altiplano wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:47 amAlready 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.
pianokeys wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:13 pm
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?
pianokeys wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:13 pmAnyways, 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.
pianokeys wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:13 pmAnyways, 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.
Outlaw58 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:30 pm
Last I checked, I wasn't being paid for the 12 hours that precedes my pairings
No, but you're being paid to arrive fit for duty.
As far as I'm concerned that, and being a law abiding person away from work are all an employer can unilaterally impose on you.
If you are prepared to accept one imposition, and then another, where does it end?
Will they require me to drive to work in an EV to minimize my carbon footprint?
Or avoid skiing to avoid an increase chance of requiring me to use my disability?
Will I have to eat only organic foods?
It's none of their business what any of us do in our free time as long as we follow the law and report fit for duty.
The argument is that you are not fit for duty if you have used cannabis at all. Until there is scientific studies on how it affects pilots the safe course of action is to not allow it. We know alcohol affects pilots negatively but it is allowed because we know generally how much it affects someone based on how much they consumed and how long ago. We don't know that for cannabis yet. There is also the risk of a compounding effect after prolonged use that may be more serious than with alcohol.
Outlaw58 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:30 pm
Last I checked, I wasn't being paid for the 12 hours that precedes my pairings
No, but you're being paid to arrive fit for duty.
As far as I'm concerned that, and being a law abiding person away from work are all an employer can unilaterally impose on you.
If you are prepared to accept one imposition, and then another, where does it end?
Will they require me to drive to work in an EV to minimize my carbon footprint?
Or avoid skiing to avoid an increase chance of requiring me to use my disability?
Will I have to eat only organic foods?
It's none of their business what any of us do in our free time as long as we follow the law and report fit for duty.
See victory's post above.
It's illegal today and you can't use it no matter what. Comes October whatever when it becomes legal, even if the company deems it 100% incompatible with your duties as a pilot, you will not have lost anything...nada. Why can't the population as a whole just be happy that it is becoming legal, that is a new freedom they didn't have before even if it is heavily restricted at first. It's going to be a helluva lot harder to put the genie back in the bottle once it's out.
I have zero tolerance right now for folks who show up for work under the influence of alcohol, or yet, heavily hungover even though by the rules, they have followed their 12 hours. I find that attitude extremely unprofessional and dare I say that I view the desire to use and continue to fly equally unprofessional. I however do respect civil liberties and as long as the law is followed, you won't here me bleep more than what I have already expressed here. Until then, when the law isn't set in stone, I'll be damned if I don't speak my mind.
You should have zero tolerance for people who show up under the influence.
That's not what I'm saying, I will agree that we need to see a larger body of work on this issue if anything is to be imposed. The Canadian Forces have come out with their policy. Air Canada has gone beyond it. Why hasn't Transport Canada come up with anything?
Better hurry up.
Until then... fit for duty and follow the law.
Employers have no right to impose anying more, if they want more - no problem - but it's contractual/terms of employment and negotiable.
I don't care if it's a joint or the proximity of my home to my workplace or the colour of my car.
altiplano wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:19 pm
You should have zero tolerance for people who show up under the influence.
That's not what I'm saying, I will agree that we need to see a larger body of work on this issue if anything is to be imposed. The Canadian Forces have come out with their policy. Air Canada has gone beyond it. Why hasn't Transport Canada come up with anything?
Better hurry up.
Until then... fit for duty and follow the law.
Employers have no right to impose anying more, if they want more - no problem - but it's contractual/terms of employment and negotiable.
I don't care if it's a joint or the proximity of my home to my workplace or the colour of my car.
altiplano wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:19 pm
It's the principle of it.
That's very brave of you. I would be terrified of being tested in the U.S., Europe, Asia, or any of the other places that do random drug testing on airline pilots after they land.
I would be terrified of being tested in the U.S., Europe, Asia, or any of the other places that do random drug testing on airline pilots after they land.
A random test that shows positive may end your career as a pilot in some cases.
But of course you can claim it is your right to do whatever you want.
Let me preface this by saying I have no intention or desire to indulge in any of these soon to be legalized products in any form, smoked, baked, fried or otherwise.
What concerns me is the issue of second-hand exposure, it isn't legal yet but I have smelled the unmistakable odour of weed more in the last 12 months than I have in the past many many years that I can recall. When people can smoke this openly it is going to get a lot more hard to avoid.
What level of second-hand exposure will trigger a positive result on a drug test? Does anyone know? I know I will be excusing myself from a lot of social gatherings if this materializes as I believe it will. I just can't afford to be exposed and put my career at risk until some reliable science is done on exposure and metabolism.
altiplano wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:19 pm
It's the principle of it.
That's very brave of you. I would be terrified of being tested in the U.S., Europe, Asia, or any of the other places that do random drug testing on airline pilots after they land.
Is it that difficult to comprehend?
I'm not saying I want to start smoking pot for the principle of it.
I'm saying if an organisation wants to direct my legal behaviour in my free time there is a cost associated with that. They don't get to do that unilaterally.
I'll tell ya what sucks: nobody has any answers. Transport hasn't publicly lifted a finger on offering any guidance at all for this, they best they'll commit to is 602.03 which is absolute fluff of the same type they write when they want to retain the ability to punish you whenever and however they like. "No person shall act as a crew member of an aircraft while using any drug that impairs the person’s faculties to the extent that the safety of the aircraft or of persons on board the aircraft is endangered in any way," will vary from person to person and the way by which it's measured can't be locked down. For all intents and purposes it's useless to all but a vindictive inspector.
Now on the other side you have a company trying to write a dope policy while Transport, who is supposed to be in charge and demonstrating leadership, telling them they're on their own. At some point in the not-too-distant future there will be headline news about someone in a trusted position showing up for work high or making a mistake and that coming out as a contributing factor. When that happens it's reasonable for me to expect a letter from our favourite regulatory spaceman demanding answers, even if it wasn't my pilot. Same thing happened when that Sunwing(?) pilot showed up for work drunk a while back, except that time there was actually a way that I could demonstrate company compliance with the law.
This is why in the next week or two as we see more and more pot policies published and shared here I expect the trend to be seen as harsh. If you don't like it, take it up with Transport.
Outlaw58 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:15 am
"One of my favorite philosophical tenets is that people will agree with you only if they already agree with you. You do not change people's minds."
- Frank Zappa
It is as valid for me as anyone else here
58
Can the company tell you to do whatever they want?
Where do you draw the line?
What if - in order to harmonize and make consistent their drug and alcohol policy - they ban alcohol usage outright at all times for flight crew?
Is that okay?
What if - in order to address industry wide fatigue concerns - they ban any commuting whether flying or driving, and mandate that you live within 30 km of your base?
What if - in order to address road safety concerns - they require you to commute home on public transit or by taxi for any duty days greater than 12 hours, or overnight flight duty periods. At your expense, of course.
Outlaw58 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:15 am
"One of my favorite philosophical tenets is that people will agree with you only if they already agree with you. You do not change people's minds."
- Frank Zappa
It is as valid for me as anyone else here
58
Can the company tell you to do whatever they want?
Where do you draw the line?
What if - in order to harmonize and make consistent their drug and alcohol policy - they ban alcohol usage outright at all times for flight crew?
Is that okay?
What if - in order to address industry wide fatigue concerns - they ban any commuting whether flying or driving, and mandate that you live within 30 km of your base?
What if - in order to address road safety concerns - they require you to commute home on public transit or by taxi for any duty days greater than 12 hours, or overnight flight duty periods. At your expense, of course.
No problem?
Former military pilot here.
Forced to live within a certain distance of my base, forced to move with my family every 3-4 years, survived many alcohol ban during the many ops and exercise I went on, etc.. etc... All of it I did willingly cause I knew the kind of business I was in and when I eventually did get fed up, I pulled the plug.
Joined the airline very recently and knowingly took a severe pay cut and I accept the many restrictions imposed so that I can continue a flying career that I love. Again, if or when I do get fed up with those restrictions, I have all the freedom in the world to walk away.
I accept the restrictions because, my desire to work in this industry outweigh the inconvenience of aforementioned restrictions.... until it doesn't anymore. Then I walk away. That's where I draw the line.
Gotcha. You'd rather quit than stand up for yourself and your position.
But I'm not listening to orders from a General here, we are governed by a contract. The company can impose procedures and restrictions for how we do some things at work, operate the aircraft, wear the uniform, etc. But they have no standing in imposing anything beyond the law or the contract outside the workplace.
We'll see what Transport comes up with, if anything, and of the company wants more... it has a cost... there are many things we need to fix.
