[News] Rant from RMT assistant general secretary during radio interview.

[Stato]

Clearly then I've led a sheltered life if that question is often posed to combat a yes/no question.

This would probably have been a lot of people's reaction. He was wrong to assume that he could use this phrase without giving context as a lot of listeners could take it at face value. He had every right to challenge Ferrari's confrontational interviewing style, but if he was to do this successfully, he needed to stay in control, avoid sarcasm and not exhibit his anger.

 

[Postman Pat]

A diabetic can fail a breath test without consuming any alcohol.

Are people purposefully choosing to ignore this

From the BBC:
The transport authority said it had explored in detail the suggestion that diabetes could affect the breathalyser result, but concluded that the type of test it used was not affected by acetone, which is produced in the bloodstream of people with the condition.

RMT Regional Organiser John Leach said the union was asking for further testing to be carried out when a breathalyzer gave a positive result.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

This would probably have been a lot of people's reaction. He was wrong to assume that he could use this phrase without giving context as a lot of listeners could take it at face value. He had every right to challenge Ferrari's confrontational interviewing style, but if he was to do this successfully, he needed to stay in control, avoid sarcasm and not exhibit his anger.

What's confrontational about the question "Did the driver fail the breath test ?" ? Given the topic was .... the driver failing the breath test.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

From the BBC:
The transport authority said it had explored in detail the suggestion that diabetes could affect the breathalyser result, but concluded that the type of test it used was not affected by acetone, which is produced in the bloodstream of people with the condition.

RMT Regional Organiser John Leach said the union was asking for further testing to be carried out when a breathalyzer gave a positive result.

The union asked that a urine test be done, which was refused. That's why the action is taking place.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Slightly related. A catering employee has been sacked by East Coast trains for telling the truth to customers.

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.c...ssengers-truth-1-3686656#.VNvjKmB6kN4.twitter

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Slightly related. A catering employee has been sacked by East Coast trains for telling the truth to customers.

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.c...ssengers-truth-1-3686656#.VNvjKmB6kN4.twitter

I always take a 'declined to comment' to mean 'we're in the wrong but are too stupid to admit it'. It's just as bad as the 'we can't comment on individual cases' - utter b0110cks, of course you can but you are too scared to do so !

 

[drew]

Are people just ignorant or do the only see what they want to see and ignore facts that are placed right in front on them. The OP has made a comment about a report. Fair enough. Some earlier posts also comment but then we have people posting more facts about the case for example :-

He's a diabetic

Diabetics can register a positive reading without having had a drink

The equipment was known not to be reliable

The employer has destroyed the urine sample, presumably aware that this case was ongoing and they certainly should be aware of the three facts above!


Yet still people post things like 'he knew the company policy so should have known better' etc etc. Beggars belief sometimes. Also seems that this isn't the only case where the the employer has destroyed evidence during an ongoing case.

 

[Ernest]

Amazing how the Tory boys jump into something without any evidence and I hope one day they don't get dismissed on trumped up charges and ask for help as there won't be any. Steve Hedley is a decent guy who is there to help his members to which he does a very good job otherwise he wouldn't be elected, Nick Ferrari is a bell end who is trying to make a story and the wife beating question is a legitimate tactic to an interviewer who won't listen to facts

 

[simmo]

Are people just ignorant or do the only see what they want to see and ignore facts that are placed right in front on them. The OP has made a comment about a report. Fair enough. Some earlier posts also comment but then we have people posting more facts about the case for example :-

He's a diabetic

Diabetics can register a positive reading without having had a drink

The equipment was known not to be reliable

The employer has destroyed the urine sample, presumably aware that this case was ongoing and they certainly should be aware of the three facts above!


Yet still people post things like 'he knew the company policy so should have known better' etc etc. Beggars belief sometimes. Also seems that this isn't the only case where the the employer has destroyed evidence during an ongoing case.

Are you just cherry picking the facts that may possibly be an explanation for the failure or are you ignoring the fact that he did actually fail a breath test (just as the union rep did in the radio interview)?

In any case, surely this is a one individual situation which should be dealt with by HR (or equiv of) and the individual (with union representation if desired). If he was unfairly dismissed and it went to arbitration then I am sure he could claim compensation. What has it got to do with anyone else and why is there a strike at all (effecting tens of thousands of commuters)?

 

[Brian Fantana]

Surely there must be someone within the RMT, or indeed any other union, who can actually talk about an issue without alienating the vast majority of the general public?!

 

[Stato]

What's confrontational about the question "Did the driver fail the breath test ?" ? Given the topic was .... the driver failing the breath test.

Hence the reference to logical fallacy. The failure is not at question, Ferrari just wants him to state it aloud as doing so would immediately weaken his position from the pov of the casual listener.

The RMT rep is on to talk about the union's concerns with the breath test. The result of the breath test is not at question, only its validity, so the question was unnecessary. Ferrari is using an interviewer's trick to put an interviewee on the back foot and dominate the direction of a discussion. A 'Yes' answer to the question would have been swiftly followed by a question like 'Why are you defending him, as its been proven that he was in the wrong?' A 'No' answer would not have been possible given the fact was not in dispute.

Its a subtle point and not one which can be easily got across, especially if your attempt to sum it up is solely the phrase 'Have you stopped beating your wife?'

 

[Hillian1]

A diabetic can fail a breath test without consuming any alcohol.

I did not know this.

 

[Surf's Up]

Apparently Mr Hedley was himself investigated for domestic abuse a couple of years ago. I think the point here is surely that, irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the case, Hedley behaved in an extraordinary and totally unacceptable manner and came across like 1960's union dinosaur.

 

[User removed 4]

Are people just ignorant or do the only see what they want to see and ignore facts that are placed right in front on them. The OP has made a comment about a report. Fair enough. Some earlier posts also comment but then we have people posting more facts about the case for example :-

He's a diabetic

Diabetics can register a positive reading without having had a drink

The equipment was known not to be reliable

The employer has destroyed the urine sample, presumably aware that this case was ongoing and they certainly should be aware of the three facts above!


Yet still people post things like 'he knew the company policy so should have known better' etc etc. Beggars belief sometimes. Also seems that this isn't the only case where the the employer has destroyed evidence during an ongoing case.

spot on.

 

[User removed 4]

What's confrontational about the question "Did the driver fail the breath test ?" ? Given the topic was .... the driver failing the breath test.

That wasnt what he said though, ferrari clearly said 'why are you supporting a drunk driver' for his opening question.

 

[Danny-Boy]

I wonder what Bob Crow would have said...

 

[Greyrun]

If he had not been drinking I'm surprised he didn't try to find out why he had failed the first test.More facts needed before giving an opinion.

 

[pastafarian]

Apparently Mr Hedley was himself investigated for domestic abuse a couple of years ago. I think the point here is surely that, irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the case, Hedley behaved in an extraordinary and totally unacceptable manner and came across like 1960's union dinosaur.

the domestic abuse investigation makes for some interesting reading,and all played out online

her version of events.
https://carolineleneghan.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/3/

his version of events
https://stevenhedley.wordpress.com/

the socialist party on the incident
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/ke...-concludes-steve-hedley-has-no-case-to-answer

 

[larus]

Wonder if you'd be so sympathetic to this drivers cause if you lost a friend or loved one and this test was done?

My initial point was in relation to the tirade from the RMT guy. The points he should have focussed on were worthy of debate. For example, he was saying that the level of alcohol tested for was 1/10 that of that for drink-driving. Nowhere did I say that I agreed with his points, just that he should have focussed on those rather than snide remarks at the presenter. But, if you want to make the quantum leap from my comments to supporting drink-driving tube driver, then that's your choice!!!

 

[Thunder Bolt]

If he had not been drinking I'm surprised he didn't try to find out why he had failed the first test.More facts needed before giving an opinion.

He asked them to test his urine sample which management managed to lose.