EPMU supports drink drinking pilots
March 1st, 2010 at 9:43 am by David FarrarHow weird. The Herald reports:
A leading unionist has attacked Air New Zealand chief executive Rob Fyfe over the company’s “grubby deal” with police that has led to staff caught drink-driving being penalised twice.
Andrew Little, secretary of the Engineering, Printing & Manufacturing Union and also president of the Labour Party, said the police had circumvented privacy and information laws and the airline had co-operated. …
Mr Little said that “Mr Fyfe’s response was less one of management heroism and more one of anger that the grubby deal had blown up in the airline’s face”.
He said that under that deal, airline staff processed for drink-driving faced criminal prosecution, appropriately, but also had the facts disclosed to Air NZ, so it could “exact a second punishment, usually dismissal, for the same offence”.
So the Labour Party President EPMU National Secretary thinks that it is a despicable thing that the Police tell Air New Zealand if a pilot gets charged with drink driving. Presumably Andrew thinks that it is nothing for Air New Zealand to worry about, as the drink driving took place in a car instead of a plane. This means that it is only *after* a pilot has also flown a plane while drunk, that Air New Zealand should be able to take action.
Related posts:
- Little confirmed as President
- Drink Driving Blitz
- Little confirmed as President
- Another repeat drink driver
March 1st, 2010 at 9:52 am
So the EPMU is also against employers helping their employees address their alcoholism. Which hat was Andrew Little wearing that day!
Vote:March 1st, 2010 at 10:16 am
Being charged with drink driving does not mean a) one is guilty b) one was on the way to work. My ex spent 17 years with AirNZ, often got pissed as a newt AFTER a shift, not prior to or during. Should a drink drive charge have affected her career at AirNZ?
Vote:March 1st, 2010 at 10:24 am
leftRighOut>Should a drink drive charge have affected her career at AirNZ?
If she drove drunk, then she didn’t have good enough judgment to be involved in any operational aspect of air transport, regardless of whether she was driving to work or not.
Vote:March 1st, 2010 at 10:26 am
“EPMU supports drink drinking pilots”
“Andrew Little, [ ] said the police had circumvented privacy and information laws and the airline had co-operated.”
One of these things is more sensational than the other
Vote:March 1st, 2010 at 10:33 am
Airline pilots Association versus the Police, again.
Vote:March 1st, 2010 at 10:35 am
davidp – you don’t know many pilots do you?
Vote:March 1st, 2010 at 10:37 am
Typical right wing distortion and evidence of the attitude that the ends justify the means, which has been used so often to justify endless atrocities.
According to you guys, rights don’t matter, in this scenario, unless, of course, it is your rights being breached.
I don’t see Andrew Little supporting pissed pilots. But he does support upholding their human rights and the right of all of us not to allow NZ to descend (any further) into a police state where rights are accorded arbitrarily.
And of course, the riposte will be, “What about my right not to fly with drunk pilots!” Yes, quite right, but you are not made any safer by removing others rights, because your own rights are next on the list!
[DPF: You think there is a right to be charged with drink driving, and have this kept hidden from your employer if a pilot for Air NZ? There is no such right. Please save the hysteria about a police state - in fact this is open justice. Being charged with a criminal offence is a public matter, unless you get name supression]
Vote:March 1st, 2010 at 10:39 am
fuck my pilot brother will be stoked andrew little is speaking out for him lol
Vote:March 1st, 2010 at 10:42 am
A guy was caught smoking in a dangerous goods area. The Safety Officer went to HR and wanted him fired. HR explained the procedure. The Safety Officer then went back to the employee and said “Management is giving you two more opportunities to blow up the plant and if you do not succeed by then, they will fire you.”
So presumably Andy Little would rather the pilot be fired after his flight and to hell with the passengers.
Vote:March 1st, 2010 at 10:56 am
Luc you come up with some absolute beauties here. However this type of logic takes the cake. Lets have a look at what you said.
And of course, the riposte will be, “What about my right not to fly with drunk pilots!” Yes, quite right, but you are not made any safer by removing others rights, because your own rights are next on the list!
Not made safer?
That is like saying reporting a person who drives at 200km an hour on a road where kids walk and having them stopped does not make the kids safer.
Sometimes we are made safer by removing some-ones “rights”. My car my “right” to drive it.
FFS we remove peoples “rights” all the time to make others safer. It is called prison and it sometimes even works.
I am all for debate but far out! use some common sense! Pilots and others in positions where safety is an over riding concern is subject to very strict codes allready. And things that you might find “infringe their rights”. You would wet yourself if things like psyc evaluations were used in everyday jobs, yet in some jobs they are an absolute necessity
You know Luc there is an old saying. Sometimes it is better to remain quiet and let people think you are a fool, rather than opening your mouth and providing them with proof.
Vote:March 1st, 2010 at 11:05 am
So, do you think that the police should inform every employer in every case of drink driving? Or just some special professions? Or special circumstances?
[DPF: I think they have the right to inform an employer - the information is not private. They obviously use discretion that they only bother to do so, when they have concerns about safety of others]
Vote:March 1st, 2010 at 11:15 am
You’re getting very police state-y Mr Farrar. Between this post and the earlier one on Bailey K.
“This means that it is only *after* a pilot has also flown a plane while drunk, that Air New Zealand should be able to take action.”
You’re pretty much on the ball with that statement. You can’t pre-suppose guilt. That’s Minority Report stuff and it just isn’t how society runs.
[DPF: No not minority report. If you rob a bank, you can't keep your job as a security guard. If you get convicted of drink driving, you may not keep your job as a pilot. The key issue is relevance of conviction]
Vote:March 1st, 2010 at 11:19 am
eszett (163) Says:
March 1st, 2010 at 11:05 am
[DPF: You think there is a right to be charged with drink driving, and have this kept hidden from your employer if a pilot for Air NZ? There is no such right. Please save the hysteria about a police state - in fact this is open justice. Being charged with a criminal offence is a public matter, unless you get name supression]
So, do you think that the police should inform every employer in every case of drink driving? Or just some special professions? Or special circumstances?
Having thought about this for 30 seconds my answer would be yes and I’ll add that all employers should include this provision in employment contracts.
An employer should want to (and indeed probably needs to) know if an employee is stupid or ignorant enough to disregard the law when it suits them.
Vote:March 1st, 2010 at 11:25 am
How is breaking the law, meant to be private? If I park illegally, a ticket is placed on my car! It is there for all to see.
You break the law, you made that choice. No one made you drink and drive, or steal, or rape. You made that choice.
So in fact you “gave up” your “right” to privacy once you break that law.
When breath tested positive for too much alcohol, it is not a case that needs proof. The proof is there. Person, apparatus, witnesses, result.
Vote:March 1st, 2010 at 11:32 am
Being charged with drink driving does not mean a) one is guilty b) one was on the way to work.
Nice distortion. From the Herald article:
“Air NZ has stated it has twice used the Official Information Act to obtain details about employees in safety-sensitive areas caught driving to work with excess blood-alcohol.”
Do you support aircraft engineers maintaining passenger aircraft and pilots flying passenger aircraft while under the influence of alcohol?
Vote:March 1st, 2010 at 11:37 am
I hope Air NZ have their own in-house measures in place to detect whether maintenance technicians, pilots etc are arriving at work under the influence.
I very seriously hope they are not relying solely on Police traffic breathalyzer operations to catch them on their way to work.
Vote:March 1st, 2010 at 11:39 am
why does the right so love the idea of a police state, yet run silly bill boards? I’m tres confused
Vote:March 1st, 2010 at 11:40 am
So that should include speeding tickets, right? After all, they are ignoring the law.
Vote:March 1st, 2010 at 11:56 am
I thought privacy should be paramount. I told the police they shouldn’t stop me in full public view on the side of the road. And they told me I could drink drive in the privacy of my back yard.
Vote:March 1st, 2010 at 12:02 pm
A pilot, doctor, nurse, firman, policeman, etc. driving to work, I would agree with you.
If not on the way to work, I think it is a bit problematic. In that case you would have to do it to everyone all of the time, if just for consistency and fairness.
Which may not be a bad thing.
Vote:March 1st, 2010 at 12:04 pm
nefarious>davidp – you don’t know many pilots do you?
I expect pilots (and aircraft maintainers, and flight service crew, and everyone else involved with aircraft operations) to show good judgment and to not have a risk taking mentality. If they do something reckless or that otherwise shows poor judgment, then they should seek other employment. Like working for the EPMU, or their subsidiary the Labour Party.
Vote:March 1st, 2010 at 12:13 pm
I hope Air NZ have their own in-house measures in place to detect whether maintenance technicians, pilots etc are arriving at work under the influence.
I very seriously hope they are not relying solely on Police traffic breathalyzer operations to catch them on their way to work.
Oh yes, the EPMU would be 100% supportive of in house alcohol and drug testing of employees……
Somehow I doubt it!
Vote:March 1st, 2010 at 12:30 pm
why does the right so love the idea of a police state, yet run silly bill boards? I’m tres confused
Don’t be. It’s simple dishonesty – they’re usually authoritarians but like to pretend otherwise. It’s the reason libertarians always object to being called right-wing.
If Air NZ needs the cops to tell them when their pilots are unfit to fly, heads should roll – starting with Rob Fyfe’s. I’d like to see something from these chumps offering reassurance that they do have systems in place other than hoping Police checkpoints will sort it out.
Vote:March 1st, 2010 at 12:30 pm
If they are speeding on the way to work are 200+ people at risk once they strap on their 300 ton 747-400?
I would say the answer to that question is no.
However being over the drink drive limit and then doing the same thing has a SIGNIFICANTLY higher risk profile for the passengers, do you agree?
Vote:March 1st, 2010 at 12:32 pm
I would like the extra redundancy to be honest.
Vote:March 1st, 2010 at 1:23 pm
The police are informing Air New Zealand that ON THE way to work Air New Zealand staff had criminal levels of alcohol in their blood. They should inform, the Air Transport Safety Authority as a matter of safety as well. These staff probably got hammered the night before and still had very high levels of alcohol in their blood the next day. This is a matter of safety and I assume Air New Zealand will co-operate FULLY with the police over this. And I assume the Labour Party President will do the same.
Vote:March 1st, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Pete George at 11.56
You and me are seldom on the same side of the argument. But that was one of the most insightful and truthful omments I have ever seen here. In fact probably the comment of all time
I lift my hat.
Vote:March 1st, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Psyco Milt
Air NZ has one of the best if not the best intervention programme in the world today. They fully support rehabilitation of people who have a problem. In fact they will only fire you if you will not undergo counseling and acknowledge the problem and only after a number of events.
Do a bit of research and you will see. I know of a hand full of cases where staff with drug problems as well as booze, and who had caused massive problems overseas, have been brought back and help offered.
The problem is that the ones who are in denial, does not want to stop drinking or their habit, refuses the help. No place to go but to terminate their employment. They are the one who stand up and scream injustice.
Ask around about a crew member who was so full of drugs that he tried to harm himself and passengers. When offered help (yes after running riot on an international flight) … his reply? “I am not ready to give the drink up” (Or the drugs)
Before you start spouting about what happens, you need to do a bit of research. Surely not to much to ask from a person that works with such a vast amount of information such as yourself.
Vote:March 1st, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Bok2: it was a rhetorical point. I don’t doubt for a second that Air NZ have robust procedures re not letting munters fly their planes, I just find it odd that they’re leaving everyone to assume it’s only the odd nosy parker in the Police standing between us and airborne munterdom.
Vote:March 1st, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Erosion of rights is an insidious disease in our so-called democracies. There was already significant slippage of rights before 9/11, and now the world’s gone mad. The police now have horrendous powers to whisk people off the streets and anyone who tells me that the police never abuse that power is just deluded. Remember the legal and peaceful demonstration against the Chinese premier that was illegally curtailed? I could actually bring up heaps of such examples, but I am sure people can do their own research.
Bok2, of course, includes exceptional examples to back up his cry for even more state interference in our lives. This is typical argumentation from those unable to argue from first principles. The principle here is this: is it illegal for a pilot to arrive at work with any alcohol in their system, let alone enough to get a drink-drive conviction, as our limit is high by international standards? If it is, then the pilot would be arrested on that charge as well. Since it is clearly not illegal (although I would support such a law change) then the police have no right to interfere in the employer/employee relationship.
As a poster above says, why should AirNZ be relying on the police to stop drug abusers crewing or piloting planes? If AirNZ can’t guarantee that all their pilots are drug free when they take their seats, then we have a problem. If it takes 100% drug testing prior to starting work, which simply becomes a condition of employment, then so be it. I would opine that a failure would justify instant dismissal. If you don’t like it, don’t take the job. This is infinitely better than unofficially extending police intrusion, because it won’t stop with airline crew.
Vote:March 1st, 2010 at 5:09 pm
Interesting discussion on The Panel, Jim Mora, RNZ on this very topic. The two guests basically agree with the majority on here, but the legal expert was much more ambivalent, and disputed the legal basis of the police/Air NZ agreement.
Having thought some more on the issue, I am offended by the actions of Air NZ. They are contracting out to the police their responsibility to ensure their pilots and crew are fit to work. We, the passengers, depend on this and it is up to Air NZ to fulfill this role rather than colluding with the police to facilitate even more intrusion in our lives.
Vote:March 1st, 2010 at 5:53 pm
God you can talk shit Luc.
If a person has been stopped with excess breath alcohol. They have broken the law. The end.
What makes it so incredibly funny is that here we talk about some-one breaking the law having rights , yet the Greens and Lab tried to legislate what type of lights we can use, or shower heads. How to bring up our children and so forth and so fifth.
Engage your brain, look at your ideology and then post.And you Luc have not made one bit of sense, other than politic speak. Stringing words together that is both meaningless and pointless. Write sense and it can be a debate
Luc , In the words of Ron White.. “You can’t fix stupid!”
Vote:March 1st, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Erosion of rights is an insidious disease in our so-called democracies.
So you support the right of pilots to turn up to work drunk to fly passenger aircraft, and for Engineers to undertake aircraft maintenance while drunk?
Vote:March 1st, 2010 at 6:38 pm
If AirNZ can’t guarantee that all their pilots are drug free when they take their seats, then we have a problem. If it takes 100% drug testing prior to starting work, which simply becomes a condition of employment, then so be it.
Why dont you call your buddy Andrew Little and ask what he thinks of this idea.
Vote:March 1st, 2010 at 6:54 pm
Does it depend upon whether the pilots/air crew are tested positive on the way to the airport or on the way home as whether the Police have a moral duty to inform the media circus that is AirNZ management?
Vote:March 1st, 2010 at 7:07 pm
I work as a pilot in Perth and had a representative from civil aviation on our doorstep when I turned up for work wanting a urine sample off me for testing.
Vote:Ive heard CAA in NZ threaten to do random testing also but never actually heard of any pilots having it done there.
Probably cost too much
March 2nd, 2010 at 9:07 am
You are a liar Mr Farrar. Andew Little is a crapweasle by being both a union scretary and labour party president but what he said was in fact valid. ANZ and the cops have done a deal which circumvents the legal process in spirit if not in the letter of the law with the police advising ANZ which people they should be asking the police about.
This is a double punishment system which violates the concepts of natural justice and fair and reasonable treatment.
You have added a degree of hysteria with your claim “this means that it is only *after* a pilot has also flown a plane while drunk, that Air New Zealand should be able to take action.” If you are not fully aware that air lines have procedures in place for ensuring their pilots are not flying drunk then you have not spent as much time on planes as you have led us to believe.
You are guilty of deliberate disho9nesty or gross ignorance for the pursposes of attackign Andrew Little. Which is it?
Or do you support the concept that the police – as an entity seperate from the Justice system – are entitled to decide to persecute people beyond their job decription?
Shame Mr Farrar.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Just a quick revisit:
It took a while to think my way past the nonsense in this passage.
First, let’s remove the emotion laden example of pilots for Air NZ, and simply say, as DPF really means, employees in general.
Now we need to introduce the right to privacy. This is the right not to tell one’s employer about instances outside work that may reflect badly on oneself. The employer, of course, has the freedom to seek out such information for itself, as many employers already do. In both cases, the parties are exercising their legal rights.
So my answer to DPF’s question, in short, is yes.
By all means campaign for a law change if you wish, that is your right, but don’t go inventing out of the blue new restrictions on our legal freedoms.
Of course, this is exactly what the Police have done, and it is a time honoured tactic of further extending control over a largely compliant population, as we have in NZ. The Police have applied an adventurous interpretation to the concept of protecting the public, and if left unchallenged, will gradually come to affect us all.
It’s just the way it goes.
Funny how all the so-called freedom lovers turn into facists at the drop of a hat.
[DPF: So if he Police telling a primary school one of their teachers has been arrested for child abuse also fascism?
Again there is no right to privacy over being convicted of a crime, or indeed being charged if you do not have name supression.
The Police use discretion as to when they think it is in the interests of public safety to notify an employer. I would resist any law change that prohibits them, as criminal offending is not a private matter]
Vote:March 3rd, 2010 at 7:41 am
We can argue round and round the block, but you keep shifting the goalposts, and I’m not an expert in all facets of employment law, by any means.
But we actually do have a general right of innocence until proven guilty, as would your teacher, but circumstances vary from case to case. Generally, I suspect the police would be around to the school making enquiries anyway, and teachers would not attempt to carry on working under those circumstances. In a recent case I am familiar with, this is exactly how it came to the notice of the school – police making enquiries. The teacher left that day and never returned.
On the other hand, if a teacher was stopped on the way to work and found to over the alcohol limit, would this be reported to the school directly?
In the specific case Andrew Little was commenting on, where the stewardess was fired even though she had not yet arrived at work, and which is before the employment courts, the police made a point of informing the employer. And it transpired that this is a formal agreement between the police and Air NZ. This is what Little was expressing concern about, not expressing support for airline crew being permitted to work pissed, as your thread header misleadingly claimed.
Vote: