Cannabis Policy ???

[Stan Darsh]

But, as I said, even though the precedent is there, who in there right mind wants to blow $50,000+ in legal fees against Big Red just so you can smoke a $10 spliff?

Well, most Air Canada employees have a thing called a "union".

[N181CS]

......

[TT1900]

Comparing the military flying on go/no-go pills to an AC pilot smoking weed is apples to oranges. The military generally has a higher risk tolerance, the pills are not a recreational use, and the approval/issue/use is closely supervised by a flight surgeon. Amphetamines are also an upper, Cannabis on the other hand is a hallucinogen/downer. Very different set of effects. FWIW, in the RCAF the only medication you are approved to take without flight surgeon consult/approval is regular strength Tylenol.

The pressure thing is quite real, though with modern pressurization differentials it’s unlikely to factor heavily unless a rapid decompression occurs. However, I’m sure the airlines are keen to keep their crews top-notch just in case an emergency occurs.

Just because people used to do something hardly makes it safe or intelligent. Time moves on and progress is made. I think taking a conservative approach by airline companies makes sense until more comprehensive research and testing regimes are available.

[pianokeys]

But, as I said, even though the precedent is there, who in there right mind wants to blow $50,000+ in legal fees against Big Red just so you can smoke a $10 spliff?

Well, most Air Canada employees have a thing called a "union".

Yeah Im well aware of the unions AC has. But again, you think the union lawyers are going to go to bat for you so you can light a roach?

[altiplano]

But, as I said, even though the precedent is there, who in there right mind wants to blow $50,000+ in legal fees against Big Red just so you can smoke a $10 spliff?

Well, most Air Canada employees have a thing called a "union".

Yeah Im well aware of the unions AC has. But again, you think the union lawyers are going to go to bat for you so you can light a roach?

Already are. All the AC unions are pushing back against this. Joint letter was sent this week.

It isn't about being able to smoke a joint or whatever, it's about unilaterally creating policy that limits employees and legal behaviour, outside the workplace, without basis or consult.

You want to limit this? No problem. But some office guy can't just make something up and say this is the way it's going to be.

[fish4life]

Correct me if I am wrong on this point but I believe a ppl can even have a beer and still go flying so long as they are under the .8 and a cpl can fly (in Canada) with a BAC of .8 or less as long as they meet the bottle to throttle rules?

your wrong, 0.08 (which I'm assuming you meant) is the criminal amount for driving a vehicle, you still need to be free of any impairment if operating an aircraft which I think they deem to be 0.02 or something like that.

[Victory]

the only real medical value I have seen is for eating issues and sleep.

Not a great argument against since sleep is a MAJOR issue for flight crews. If it wasn't for the (I believe) lingering effects I would use it on my days off to increase sleep as well as relieve stress.

I hope the unions do fight the blanket ban though. At least we might get some concessions for losing our right to do something most of us would never do anyways. The company's argument seems to be that corporations can set rules such as requiring you to wear a uniform which is just inane since you don't wear your uniform on your days off.

[N181CS]

......

[yycflyguy]

Well, most Air Canada employees have a thing called a "union".

Yeah Im well aware of the unions AC has. But again, you think the union lawyers are going to go to bat for you so you can light a roach?

Joint letter was sent this week.

Tee-hee... joint letter.

[Old fella]

For all you AC drivers from the 70’s.

http://youtu.be/MNKL9onYB_8

[pianokeys]

Already are. All the AC unions are pushing back against this. Joint letter was sent this week.

It isn't about being able to smoke a joint or whatever, it's about unilaterally creating policy that limits employees and legal behaviour, outside the workplace, without basis or consult.

You want to limit this? No problem. But some office guy can't just make something up and say this is the way it's going to be.

Probably shoulda checked the mail box. While I agree its about the whole organization as opposed to one joint, I was worried the unions were just going to let sleeping dogs lie and not challenge this. But I am happy to see there is push back, because its about whats right for our private lives, and our work lives. And unless youre buying my time, my private life is exactly that.

Anyways, I agree 100%. Its absolutely asinine that the employer is trying to limit what we do on our days off in our private lives away from work. They are not paying me to sit at home and garden, they havent bought that time, so Im going to do whatever I want and I would like to have that ability without the threat of losing my job.

[lownslow]

They are not paying me to sit at home and garden, they havent bought that time

What would that time cost?

[altiplano]

It ain't free!

[Hangry]

They are not paying me to sit at home and garden, they havent bought that time

What would that time cost?

is that a serious question or just a troll? As alti says....it ain't free.

[pianokeys]

The cost of my time has been negotiated in the collective agreement.

[lownslow]

They are not paying me to sit at home and garden, they havent bought that time

What would that time cost?

is that a serious question or just a troll? As alti says....it ain't free.

Serious question. It’s kind of an abstract concept but interesting to think about. Let’s say a company says you can’t do something on your days off. It doesn’t matter what, whether it’s smoking pot or drinking pop or posting to Facebook. Whatever it is, it’s forbidden and if you break that rule you’re fired. Realistically what would you charge for that?

[AirFrame]

Anyways, I agree 100%. Its absolutely asinine that the employer is trying to limit what we do on our days off in our private lives away from work. They are not paying me to sit at home and garden, they havent bought that time, so Im going to do whatever I want and I would like to have that ability without the threat of losing my job.

What if you're on-call?

[FL410AV8R]

Anyways, I agree 100%. Its absolutely asinine that the employer is trying to limit what we do on our days off in our private lives away from work. They are not paying me to sit at home and garden, they havent bought that time, so Im going to do whatever I want and I would like to have that ability without the threat of losing my job.

What if you're on-call?

You are being paid when on call or reserve

[Outlaw58]

Last I checked, I wasn't being paid for the 12 hours that precedes my pairings

58

[swervin]

Does the FAA do random drug testing on foreign crews?