Should the Police contact your employer if you are caught doing... anything
Sailor Sam
Me
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3085475/Police-dob-in-drink-driver-to-Air-NZ
>
The night before being caught drink-driving she said she had five drinks
with friends over five hours, stopping drinking at around 10pm and going
to bed close to 11pm. She was due at work the following day at 8am, woke
up feeling well and was shocked when police said she was over the limit.
Do you believe that's possible, if "5 drinks" = 5 "standard drinks"?
Steward/esses are there for safety reasons. She was still drunk.
Sailor Sam
Are flight attendants breath tested at work?
BrentC
wrote:
>http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3085475/Police-dob-in-drink-driver-to-Air-NZ
No
Me
Sailor Sam
How do you know if you never test?
hellicopter
It was unlikely she would have been drunk by the time the
flight took off, and had she continued to a place of food
and then to a place of testing she would have grounds for
unfair dismissal.
Air NZ used the information gather under OIA improperly.
Air NZ, lost a good employee who return home rather than to work.
Air NZ, failed to appreciate that their crews do a stressful job
and that if they cannot unwind they are likely to snap.
Air NZ have undermined our democracy by using information
obtained in confidence unfairly. We all need to be able
to trust government and police, but if private corporations
can just abuse the Official Information Act we will all
be less likely to trust authority.
Citizens hand over confidential information to government
all the time, but government which does not handle the information
in a consistent manner will leave citizens harmed. For example,
income information handed to WINZ staff who do not have the
same qualification as IRS staff in the handling of sensitive
financial information could be construed as a discriminatory
practice based on benefit status of citizens.
Information is power, so its abuse is deeply concerning.
Me
Curious how routine random driver breath testing is ok when the tested
individuals might crash a car and kill themselves, and perhaps a few
others, but it's suddenly a "breach of freedom" for people responsible
for the safety of hundreds of people at one time.
What's the situation for pilots?
vitw
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3085475/Police-dob-in-drink-driver-to-
Air-NZ
In the USA if you're booked for even the most minor traffic infringement,
the police will contact your insurer, who will then hike your premiums
for the next few years.
Fred
"Me" <us...@domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:hea5nf$aab$1...@news.albasani.net...
Makes on sense. What on earth does it matter what she said the night before
being caught?
Sailor Sam
I'll remember that next time I see the headline "Flight attendant kills
hundreds"
Me
Sailor Sam
Just like the last 50 years when police weren't watching...
Max Burke
> Air NZ, failed to appreciate that their crews do a stressful job
> and that if they cannot unwind they are likely to snap.
If anyone claims they need to use 'recreational drugs' to 'unwind' from
their 'stressful job' then they're making excuses for their drug
abuse/addiction.
EOS
Found Images
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
brazen
"Sailor Sam" <hih...@merry.oh> wrote in message
news:hea2ko$9ei$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3085475/Police-dob-in-drink-driver-to-Air-NZ
absolutely not.
Rich...@hotmail.com
<mlvb...@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> wrote:
>hellicopter wrote:
>
>> Air NZ, failed to appreciate that their crews do a stressful job
>> and that if they cannot unwind they are likely to snap.
>
>If anyone claims they need to use 'recreational drugs' to 'unwind' from
>their 'stressful job' then they're making excuses for their drug
>abuse/addiction.
>
>EOS
Agreed. But that is a different question as to whether all traffic
offences or arrests shouldbe disclosed by teh police to third parties.
We sometimes have stupid references to the Privacy Act to prevent
parents knowing about a minor receiving say an abortion, but in this
case it is going the other way. Personally I think employers should
only have right to know if it involves public safety, the disclosure
to the employer is part of the employment contract, and if the
employer pays the costs invovled in that information being provided by
the police.
peterwn
> "Sailor Sam" <hiho...@merry.oh> wrote in message
>
> news:hea2ko$9ei$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3085475/Police-dob-in-drink-driver-to...
>
> absolutely not.
If Air NZ thinks it needs this sort of information it should lobby the
Civil Aviation Department to recommend appropriate legislation to the
Government.
As things stand the police have no right or business to volunteer
information to the airline which effectively enables the airline to
make a 'patsy' query under OIA. In the circumstance, it seems the
police do it out of plain spite than because of genuine aviation
safety concerns. No, probably more likely there is probably some
nasty little piece of work in the airline's HR or security department
who was once a cop and he and his police mates figured a way of
passing such information.
Matty F
Have I missed something? How did the police know that she worked for
Air NZ? If she told them she is stupid. If she didn't tell them surely
she has a case under the Privacy Act.
Squiggle
>
> Have I missed something? How did the police know that she worked for
> Air NZ? If she told them she is stupid. If she didn't tell them surely
> she has a case under the Privacy Act.
She was driving to work when she was caught, so was probably in her Air
NZ uniform.
--
--
Isn't it interesting that the same people who laugh at science
fiction listen to weather forecasts and economists?
Kelvin Throop III
Robin Halligan
Well ok if they had actually gone to work, but they didn't go to work that
day so in what way did they put the safety of any passenger at risk?.
ChristianKnight
"Squiggle" <squ...@in.the.sand> wrote in message
news:hearuo$9qn$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I flew on air New Zealand this weekend and I flew on Pacific Blue .
Out of the two I found the propellar driven tiny bag storage carraige
inferior even though far more expensive.
The hostess was rude slow looked pregnant with a hangover talked loudly for
ten minutes with the passenger she recognised right behind me. Anyway she
should have received a mild repremand from her immeadiate bosses this five
drink next day lassy.
And air New Zealand should have told the police to shove off it was none of
their business cause all the air head girl does is give a little speech and
dance on safety which she learnt off by heart.
Air New Zealand will lose customers if they allow to slack a standard but if
the girl was on a first offense a repremand and warning should have been
enough.
She said 11pm bed time with an 8am start.
She may have made an honest mistake.
I have to admit I had a ticket over failing to stop at a Stop sign which I
thought I had done and was late paying the fine because of it.
And was absolutely furious when I learn't the police had rang up my place of
work telling my superiors the police were wanting to get hold of me.
I must have rung 111, 20 times trying to sort the matter out.
They refused to put me through to the officer who made the complaint.
When the fact was I slowed before the stop sign because I saw two police
officers and wondered if I was driveing through a crime scene.
I started to pull over to the curb prepared to do a hurried Uturn as a week
earilier a Backpackers near by had a visitor threatening to bomb downtown.
One of the police officers waved me forward when he saw I was stopping
before the stop sign so I knudged cautiously forward over the stop sign
lines.
Not actually stopping.
I turned left hoping the other police officer would have followed the ordeal
and understand my actions were from being distraught.
the second officer may not have seen what I presumed was the first police
officer who was by then out of my sight and the second police officer
preceeded to give me a ticket.
Which I eventually paid having my letter to have the fine waiveied rejected.
Air New Zealand should install their own breathing apparartus to monitor
their staffs sobrierty and the police really need to respect peoples
privacy.
Christ's love
Me
> I have to admit I had a ticket over failing to stop at a Stop sign which I
> thought I had done and was late paying the fine because of it.
> And was absolutely furious when I learn't the police had rang up my place of
> work telling my superiors the police were wanting to get hold of me.
> I must have rung 111, 20 times trying to sort the matter out.
> They refused to put me through to the officer who made the complaint.
> When the fact was I slowed before the stop sign because I saw two police
> officers and wondered if I was driveing through a crime scene.
> I started to pull over to the curb prepared to do a hurried Uturn as a week
> earilier a Backpackers near by had a visitor threatening to bomb downtown.
> One of the police officers waved me forward when he saw I was stopping
> before the stop sign so I knudged cautiously forward over the stop sign
> lines.
> Not actually stopping.
> I turned left hoping the other police officer would have followed the ordeal
> and understand my actions were from being distraught.
> the second officer may not have seen what I presumed was the first police
> officer who was by then out of my sight and the second police officer
> preceeded to give me a ticket.
>
Priceless.
Sounds like something from a Cheech and Chong movie, except perhaps you
need to take meds, not stop taking them.
hellicopter
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:53:35 +1300, Max Burke
> <mlvb...@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> wrote:
>
>>hellicopter wrote:
>>
>>> Air NZ, failed to appreciate that their crews do a stressful job
>>> and that if they cannot unwind they are likely to snap.
>>
>>If anyone claims they need to use 'recreational drugs' to 'unwind' from
>>their 'stressful job' then they're making excuses for their drug
>>abuse/addiction.
>>
>>EOS
>
> Agreed. But that is a different question as to whether all traffic
> offences or arrests shouldbe disclosed by teh police to third parties.
People need to live and relax with friends, drinking is part of
they way they 'unwind' and enjoy the wealth they've created.
>
> We sometimes have stupid references to the Privacy Act to prevent
> parents knowing about a minor receiving say an abortion, but in this
> case it is going the other way. Personally I think employers should
> only have right to know if it involves public safety, the disclosure
> to the employer is part of the employment contract, and if the
> employer pays the costs invovled in that information being provided by
> the police.
Technically she was found to be drunk the night before! She would
still have been able to turn up to work and not be drunk. Since
she is a hostess, not a pilot, there is no clause in her contract
about drinking off the job. Yes, of course if a person driving a
car is drunk we remove their license, if a person who is driving
the plane we remove their pilot license, but a person who was
not drunk in charge of a drink trolley! Should lose their job!
Please.
The Police were reckless, they have now introduced a law that
states any employee of an airline cannot be caught driving drunk
and keep their job. That's wrong, its against the Human Rights
Charter for any individual to suffer such a loss of their livelihood.
And not only that, its a breach of the air stewards employment
standing, since people lose their license all the time but don't
lose their jobs! What next are employers going sack their
fast food staff because they get a drink driving conviction!
Unions, drink manufactures, bars, all will be harmed by such
a policy. So in context her fate was excessive and so WRONG.
But worse, this was a corporation entrusted with information
collected under an Act of Parliament and its use must be reasonable
how they use it!
Air NZ advertises the fact that its employees will serve their
passengers alcohol, so how far fetched is it that they could in
theory sell a off job staff member traveling on one of their own
flights enough alcohol to cause them to be over the limit!
Why would a bar offer prizes including Air NZ flights? Power
is abused when people go over board and don't assess the fairness
of their actions. Air NZ abused its contract with this employee.
its just wrong, that employees cannot drink off the job and
make mistakes (once!) and they lose their job (where there
was no chance of a safety snarl up).
Squiggle
> Rich...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:53:35 +1300, Max Burke
>> <mlvb...@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> wrote:
>>
>>> hellicopter wrote:
>>>
>>>> Air NZ, failed to appreciate that their crews do a stressful job
>>>> and that if they cannot unwind they are likely to snap.
>>> If anyone claims they need to use 'recreational drugs' to 'unwind' from
>>> their 'stressful job' then they're making excuses for their drug
>>> abuse/addiction.
>>>
>>> EOS
>> Agreed. But that is a different question as to whether all traffic
>> offences or arrests shouldbe disclosed by teh police to third parties.
>
> People need to live and relax with friends, drinking is part of
> they way they 'unwind' and enjoy the wealth they've created.
>
>> We sometimes have stupid references to the Privacy Act to prevent
>> parents knowing about a minor receiving say an abortion, but in this
>> case it is going the other way. Personally I think employers should
>> only have right to know if it involves public safety, the disclosure
>> to the employer is part of the employment contract, and if the
>> employer pays the costs invovled in that information being provided by
>> the police.
>
> Technically she was found to be drunk the night before!
Technically you're wrong again: "The Auckland-based flight attendant was
driving to work on a Sunday morning in May when she was
breath-tested at a police checkpoint and found to have excess breath
alcohol."
[snip more rambling BS]
> Air NZ advertises the fact that its employees will serve their
> passengers alcohol, so how far fetched is it that they could in
> theory sell a off job staff member traveling on one of their own
> flights enough alcohol to cause them to be over the limit!
And like every other passenger on that flight the person that has been
drinking has the responsibility to make sure they don't drive while
under the influence. They have the option of drinking water/OJ/coke
instead of getting boozed. They also have the option of a taxi or
getting a friend to pick them up.
Sailor Sam
> hellicopter wrote:
>> Air NZ advertises the fact that its employees will serve their
>> passengers alcohol, so how far fetched is it that they could in
>> theory sell a off job staff member traveling on one of their own
>> flights enough alcohol to cause them to be over the limit!
>
> And like every other passenger on that flight the person that has been
> drinking has the responsibility to make sure they don't drive while
> under the influence. They have the option of drinking water/OJ/coke
> instead of getting boozed. They also have the option of a taxi or
> getting a friend to pick them up.
>
And she had the option of arriving at work and saying, "look I'm feeling
under the weather, I won't be available for work".
ChristianKnight
>
> - Show quoted text -
Back to my regular foods.
Natural medication Cherries, lemon, orange, apple and grapefruit.
A glass of full cream milk and two teaspoons of ground flax seed
shoul;d get me through to morning tea.
another weeks holiday with little plans except sleep in and make
music.
Christ's love
Squiggle
If she was going to say that, why not pick up the telephone and do that
before breaking the law and driving while pissed? It seems fairly
redundant to drive to work to say i'm not able to work today.
Sailor Sam
Are you saying people have no choice the minute they leave the home for
work?
People often arrive at work, feeling off colour, and decide not to
complete their shift because of it.
ChristianKnight
>
> - Show quoted text -
Read her story and realise she felt fine and was unaware she was over
the limit she had a reasonable sleep and only had 5 drinks her losing
her license upset her so much she took the day off.
Christ's love
misanthropic_curmudgeon
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3085475/Police-dob-in-drink-driver-to...
I think that many readers are missing a key point here. It is not
that she was bustedfor DIC on the way to work, but that the coppers
told her employer two weeks afterwards.
If the coppers had released her (after charging her) and she still was
to go off to work (which involves the safety of the traveling public
as well as being a trolley-dolly), then perhaps a copper could 'wistle-
blow' to her employer about a possible OSH-issue, but the coppers did
this two weeks later.
Another point is that once the employer is advised of a potential OSH
issue, they are obliged to investigate.
peterwn
If it were a pilot in that position (assuming the police got wind that
he was on the way to work) the police would be justified in
immediately informing the employer (or aero club) to make sure the
person did not fly. This would probably be justified on the
'necessity' defence (noting that there is a very high standard
required for that defence to 'kick in').
The matter would not be so pressing for cabin crew, hence the police
felt no immediate imperative to tell Air NZ naming the person
concerned.
The delay in telling Air NZ together with the 'workaround' method used
indicates either vindictivness on the part of Air NZ or some
undersirable connection where Air NZ is virtually using the police as
a private detective agency.
I suspect that given the safety responsibilities of an air hostess, if
one fails a drink drive test, she should not be on duty as one. This
is less stringent than for airline pilots who would be expected to
have virtually nil alcohol in the blood when flying (there is a 'no
alcohol' rule for so many hours before the flight).
IMO there is a need for legislation to clarify this matter.
hellicopter
Police obtain evidence that cannot be used in court, are we now
to allow employers access to that information and use it to
sack people?
brazen
"peterwn" <pet...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:79c359a8-9767-4bff...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
IMO there is a need for legislation to clarify this matter.
********
Not at all. There is legsilation already - privacy. It just needs to be
upheld by the authorities concerned.
This is an employment issue. If AirNZ want to ensure their staff dont drink
on duty or arrive drunk then they need to work out a system to ensure that.
It is NOT up to us, the taxpayers, to fund it.
Gay
Geopelia
"brazen" <g...@removetheMtoobrazen.com.nz> wrote in message
news:hecnb1$166$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Why not just breathalyse them as they get on the plane?
Dave Doe
phil...@xtra.co.nz says...
Wot?
I expect you've been an employee at some stage of your life. Um... how
many jobs did you work at where you were breathalysed upon entering the
work place?
I remember hearing of this case on National Radio earlier today - the
fuken cops phoned up Air NZ and dobbed her in? Um... surely this is up
to Air NZ - to have their own workplace policy. (And it's not like she
was a pilot!).
And then, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure I heard them say on the
radio that she (immediately subsequently to being stopped by the cops I
think?) phoned up Air NZ and told them she wasn't coming in that day.
And they fired her!
That's fuken bullchit. I hope she sees her lawyer and sues the chit out
of her employer - and maybe have a go at the cops too - aren't they
supposed to be stopping rapists n' chit? What business is it of theirs
to meddle about with folks employers? (and in context of this case!)
Fuken idiots!
--
Duncan.
Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is impotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Whence then is evil?
[Epicurus on God]
Cath Rodreguiz
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:03:19 +1300, Sailor Sam wrote:
> >http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3085475/Police-dob-in-drink-driver-to-
>
> Air-NZ
>
> In the USA if you're booked for even the most minor traffic infringement,
> the police will contact your insurer, who will then hike your premiums
> for the next few years.
Url please! And States involved.
Think you've got it very wrong there having been involved in several
traffic accidents [no tickets].
In the State of California, you *must* file a SR1 with the Dept of
Motor Vehicles [DMV] in the event of injury, death or property damage
of more than US$750 regardless of fault. The DMV *may* send the
insurance part to your insurance company. http://www.dmv.ca.gov/forms/sr/sr1.pdf
The cops couldn't even issue me with a ticket for not carrying my
driver's licence when an old guy in a 'yank tank' backed out from a
parking space into the side of my brand new [well 3 weeks old off the
lot] car in a hospital car park as it was 'private property'.
Long story but the old guy demanded they turn up because I didn't have
my licence. This was after he 'threatened' that if he called
them, my car would be impounded etc etc. Told him fine by me as I was
guilty of not having my dl with me. Our insurance info was in a
seperate envelope always kept in the glovebox.
When the Chula Vista officers did arrive, they ensured I received his
insurance company info as he was being dodgy over who he was insured
with and as I was able to produce a copy of the sales agreement with
my licence # stated on it, all they did was radio through to ensure I
had no outstandings [warrants etc]. It cost his insurance company
several thousand dollars in my medical bills, vehicle repair, injury/
pain & suffering payments to me as well as my Attorney's fees. No
doubt, his carrier either increased his premiums sky-high or dropped
him.
Many companies require a copy of your DMV report upon being hired.
Insurance carriers will require a copy of your DMV report prior to
accepting you or for renewal purposes.
My daughter's had several tickets all of which she has gone to ticket
school and never once has her insurance carrier [and she's had a
couple] been notified by the City PD or County Sheriff or CHiPs
depending on whose juristriction she was in. When her Mustang was
hit from behind, it was not reported by the Police to her insurance
company.
Something that surprised me when a lady I worked with told me she had
been required to carry mandatory State insurance by the Court when
convicted of DUI for the full period of her licence loss.
She said her insurance company had dropped her and it cost her a
fortune to get insurance with a 'shark'.
hellicopter
>
> "peterwn" <pet...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:79c359a8-9767-4bff...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> IMO there is a need for legislation to clarify this matter.
>
> ********
>
> Not at all. There is legsilation already - privacy. It just needs to be
> upheld by the authorities concerned.
>
> This is an employment issue. If AirNZ want to ensure their staff dont
> drink on duty or arrive drunk then they need to work out a system to
> ensure that.
Agreed. Nobody saying she should have got on a plane drunk.
The issue is Police are privy to a lot of information and
are held accountable for their use of such information.
Should a private corporation be privy to that information,
and not be accountable to how its used?
I say No. Duties and obligations go with disclosures under the
Office Information Act.
A staff member got a short shape lesson on drink and driving,
she would not repeat in a hurry, now Air NZ sacked her
increasing the number of staff at Air NZ who do not know
how much alcohol the previous night is too much! So Air NZ
is more unsafe as a result! Not every staff member goes to
work is stopped and breath tested!
Citizens will continue to drink, and will continue to turn
up in Police dragnets. So how does Air NZ hope to increase
safety if it sacks people who are more experienced and
suffered their license being removed!
Air NZ have a duty to their customers, to ensure that
staff (however human) are the most experienced, cutting
them when they get a hard lesson goes against this!
Its basic evolution, if you select for naive citizens you
increase the likelihood of accidents not diminish them!
Now lets say a good employee who never drinks too much
the night before a flight hears of this fired colleague,
now they are smart, they know human are stupid, they
are after all handling humans on planes for long flights!
So they know people top up others people drinks! They
know this happens, and know that they might end up over
the limit! So whats a employee of Air NZ to do? Simple,
get a job in a more clued up company.
So Air NZ loses another fine staff member and replaces
with yet another naive one. Accidents aren't avoided they
are swept away out of sight.
Geopelia
"Dave Doe" <ha...@work.ok> wrote in message
news:MPG.257543baa...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <hedsrf$eh7$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> phil...@xtra.co.nz says...
>>
>> "brazen" <g...@removetheMtoobrazen.com.nz> wrote in message
>> news:hecnb1$166$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> >
>> > "peterwn" <pet...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>> > news:79c359a8-9767-4bff...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > IMO there is a need for legislation to clarify this matter.
>> >
>> > ********
>> >
>> > Not at all. There is legsilation already - privacy. It just needs to be
>> > upheld by the authorities concerned.
>> >
>> > This is an employment issue. If AirNZ want to ensure their staff dont
>> > drink on duty or arrive drunk then they need to work out a system to
>> > ensure that.
>> >
>> > It is NOT up to us, the taxpayers, to fund it.
>> >
>> > Gay
>> >
>>
>> Why not just breathalyse them as they get on the plane?
>
> Wot?
>
> I expect you've been an employee at some stage of your life. Um... how
> many jobs did you work at where you were breathalysed upon entering the
> work place?
None. But I wasn't responsible for safety on a plane.
hellicopter
>
> "Dave Doe" <ha...@work.ok> wrote in message
> news:MPG.257543baa...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> In article <hedsrf$eh7$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> phil...@xtra.co.nz says...
>>>
>>> "brazen" <g...@removetheMtoobrazen.com.nz> wrote in message
>>> news:hecnb1$166$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> >
>>> > "peterwn" <pet...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>>> > news:79c359a8-9767-4bff-a541-
a1b5cd...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>> >
>>> > IMO there is a need for legislation to clarify this matter.
>>> >
>>> > ********
>>> >
>>> > Not at all. There is legsilation already - privacy. It just needs to
>>> > be upheld by the authorities concerned.
>>> >
>>> > This is an employment issue. If AirNZ want to ensure their staff dont
>>> > drink on duty or arrive drunk then they need to work out a system to
>>> > ensure that.
>>> >
>>> > It is NOT up to us, the taxpayers, to fund it.
>>> >
>>> > Gay
>>> >
>>>
>>> Why not just breathalyse them as they get on the plane?
>>
>> Wot?
>>
>> I expect you've been an employee at some stage of your life. Um... how
>> many jobs did you work at where you were breathalysed upon entering the
>> work place?
>
> None. But I wasn't responsible for safety on a plane.
A few drinks the night before, after a healthy breakfast, after
some water, before the flight takes off, whats the chance that
the steward is still drunk? Little, next to nothing. Safety
is more exposed by removing conscientious staff who turn round
and go home rather than continue on to fly away and sell alcoholic
beverages to people on the flight!!!!
Its just amazing, that you can't see the farce, that you whining
on about a women who was likely going to be sober while she
served alcohol to people and that was a 'safety issue'! No its
not!
Geez, if it were such a safety issue why is alcohol on the plane!
If its such a safety issue what happens when the stewards drink
the hard stuff! if they cannot hold their liquid waiting for
them to get caught drink driving isn't going to stop the safety
issues!
Anyway that's not the issue, the issue is whether private
corporations who are in the receipt of information obtained
under freedom of information have a duty to use it reasonably.
They clearly didn't, and so abused the privacy of this individual.
The implications are pretty stark. Some cheif executive demands
the in flight steward to have sex with him or he will get her
fired. Before you know it he's got a friend to investigate her
and finds they have a common friend who slips her some extra
booze. He them alerts another friend to pull her over the
next morning. Before you know it she is sacked.
Privacy laws are there to protect people from an invasion of
their lives so they aren't at the mercy of those with connections.
And big corporate types should be worried because its a
two way street, and the high flyers aren't just the on board
stewards.
brazen
"Dave Doe" <ha...@work.ok> wrote in message
news:MPG.257543baa...@news.eternal-september.org...
> phil...@xtra.co.nz says...
>>
>> "brazen" <g...@removetheMtoobrazen.com.nz> wrote in message
>> news:hecnb1$166$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> >
>> > "peterwn" <pet...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>> > news:79c359a8-9767-4bff...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > IMO there is a need for legislation to clarify this matter.
>> >
>> > ********
>> >
>> > Not at all. There is legsilation already - privacy. It just needs to be
>> > upheld by the authorities concerned.
>> >
>> > This is an employment issue. If AirNZ want to ensure their staff dont
>> > drink on duty or arrive drunk then they need to work out a system to
>> > ensure that.
>> >
>> > It is NOT up to us, the taxpayers, to fund it.
>> >
>> > Gay
>> >
>>
>> Why not just breathalyse them as they get on the plane?
>
> Wot?
>
> I expect you've been an employee at some stage of your life. Um... how
> many jobs did you work at where you were breathalysed upon entering the
> work place?
>
Plenty of workers are subject to regular and random piss tests - those that
are responsible for safety and operate heavy machinery. The police should be
breath tested imo.
Gay
Dave Doe
phil...@xtra.co.nz says...
In what way is the plane's safety compromised?
From the reports I've heard, she wasn't pissed out of her brain. And
she isn't the pilot. Indeed, by her own account, she was surprised to
find she was over the limit - *and* when she did, she phoned up to say
she wouldn't be working that day.
Personally, I think you an' brazen are being way way too PC.
brazen
"Dave Doe" <ha...@work.ok> wrote in message
Whether or not safety is an issue is neither here nor there. It is an
employment issue, end of story. If an employer deems that they want their
staff (regardless of what they do) to have a zero blood alcohol level while
working then that is between them and their staff. Its not up to me or you.
If the staff dont like it then they can get another job.
And it is certainly nothing to do with me and you as taxpayers.
Gay
hellicopter
>
> "Dave Doe" <ha...@work.ok> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2576142fa...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> In article <heesoo$q0s$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> phil...@xtra.co.nz says...
>>>
>>> "Dave Doe" <ha...@work.ok> wrote in message
>>> news:MPG.257543baa...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> > In article <hedsrf$eh7$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> > phil...@xtra.co.nz says...
>>> >>
>>> >> "brazen" <g...@removetheMtoobrazen.com.nz> wrote in message
>>> >> news:hecnb1$166$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> >> >
>>> >> > "peterwn" <pet...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>>> >> > news:79c359a8-9767-4bff-a541-
a1b5cd...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Yes, become a contractor, turn up drunk every day.
>
> And it is certainly nothing to do with me and you as taxpayers.
>
> Gay
Do I care she lost her license, No! Do I care she
lost her job, No! Do I care we lost our right to private
information being used against us! yeah, really peeved.
We have the right not to incriminate ourselves. If
Police cannot punish us any more, then why can our
employer when there is no safety issue.
The puzzling thing is she would go to work and serve
alcohol to people who could be over the limit!
Pilots don't serve drinks! so why are airline stewards
held to the same standard?
And what's even more surprising is she would likely
end up on a plane and not be over the limit! She was
just over the limit and hadn't not drunk for hours!
Whats worse from the PR nightmare for Air NZ, but
the idea that corporations do not have any reasonable
duty of care to information obtained.
But what really stinks, is the fact that the information
was passed on to the airline before she had yet to
have her day in court!
That's not justice, its a corporate led lynch mob!
Dave Doe
g...@removetheMtoobrazen.com.nz says...
OK, so now you agree with me - other than your worthless dig re PC.
You said in another message...
Geo...
> I expect you've been an employee at some stage of your life. Um...
> how
> many jobs did you work at where you were breathalysed upon entering the
> work place?
Geos idea sounds like a good one to me.
Hey nothing wrong with workplace policy - but breathalysing people upon
entry? In context, it's simply totally unecessary.
Actually, even if you're an astronaut flying the space shuttle - it's
also totally unecessary.
Geopelia
"Dave Doe" <ha...@work.ok> wrote in message
I've never been breathalysed anywhere, and it wouldn't bother me if I was.
But who would bother breathalysing the female staff, when the men are
returning from their "two hour lunches"?
But it could be a good idea to breathalyse ship's pilots, and Captains of
large ships.
Then if there is an accident there couldn't be any rumours about being drunk
on duty.
It's a protection for the person being breathalysed, as well as for public
safety.
>
> Geos idea sounds like a good one to me.
>
> Hey nothing wrong with workplace policy - but breathalysing people upon
> entry? In context, it's simply totally unecessary.
>
> Actually, even if you're an astronaut flying the space shuttle - it's
> also totally unecessary.
>
And as for the police passing on information, unless the culprit gets name
suppression the employer is going to find out anyway, so why worry?
brazen
"Dave Doe" <ha...@work.ok> wrote in message
It was a response to your worthless comment about me and geo being all PC.
I dont agree with you *now*, I havent changed my tune. If you had read and
digested what I said in the first place then maybe you wouldnt have dissed
me in the first place.
>
> You said in another message...
>
> Geo...
>> I expect you've been an employee at some stage of your life. Um...
>> how
>> many jobs did you work at where you were breathalysed upon entering the
>> work place?
>
> Geos idea sounds like a good one to me.
>
> Hey nothing wrong with workplace policy - but breathalysing people upon
> entry? In context, it's simply totally unecessary.
Well maybe.. But if they pay the piper, they call the tune. Dont like it -
get another job. Those with ridiculous workplace policies (ie unnecessary
breath testing) would be very short of staff. It evens itself out.
Gay
brazen
"hellicopter" <stone...@kol.co.nz> wrote in message
news:heg1pd$huf$1...@aioe.org...
> Do I care she lost her license, No! Do I care she
> lost her job, No! Do I care we lost our right to private
> information being used against us! yeah, really peeved.
>
Absolutely.
gay
Geopelia
Wouldn't it be more PC to object to passing on the results of breathalysing?
Geopelia
Sailor Sam
Why?
As soon as the woman realised she was drunk she rang work and didn't go
in. Isn't that a demonstration of responsibility?
misanthropic_curmudgeon
[snip]
> As soon as the woman realised she was drunk she
> rang work and didn't go in.
Does one need a breathalyser to know if one is pissed?
That one can even think about going to work pissed speaks volumes for
one of:
- her values
- her levels of self-awareness
- a workplace culture that could condone that.
> Isn't that a demonstration of responsibility?
Rather, she rang work when she realised she'd not be able to make it
to work (as she was being carted off for a blood test?)
Sailor Sam
> On Nov 25, 10:32 am, Sailor Sam <hiho...@merry.oh> wrote:
> [snip]
>> As soon as the woman realised she was drunk she
>> rang work and didn't go in.
>
> Does one need a breathalyser to know if one is pissed?
>
There are countless examples of people who have behaved such as this
woman, had a few, went to bed for a few hours, awoke, and thought they
had slept the alcohol off, and driven, so many, in fact, that there was
a campaign to alert people of the problem.
Although clearly the campaign was ineffective for this woman, and you.
> That one can even think about going to work pissed speaks volumes for
> one of:
> - her values
> - her levels of self-awareness
> - a workplace culture that could condone that.
>
>
Pissed != over the legal limit for driving.
>> Isn't that a demonstration of responsibility?
>
> Rather, she rang work when she realised she'd not be able to make it
> to work (as she was being carted off for a blood test?)
>
Was she carted off for a blood test, or, as is your norm, are you
presenting imaginary 'facts' to support your claim.
misanthropic_curmudgeon
> misanthropic_curmudgeon wrote:
> > On Nov 25, 10:32 am, Sailor Sam <hiho...@merry.oh> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> As soon as the woman realised she was drunk she
> >> rang work and didn't go in.
>
> > Does one need a breathalyser to know if one is pissed?
>
> There are countless examples of people who have behaved such as this
> woman, had a few, went to bed for a few hours, awoke, and thought they
> had slept the alcohol off, and driven, so many, in fact, that there was
> a campaign to alert people of the problem.
>
> Although clearly the campaign was ineffective for this woman, and you.
Another stunning generalisation from you, mired in your own
limitations.
> > That one can even think about going to work pissed speaks volumes for
> > one of:
> > - her values
> > - her levels of self-awareness
> > - a workplace culture that could condone that.
>
> Pissed != over the legal limit for driving.
I never said pissed = over the limit.
Do try and read what is written, Sam, and not what your preconceived
bigotry makes you think you see.
> >> Isn't that a demonstration of responsibility?
>
> > Rather, she rang work when she realised she'd not be able to make it
> > to work (as she was being carted off for a blood test?)
>
> Was she carted off for a blood test, or, as is your norm, are you
> presenting imaginary 'facts' to support your claim.
You see that question mark? They look just like this: '?' It means a
question, a supposition, or a speculation.
Not a claim to fact.
You should know the difference.
Now run along - and you might just trip over a clue.
Sailor Sam
> On Nov 25, 1:56 pm, Sailor Sam <hiho...@merry.oh> wrote:
>> misanthropic_curmudgeon wrote:
>>> On Nov 25, 10:32 am, Sailor Sam <hiho...@merry.oh> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> As soon as the woman realised she was drunk she
>>>> rang work and didn't go in.
>>> Does one need a breathalyser to know if one is pissed?
>> There are countless examples of people who have behaved such as this
>> woman, had a few, went to bed for a few hours, awoke, and thought they
>> had slept the alcohol off, and driven, so many, in fact, that there was
>> a campaign to alert people of the problem.
>>
>> Although clearly the campaign was ineffective for this woman, and you.
>
> Another stunning generalisation from you, mired in your own
> limitations.
>
>
>
You have not demonstrated anything to the contrary.
>>> That one can even think about going to work pissed speaks volumes for
>>> one of:
>>> - her values
>>> - her levels of self-awareness
>>> - a workplace culture that could condone that.
>> Pissed != over the legal limit for driving.
>
> I never said pissed = over the limit.
Then what were you trying to say?
> Do try and read what is written, Sam, and not what your preconceived
> bigotry makes you think you see.
>
>
How do you make a claim of one going to work pissed then?
Or, do you suddenly realise the stupidity of your claims and seek to
create (yet another) smokescreen.
>>>> Isn't that a demonstration of responsibility?
>>> Rather, she rang work when she realised she'd not be able to make it
>>> to work (as she was being carted off for a blood test?)
>> Was she carted off for a blood test, or, as is your norm, are you
>> presenting imaginary 'facts' to support your claim.
>
> You see that question mark? They look just like this: '?' It means a
> question, a supposition, or a speculation.
> Not a claim to fact.
>
So it never happened then.
> You should know the difference.
>
I know when someone is trying to assert a fact, knowing it to be false,
and claiming a question mark is enough to defend themselves from their
own errors.
> Now run along - and you might just trip over a clue.
Let me know if you (ever) find one...
ChristianKnight
> In article <hefql6$18...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> g...@removetheMtoobrazen.com.nz says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Dave Doe" <h...@work.ok> wrote in message
> >news:MPG.2576142fa...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > > In article <heesoo$q0...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > > phildo...@xtra.co.nz says...
>
> > >> "Dave Doe" <h...@work.ok> wrote in message
> > >>news:MPG.257543baa...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > >> > In article <hedsrf$eh...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > >> > phildo...@xtra.co.nz says...
>
> > >> >> "brazen" <g...@removetheMtoobrazen.com.nz> wrote in message
> > >> >>news:hecnb1$166$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I disagree Dave.
Air New Zealand should breath test everybody until they can organise
domestic jets.
Why should Kiwi's fly like Indiana Jones.
Christ's love
ChristianKnight
> "Dave Doe" <h...@work.ok> wrote in message
>
> news:MPG.257677b41...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <hefql6$18...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > g...@removetheMtoobrazen.com.nz says...
>
> >> "Dave Doe" <h...@work.ok> wrote in message
> >>news:MPG.2576142fa...@news.eternal-september.org...> >> >> "Dave Doe" <h...@work.ok> wrote in message
> >> >>news:MPG.257543baa...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> >> > In article <hedsrf$eh...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >> >> > phildo...@xtra.co.nz says...
>
> >> >> >> "brazen" <g...@removetheMtoobrazen.com.nz> wrote in message
> >> >> >>news:hecnb1$166$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
On the News Yesturday there was a death due to a fire One chap went in
and deduced a women was dead and left her because his Oxygen was
running low.
Then later others deduced her alive and tried to save her but in
hospital the next day she died.
She may have lived if the first Fireman on the scene had helped her
but of course there is no way to tell that now is there.
Anyway the same fire had a senior fire officer that had had 5 drinks
that day and had to be picked up and taken to the fire. He was taken
even after five drinks because rules require a senior fire officer to
attend.
I finds that utterly dangerously redioculous and that kind of drunkern
stupidity is probably to blame for lower ranking officers dumping
gasping women to blunder out of a hot zone.
On call is on call and if your not keen to be at your best to save
people that responcibility should go to someone that is.
Christ's love
ChristianKnight
> "Dave Doe" <h...@work.ok> wrote in message
>
> news:MPG.257677b41...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <hefql6$18...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > g...@removetheMtoobrazen.com.nz says...
>
> >> "Dave Doe" <h...@work.ok> wrote in message
> >>news:MPG.2576142fa...@news.eternal-september.org...> >> >> "Dave Doe" <h...@work.ok> wrote in message
> >> >>news:MPG.257543baa...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> >> > In article <hedsrf$eh...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >> >> > phildo...@xtra.co.nz says...
>
> >> >> >> "brazen" <g...@removetheMtoobrazen.com.nz> wrote in message
> >> >> >>news:hecnb1$166$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
1 in 4 teenagers are unemployed. Hiring Stewardesses cause they
accomodate you at a party is just not proper customer satisfaction.
Flying is serious business. And If they use a new breathiliser every
test hygiene is high ranking.
If it is a problem and it probably is do it properly please do not use
scapegoats that is so horribly cruel and evilly dispropotionate.
Christ's love
ChristianKnight
Shes not your bad sex Kitten Throbit.
She said she felt fine in the morning.
Obviously not the same dream your having.
Christ's love
Geopelia
"ChristianKnight" <Christi...@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:36f4cc16-2640-46a4...@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
---------------------------
Unfortunately, mistakes can happen if a person is unconscious and appears
dead.
There will probably be some sort of inquiry, but to make the remarks you did
is unhelpful and unkind.
Geopelia
------------
I would rather fly like Superman. No plane needed!
misanthropic_curmudgeon
If you are too thick (and full of your own deluded sense of self-
importance) to read a simple sentence and grasp its meaning ....
> >>>> Isn't that a demonstration of responsibility?
> >>> Rather, she rang work when she realised she'd not be able to make it
> >>> to work (as she was being carted off for a blood test?)
> >> Was she carted off for a blood test, or, as is your norm, are you
> >> presenting imaginary 'facts' to support your claim.
>
> > You see that question mark? They look just like this: '?' It means a
> > question, a supposition, or a speculation.
> > Not a claim to fact.
>
> So it never happened then.
Nice avoidance of my rebuttal to your allegations about "presenting
imaginary 'facts' to support your claim"
> > Now run along - and you might just trip over a clue.
>
> Let me know if you (ever) find one...
You want to buy one? They are not like a vowel on Wheel of Fortune,
you know (a program you probably consider educational).
Sailor Sam
I demonstrated my interpretation, you claimed I was in error, and I have
extended you the oppourtunity to rephrase your message.
How is that me demonstrating my "own deluded sense of self importance"
>
>>>>>> Isn't that a demonstration of responsibility?
>>>>> Rather, she rang work when she realised she'd not be able to make it
>>>>> to work (as she was being carted off for a blood test?)
>>>> Was she carted off for a blood test, or, as is your norm, are you
>>>> presenting imaginary 'facts' to support your claim.
>>> You see that question mark? They look just like this: '?' It means a
>>> question, a supposition, or a speculation.
>>> Not a claim to fact.
>> So it never happened then.
>
> Nice avoidance of my rebuttal to your allegations about "presenting
> imaginary 'facts' to support your claim"
>
>
Did it happen or not?
>>> Now run along - and you might just trip over a clue.
>> Let me know if you (ever) find one...
>
> You want to buy one? They are not like a vowel on Wheel of Fortune,
> you know (a program you probably consider educational).
>
>
>
Have you found one yet?