He's got a point, though - trotting out the Gordo thing IS pretty tired. You can't compare, because Hawaii is a different jurisdiction with different laws and different penalties. He obviously came to an arrangement that was satisfactory to their legal system; there's no reason to expect he would have received special treatment THERE just because of his job HERE.

He has a point and so do you, but the difference is, you addressed it a little better than he did.

Like I said, I have no time for his kind.

The treatment Gordo got here, in my opinion, was pretty special. In the end, however, the incident didn't help his popularity with the people of BC.

Affect. :)

Edit: :bluemad:

AffectS (just in case you were wAndering).

Good stuff. There should be no leniency for drinking and driving. I absolutely despise it.

I drive for a living, I dont fuck around especially with these new laws in place. No licence = no job for me. There are a lot of people out of work, many which could fill my seat. And it looks like an out of work truck driver is going to land a sweet city job with Burnaby.

I dont think it would be totally unfair to find this guy another job within the city of burnaby. Something that doesnt require a valid BCDL. I do think to fire him is a little harsh, but not unjustified.

I think the issue is that if they DO transfer him to another job that doesn't require a valid DL, that sets a precedence that Burnaby wants to avoid!

The guy is losing more then his job, he doesn't deserve to lose his life (not death but house family etc) because he got pulled over and refused to do a breathalyser test. It doesn't even state that it was actually proven that he was over the limit. I thought innocent until proven guilty was how it worked here? Guess not.

No time when you could be saving money gardening right? i respect your opinion though. Gordon Campbell got the same punishment as you or I would if we had done the same thing (in hawaii). Because he's the premier of BC, he should've been punished harder, as he should've known better. In terms of the law, the public should be at baseline, and people like gordon should be scrutinized harder because their job happens to be a public figure role

It is part of the motor vehicle act that refusing a breathalizer is like failing one, other wise no one would ever take the breathalizer test. He would have (or should have) been informed of his when he refused the test, while his car was being towed away.

I still have yet to have found a single reason why anyone would refuse a test except that they were so drunk they were afraid they'd get worse charges or they were so drunk they couldn't understand the reprocussions.

He could of thought he would of blown over the limit but might not of. IF he wasn't informed about what happens when you refuse a test then his charges should be revoked as thats like a cop not telling you your rights as your being arrested.

if they transfer him, they would have to cut his wage, why would the city want to pay the guy a drivers wage to do yard work, then the guy would be suing the city cause he got a wage cut

guy should have just taken the risk and blown, maybe he would have blown a .07

This is the point: if you know getting busted for something has the potential to fuck up your job, you just don't do it. Not a difficult concept. And after the amount of publicity so far, he can't possibly claim that he didn't know about the tougher penalties.

From what I get out of that article, he's not being fired for being busted... and it's nothing to do with whether or not he has a valid DL.

Besides the principle of the thing, it would be hideously expensive for the city do this... all for the sake of one person's screw-up.

i guess i should chime in here since i work with this man.


theres more to this story then meets the eye.


yes, he was caught drunk driving OFF work, and the city of burnaby will not install a 100 breathalizer units in all trucks he may use.

and as it says in the province our unnion rep "rick kotar" said "its not like theres just labour jobs everywhere to hand out" (not exact words, i cant remember his exact words when i read the paper this morning...but you know what i mean)

well, the thing is, a few months ago, before xmas, a burnaby parks dept. worker was caught drinking and driving off work hours...but, he was driving in a burnaby pick up truck (certain people are allowed to take the work trucks home on weekends in case they need to be called ouit for emergencys and such) and he was handed a labour position after that...nothing to even think about...they just gave him a different job in the same dept.

now like i said, i know ken, and when i worked in sanitation with him (im in waterworks dept now) there are a few jobs wich do not involve driving!!! example, 1 crew consisting of the lowest workers on the totem pole (least seniority) all cram into a 5 seater truck, and drive around cleaning out alley ways, the sides of roads like lougheed hwy, and do basic garbage pick up calls. eg - someone dumps a couch in a cul de sac...this crew would go there and take it. i did that job for 3 years...not once was i ever driving! they can easily put him there!

of course this is all bias cause i know him...

btw our union rep rick kotar....i would rather stick needles in my eyes then have him back me up on a case....he has a track record of something like 1 win and 500 losses..

Thanks Stewie for your input.

If the city HAS a history of relocating workers for drinking and driving then they should be consistent in doing so and relocate him. They need to define their position and apply it fairly across the board.

Also the asshat who was drinking and driving IN a city of burnaby truck should be fired. If I was a BBY resident I would be yelling at the mayor for that.

Anyone I investigated for impaired driving was told at least twice, once while they were seated in their vehicle, then taken to the back seat of the PC and read the "DEMAND" that they MUST forthwith, provide a sample suitable for analysis at roadside. They were then asked "...do you understand?" If they said no, then it was explained again that they were legally required to provide that sample...or suffer the consequences...and that the end result of refusing to provide that sample was the same as if they blew over the limit.

Someone who drives for a living should decide what the consequences are, legally, civially and financially, if they choose to refuse to provide that sample. If you are not impaired and the RSD shows it, then you are on your way. if you refuse, then you have volunteered for everything you get. I have never heard a defence lawyer tell a client to refuse to provide. If there is some sort of procedural problem then the case will get tossed out of court. To refuse is just stupid and you remove almost any possibilty of beating the consequences.

Soooooooooooooooo if my job requires me to drive, I should first make sure I am working in a union, just in case I get caught drunk driving off work hours and lose my license for 3 months. :fullofwin:

Bahahahaha!

So long as the DEMAND has been read and the subject understands it, that is all that is needed. The next question can be "will you provide a sample?" If the person answers "no" the crime has been committed. There is no requirement to tell the person this penalty is the same as that penalty and blah blah blah and then repeat 4 times because the guy is drunk.

Not knowing Refusal is an offence (ignorance) is also not a valid defence to the issue.

Im pretty sure you mean file a greivance with the union, I dont think you can sue people that easily in Canada. But if the different job came with a lower wage, that wage is in the collective agreement, so theres really nothing to greive.

Silly guy.

You drive drunk and get pulled over. Right when you stop you toss the keys out the window across the street if need be. Get out and face the cop car. Then proceed to chug down a mickey. Bingo Bango you solved your problem.

About the other person caught driving with the Burnaby Parks truck. What actually happened to him? You say drunk driving, but there are different "levels". Was he over or under the limit? Did he get a 24hr roadside or something worse? You can't compare the two unless he blew over the limit, which is the same penalty as refusing a sample.


All the officers I've ever talked to about this said the same thing. They don't warn the driver once, they do it twice (or even more) to be sure. Especially if the driver is intoxicated - anyone who's ever talked to a drunk knows it can be difficult to get something through to them. I don't think any officer wants the possibility of the charges getting thrown out over not properly explaining things to the driver.

Thanks for filling us in. However, 2 things come to mind.

1. Just because you broke the law and can't do your job, doesn't mean your employer is obligated to find you a new job.
2. Maybe it's City of Burnaby policy that everybody on the crew can drive? Just as an emergency situation thing.
3. If he was a really good employee, the City would have found him another job, rather than using this as an excuse to get rid of him.

I'm the type who always thinks outside the box. :eek5:

Does anybody know WHY (maybe stewie) he would go to the media about his situation? He has zero support from the public, his union agrees that he was wrong and the city is justified in not wanting to install interlock devices. What sort of sympathy was the guy expecting for being caught drinking and driving? What sort of help can the media provide?

The story is probably true but it seems kind of fishy. Who would publicly expose their situation knowing they would be slandered? He could get transfered within the city and people would never know about. Tons of people have been caught driving and driving over the years and have lost their jobs. Why does this story get coverage?

Anything under .08 gets a warn.

Which will get you a DUI.