Truck driver shortage - true or false?

[Madness]

Typical! Thanks for paricapating with such an educated reply. I can only aspire to your great heights.

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk

Maybe start with some night classes at the local High School, if they'll have you.

[bogan]

Would you rather I let these fellas out in 50 ton rigs to reek havock on the same roads your family use. Seriously!
We even have thier team mates picking them off as it is so obvious. Wrong deliveries, wrong addresses, wrong freight and the list goes on. We as a company dont need these issues least of all putting them out on the road full stop

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk

The point you need to make to give your arguments coherency, is one strongly linking positive results of a drug test with impaired driving performance. This would require more than your own anecdotal confirmation bias'd experiences.

If they are doing their job wrong, fire them for that. You don't need a drug test to fire a guy who keeps picking up the wrong freight and dropping it off at the wrong place do you?

[Bikemad]

are you just arguing for the sake of it?
you realise plants growth depends on the environment eh? That female plants can be just as spindly? (yeah, ive had some bad seasons)
and no, males do not grow taller.

no i am just pointing out the fact that the virtues of pot that you put forward have nothing to do with the original arguement against drug testing as the male has virtually no psyhcoactive properties and neither do the seeds.......and yes in the same growing enviroment the males will grow taller every time

[Grubber]

The point you need to make to give your arguments coherency, is one strongly linking positive results of a drug test with impaired driving performance. This would require more than your own anecdotal confirmation bias'd experiences.

If they are doing their job wrong, fire them for that. You don't need a drug test to fire a guy who keeps picking up the wrong freight and dropping it off at the wrong place do you?

One quick answer is, if we crash and he has drugs in his system we are out of business basically.
Secondly, we dont want impairwd drivers out on the road fullstop. And trust me, it is painfully obvious they are using at the time. When the join up they are well aware of all the regulations. If they choose to use then they put thier jobs on the line.
The big pity is that a couple of the ones that have been tested positive were awesome oporators when they were clean. Soon as they showed signs of anything other than perfect it was a dead give in they were using. Tis easy really. If you use your gone its in all thier contracts so is very clear.

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk

[Grubber]

Maybe start with some night classes at the local High School, if they'll have you.

I would only end up sitting next to you. Assuming by your dialogue you ARE still at school of coarse. Seriously lad, you behave like a teenage boy.

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk

[bogan]

One quick answer is, if we crash and he has drugs in his system we are out of business basically.
Secondly, we dont want impairwd drivers out on the road fullstop. And trust me, it is painfully obvious they are using at the time. When the join up they are well aware of all the regulations. If they choose to use then they put thier jobs on the line.
The big pity is that a couple of the ones that have been tested positive were awesome oporators when they were clean. Soon as they showed signs of anything other than perfect it was a dead give in they were using. Tis easy really. If you use your gone its in all thier contracts so is very clear.

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk

Practicalities of business operation is fine, but this is clearly not your only reason.
Neither do I. But you still haven't made a coherent point that anyone who fails a drug test is driving at a significantly impaired level. The blackdog incident clearly shows you have a bias against users, this will leak into confirmation bias in your anecdotal observations; if you do not have anything more than such biased observations, then you have nothing at all.

[bogan]

Seriously lad, you behave like a teenage boy.

Bwahaha, pull your head out of your arse mate, you come off looking at least as bad.

[Madness]

I would only end up sitting next to you. Assuming by your dialogue you ARE still at school of coarse. Seriously lad, you behave like a teenage boy.

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk

I don't really give a fuck how you think I'm behaving, I'm not one of your brain-dead truck drivers or another of your inbred offspring. Seriously though dude, learn how to spell.

[Akzle]

Would you rather I let these fellas out in 50 ton rigs to reek havock on the same roads your family use. Seriously!

when has that happened. like, ever?
the anti-dope-brigade piss and moan about how dangerous it is, but how many accidents are actually caused BY drug use, not just "had cannabis in system" but "was impaired"?

you know the answer? no you dont.
and you know why you don't? becuase the stats are for "drugs and ALCOHOL". know what's legal? yes you do.
fortunately, alcohol statistics ARE available by their onesies: 20%.

... 20% of road crashes "involve alcohol" (not specified whether the crasher or the crashee, so, more like 10-15% are caused by impairment yeah?)

- that means 80% don't.

that means four in five people on the road are fucking retarded enough to fuck your day up sober.

there are no meaningful statistics on cannabis impairment vs ANYTHING BAD HAPPENING. ever.
care to gamble as to why that is?

[Grubber]

Practicalities of business operation is fine, but this is clearly not your only reason.
Neither do I. But you still haven't made a coherent point that anyone who fails a drug test is driving at a significantly impaired level. The blackdog incident clearly shows you have a bias against users, this will leak into confirmation bias in your anecdotal observations; if you do not have anything more than such biased observations, then you have nothing at all.

Yes I di have bias, as does all the staff I work with. Reasons being, yes we do believe thier is impairment. We see it first hand with quality of work standards. It doea become painfully obvious. As does alcohol, once again is painfully obvious.
Me peraonally, I dont really give a toss what other people do in thier own homes etc but in my place of work we have standards we must work by. Workplace safety is of high importance and drug using comes under that banner. Check OSH standards. No room to move there.
If you were to ask me if I have hard evidence, then no. But I also dont have hard evidence to prove no such things as landing on the moon either. Some things are just too obvious I think.

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk

[Madness]

Careful Grubber, if you dribble on your GT-I9300T too much you could damage it. Paul Butler won't be happy at having to buy you a new one!

[bogan]

If you were to ask me if I have hard evidence, then no.

Then perhaps you would do well to remember that before condemning all those who just had a joint on the weekend...

[Akzle]

no i am just pointing out the fact that the virtues of pot that you put forward have nothing to do with the original arguement against drug testing as the male has virtually no psyhcoactive properties and neither do the seeds.......and yes in the same growing enviroment the males will grow taller every time

the original argument was nothing to do with drug testing. also. males don't produce seeds...

the male plant is a faster life cycle, so in terms of fibre, yes, could be more beneficial than females, however, females produce more of the other (oil, and wwweeeeeeeeeed) so punch for punch, females would be better farmed, i reckon.

[R650R]

If they are doing their job wrong, fire them for that. You don't need a drug test to fire a guy who keeps picking up the wrong freight and dropping it off at the wrong place do you?

It's very hard to fire someone that is doing their job wrong. Although dropping a plt of something off the forklift or forgetting/missing a delivery or pickup can cost thousands, it's still technically a minor cost compared to the businesses annual turnover. Eg in an office environment would you be able to fire someone for accidently spilling coffee on photocopy machine etc... They would have to be doing it repeatedly and be warned before you can do anything unless its extreme negligence.
Most trucking companies will continue to employ their bad eggs until a drop in business means they can afford to lose them. I've lost count of the number of fools I've worked with who we're kept on because it takes too much of the bosses time to find another replacement, and if the worst happens insurance covers everything anyway. And if their lucky they roll over the fleet crapper that they have been unable to sell and cash in on insurance.

Some examples of bad co workers who would have been out the door instantly going back 10-15 years.

Driver A: Would use the same amount of fuel to do four return trips HB to Aucks that I would get six out of. Pulled out of rest area without releasing brakes, carries on driving until a logger tells him to stop on CB, tyres trashed. Knows his licence dodgy doesn't tell employer until cops take it off him 2hrs before due at work...
Driver B: As above re fuel. Guy was faily illiterate and couldn't fill in a logbook to save himself, company didn't care, ended up losing licence for month.
Driver C: Ran over green electrical box and sign taking out power to neighbouring businesses. Set fire to his DG paperwork down SH27 from cigarette butt in cab... other stuff but cant remember
Driver D: Good ol 'Ex army' driver, clean cut but couldn't handle freight, dropped many pallets. Smashed up side of truck and fuel tank parking at walking pace inside a shed...
Driver E: Hadn't been checking oil, rings me up climbing big hill to say have I got any oil as light on. Give him my 4L reserve always carried, still doesn't show dipstick. Someone from yard has to come out in wagon and give him 20L of oil!!!
I could go on but that's enough. Most of these incidents are clear negligence but many employers will keep them there out of overall convenience...

[Bikemad]

the original argument was nothing to do with drug testing. also. males don't produce seeds...

yes i know about the seeds ya plonker.........i never said males produce seeds...........just they have no psyco.......ah fuck ...can't be bothered...........go back to ya bong fella