alcohol test. I can also confirm that co-codamol will test non negative for opiates on the pee dip test, requiring an independent technician to attend site (up to 2 hr wait) to collect a further evidentiary sample for lab testing. This will take anywhere from 3-10 days to come back depending on how busy the lab is.
Co-codamol is a well known tool for a few days off…Tescos at Daventry had people selling them in the warehouse a few years back to colleagues who would “accidentally” nudge a pallet in the racking, requiring a drug screen…

Whoa !..Just hang on a minute here before we go any further.
Are you seriously telling me that drivers actually allow themselves to go through the humiliation of undergoing a urine test, by some jumped up self important security guard…or anybody for that matter.
That is just one step away from the rubber gloved finger up the arse,…or are they readily accepting that now as well. :open_mouth:
I knew things were bad in terms of drivers just rolling over, but Jeeez H Christ. :open_mouth:
You guys must be on some extra good rate of pay to take all that lying down, (or in the pre mentioned scenario bending down.)
Maybe it’s just me. :neutral_face:

Part of accepting the site rules when they come on site. They can of course refuse to take part, but in the case of a visiting driver, they would be banned from site and reported to their employer for their failure to take a D&A test…in the case of a DHL employed driver, they would probably end up without a job.

A lot is to do with the companies perception of liability i.e. if a driver who is drunk or drugged up has an accident on our site which we have knowledge of, then we allow them out onto the public roads without making some attempt to check, we may be considered “liable” in the event of them wiping out a family in a car…

Not saying I agree with it…but that is how the company sees it and why they have this policy.

26

DonutUK:
A lot is to do with the companies perception of liability i.e. if a driver who is drunk or drugged up has an accident on our site which we have knowledge of, then we allow them out onto the public roads without making some attempt to check, we may be considered “liable” in the event of them wiping out a family in a car…

Not saying I agree with it…but that is how the company sees it and why they have this policy.

Sounds to me like they have an high opinon of themselves. :unamused:
I would take suspicion of me being drugged up or drunk an insult to my integrity and professionalism.
If they have reason to believe a driver is, then they should rightly inform the Police prior to leaving site, not appoint themselves as some kind of mild vigilante.

27

robroy:

DonutUK:
A lot is to do with the companies perception of liability i.e. if a driver who is drunk or drugged up has an accident on our site which we have knowledge of, then we allow them out onto the public roads without making some attempt to check, we may be considered “liable” in the event of them wiping out a family in a car…

Not saying I agree with it…but that is how the company sees it and why they have this policy.

Sounds to me like they have an high opinon of themselves. :unamused:
I would take suspicion of me being drugged up or drunk an insult to my integrity and professionalism.
If they have reason to believe a driver is, then they should rightly inform the Police prior to leaving site, not appoint themselves as some kind of mild vigilante.

Unfortunately if you have reason to believe there are drink or drugs in a driver, you shouldn’t let them leave site, as you can be viewed as liable, (as ■■■■■ said).

This is where we are now.

I would only, and only ever have, test someone who was so obviously drunk that it guaranteed a positive result.

28

robroy:
If I thought that my tight arsed lot would suspend me on full pay, I’d be telling them to [zb] off every week. :smiley:

It’s illegal to stop the pay of an employee who has been suspended. I was suspended without pay some years ago when working for Exhell as part of a long running campaign by youtube.com/watch?v=3CiGUMQZUgU . I took the opportunity to collar my colleagues as they turned up for work on a __very__time sensitive job. We had a brief wildcat before the management saw the error of their ways and all the lads returned to work and I went on leave for a few days! :wink:

29

Darkside:

robroy:

DonutUK:
A lot is to do with the companies perception of liability i.e. if a driver who is drunk or drugged up has an accident on our site which we have knowledge of, then we allow them out onto the public roads without making some attempt to check, we may be considered “liable” in the event of them wiping out a family in a car…

Not saying I agree with it…but that is how the company sees it and why they have this policy.

Sounds to me like they have an high opinon of themselves. :unamused:
I would take suspicion of me being drugged up or drunk an insult to my integrity and professionalism.
If they have reason to believe a driver is, then they should rightly inform the Police prior to leaving site, not appoint themselves as some kind of mild vigilante.

Unfortunately if you have reason to believe there are drink or drugs in a driver, you shouldn’t let them leave site, as you can be viewed as liable, (as ■■■■■ said).

This is where we are now.

I would only, and only ever have, test someone who was so obviously drunk that it guaranteed a positive result.

Yeh I know, …and as I said ‘‘Prior to leaving site’’ call the Police, for THEM to take the neccessary action.
As that is the job of the Police, not some self important ■■■■ in an office with illusions of grandeur… :bulb:

I would gladly wait for the Police if accused…in fact I would insist on the Police being called if accused, and wait for the apology from this co.afterwards reputation intact.

30

robroy:

Darkside:

robroy:

DonutUK:
A lot is to do with the companies perception of liability i.e. if a driver who is drunk or drugged up has an accident on our site which we have knowledge of, then we allow them out onto the public roads without making some attempt to check, we may be considered “liable” in the event of them wiping out a family in a car…

Not saying I agree with it…but that is how the company sees it and why they have this policy.

Sounds to me like they have an high opinon of themselves. :unamused:
I would take suspicion of me being drugged up or drunk an insult to my integrity and professionalism.
If they have reason to believe a driver is, then they should rightly inform the Police prior to leaving site, not appoint themselves as some kind of mild vigilante.

Unfortunately if you have reason to believe there are drink or drugs in a driver, you shouldn’t let them leave site, as you can be viewed as liable, (as ■■■■■ said).

This is where we are now.

I would only, and only ever have, test someone who was so obviously drunk that it guaranteed a positive result.

Yeh I know, …and as I said ‘‘Prior to leaving site’’ call the Police, for THEM to take the neccessary action.
As that is the job of the Police, not some self important [zb] in an office with illusions of grandeur… :idea:

I would gladly wait for the Police if accused…in fact I would insist on the Police being called if accused, and wait for the apology from this co.afterwards reputation intact.

Big thanks for the compliment :unamused:

Companies are forced to introduce these policies to comply with insurance and H+S, and having to breath test a driver is about as bad as it gets.

31

Sorry mate, I wasn’t referring to you personally.
It’s just that I hate…
A. Having my (as I said) integrity questioned …and

B. Being looked down on and treated like some kind of naughty school kid.

I’m a professional driver and expect to be treated and respected in that way.

If others were like minded the crap that we are expected to put up with would on the whole not exist.

Sorry again btw. :wink: :smiley:

For the record I am ALWAYS suspicious when the word ‘‘insurance’’ is quoted to enforce some rule or another. :bulb:
It’s a bit like using the phrase ‘‘Health and Safety’’…usually a trump card to stifle an argument.

32

robroy:
Sorry mate, I wasn’t referring to you personally.
It’s just that I hate…
A. Having my (as I said) integrity questioned …and

B. Being looked down on and treated like some kind of naughty school kid.

I’m a professional driver and expect to be treated and respected in that way.

If others were like minded the crap that we are expected to put up with would on the whole not exist.

Sorry again btw. :wink: :smiley:

For the record I am ALWAYS suspicious when the word ‘‘insurance’’ is quoted to enforce some rule or another. :bulb:
It’s a bit like using the phrase ‘‘Health and Safety’’…usually a trump card to stifle an argument.

No offence taken mate :laughing:

I agree entirely, we wouldn’t be in this position if it wasn’t for that (cess)pool of workers/drivers who haven’t got the pride or self respect to come to work sober.

33

Just because you signed something on entry they no legal right to hold or enforce breathe or drug tests in visiting drivers at an rdc they want that they can call the police to do it.

34

alix776:
Just because you signed something on entry they no legal right to hold or enforce breathe or drug tests in visiting drivers at an rdc they want that they can call the police to do it.

It’s like everything else in this job mate, (pushing drivers on included) ‘‘they’’ as in authorative figures, only do it because so many drivers allow them to do so, by blind compliance to any old crap they try and dish out.

Ok, admittedlly that makes me sound bolshy and all the rest of it I know, but I aint…and before I am written off as so, the truth is I will do anything that goes with the remit of my job, and I will do it to the best of my ability and then some, and have done.
What I will not do is allow myself to be treated like a Roger Hunt…by anybody.

35

Darkside:
Big thanks for the compliment :unamused:

Companies are forced to introduce these policies to comply with insurance and H+S, and having to breath test a driver is about as bad as it gets.

Asking them to wee in a plastic cup, then having to handle said cup to pour some into a testing device…is far worse than the breath test!

36

DonutUK:

Darkside:
Big thanks for the compliment :unamused:

Companies are forced to introduce these policies to comply with insurance and H+S, and having to breath test a driver is about as bad as it gets.

Asking them to wee in a plastic cup, then having to handle said cup to pour some into a testing device…is far worse than the breath test!

Yes I will give you that one…

37

Darkside:

DonutUK:

Darkside:
Big thanks for the compliment :unamused:

Companies are forced to introduce these policies to comply with insurance and H+S, and having to breath test a driver is about as bad as it gets.

Asking them to wee in a plastic cup, then having to handle said cup to pour some into a testing device…is far worse than the breath test!

Yes I will give you that one…

Ok then, I’ve give you my opinion from my angle,… it’s a liberty and (pardon the pun) a ■■■■ take, devised by some overpaid over ego.d prick in an office who can see nothing wrong with humiliating drivers, but stops short at doing it himself…so gets you guys to do it for him.

What about from your angle?
Again if I was asked to do these tests I would refuse, saying I am not medically qualified, and it is beyond my remit as a manager or supervisor… As you both pointed out, who wants to handle another man’s urine, from a health pov.

How did you react when first ASKED to do it?

Also do you not see it as something beyond the call of duty, and basically ‘not your place’ to monitor how a driver behaves in this context, and if the driver is driving under the influence, do you not think your responsibility ends at informing the Police while keeping him on site, as I said earlier.

38

Highly surprised we have not had the usual …‘‘Well if you are doing nothing wrong why worry about it’’ on this subject,…from the usual bending over candidates. :unamused:

39

robroy:

Darkside:

DonutUK:

Darkside:
Big thanks for the compliment :unamused:

Companies are forced to introduce these policies to comply with insurance and H+S, and having to breath test a driver is about as bad as it gets.

Asking them to wee in a plastic cup, then having to handle said cup to pour some into a testing device…is far worse than the breath test!

Yes I will give you that one…

Ok then, I’ve give you my opinion from my angle,… it’s a liberty and (pardon the pun) a ■■■■ take, devised by some overpaid over ego.d prick in an office who can see nothing wrong with humiliating drivers, but stops short at doing it himself…so gets you guys to do it for him.

What about from your angle?
Again if I was asked to do these tests I would refuse, saying I am not medically qualified, and it is beyond my remit as a manager or supervisor… As you both pointed out, who wants to handle another man’s urine, from a health pov.

How did you react when first ASKED to do it?

Also do you not see it as something beyond the call of duty, and basically ‘not your place’ to monitor how a driver behaves in this context, and if the driver is driving under the influence, do you not think your responsibility ends at informing the Police while keeping him on site, as I said earlier.

Refusing to do the tests is not an option if we want to keep our jobs…all managers on site are trained to do them. Some had a short “in house” course others, like me, had a full days training with the laboratory company who we contract to do the lab testing and supply the kits.
The new kits that are coming out are sealed so that the donor ■■■■■■ straight into it, seals it, then we just turn a “key” that operates the testing strips…much more hygienic than the other option!

If the driver refused to do the test then we would have to decide whether to escalate to the Police. Likewise if someone was positive on the breath test, but insisted on driving home…we would be calling the Police before they left site.

The last one I had to do, was for a sub contractor of a sub contractor who smashed the jaws on his fifth wheel trying to couple up, then decided to wind the legs up while the trailer was resting on his 5th wheel, tried to couple again, failed, and pulled straight off, dropping the trailer on its knees. Spoke little english…made it interesting to explain what was required! But…didn’t complain, didn’t act up just got on with it.

40

DonutUK:
The last one I had to do, was for a sub contractor of a sub contractor who smashed the jaws on his fifth wheel trying to couple up, then decided to wind the legs up while the trailer was resting on his 5th wheel, tried to couple again, failed, and pulled straight off, dropping the trailer on its knees. Spoke little english…made it interesting to explain what was required! But…didn’t complain, didn’t act up just got on with it.

You mean?..

There’s actually a test for stupid?