[TheNewGirl]

A Port Coquitlam man expects to lose his job after feeling the weight of B.C.’s new drunk-driving laws.

Ken Prosser is, for now, employed as a truck driver for the City of Burnaby, but he’s not doing any driving. On Jan. 29 he was pulled over by police in Port Moody while off work. He refused to blow into a breathalyzer.

That decision earned him the same administrative punishment of a legally drunk driver who blows over .08: fines, fees, a 90-day licence suspension and a one-year, post-suspension requirement that any vehicle he drives be equipped with an ignition-interlock device.

The latter imposition has proved to be Prosser’s undoing. Interlock devices require an alcohol-free breath to allow the car to start. City of Burnaby officials aren’t keen to see any such devices on the 40 or so garbage, recycling or dump trucks Prosser might operate.

“The city has said straight up that we cannot allow these things to be stuck on our vehicles,” said Prosser, 38.

Fines and fees will end up costing around $5,000, and Prosser’s lost almost $7,000 in wages since he was immediately suspended from driving for 90 days after refusing to blow on the breathalyzer.

“I’m not trying to downplay the severity of drinking and driving,” Prosser said. “The penalties, I deserve it.”

But Prosser believes he has been unjustly hit with an extra punishment because of what he does for a living.

“I don’t even have a speeding ticket on my licence,” he said. “I’m being told now that I’m not going to have my job. I’m about to lose my career, my job, for a first-time person who was pulled over. The crime does not fit the punishment.”

Richmond lawyer David Baker, who specializes in drunk-driving cases, said a person in Prosser’s position cannot escape the consequences, including the ignition-interlock.

“You can’t fight any of this,” Baker said of the administrative sanctions enshrined in law last year, which have eliminated most drunk-driving criminal charges in favour of immediate penalties initiated by police at the roadside.

The Motor Vehicle Act specifies that the personal circumstances of people falling afoul of the law cannot be considered in relation to punishment, Baker said.

“The guy who drives for a living and who’s going to lose his house because he’s not going to make his mortgage payments, who’s going to lose his job, he can’t bring that up,” Baker said. “The statute does not allow the adjudicators to consider that.”

The City of Burnaby — which did not respond by deadline for comment — has said Prosser could keep his job if he were not required to use an interlock while working, said Rick Kotar, president of Prosser’s union, CUPE Local 23.

Moving Prosser into a labourer’s position for the year of his interlock requirement would open up a “Pandora’s box” for the city, Kotar said.

“There aren’t just a whole bunch of labouring jobs just hanging around,” Kotar said. “You do it for one guy, how many guys do you just slog into a labouring position if they lose their licence?

“He was hired as a driver. He’s unable to do his job as required, and that’s not through anybody’s fault but his own.”

Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/news/Truck+driver+risks+losing+over+licence+suspension/4479950/story.html#ixzz1HHnroqwg



I don't get what the guy's whining about. If you work with your hands you don't stick them in a blender on your free time. If you're a model you don't tattoo your face when you're off work. If you're a politician you can't post pictures on face book of yourself getting drunk with teenagers.

The shit you do in your free time, effects your job.

[Vansterdam]

going to be an interesting case

[El Bastardo]

QQ more asshole.

Notice how he cries about his job but doesn't address the drunk driving accusation?

[vafanculo]

I say too damn bad. It is a pretty extreme case for him to be in, but lets face it, his night could have gone the other extreme, and killed a family of 4.

Drinking and driving is against the law. You wouldnt expect a highschool principle to keep his job if he was found with child pornography.

He did this to himself, and can only blame himself.

GG

[murd0c]

What a winy bitch. He was driving drunk and got caught. He should suck it up rather then being a big baby. I hope he loses his license for a year.

[gars]

The title should be changed to "Truck Driver to lose job because he was caught driving drunk"

Interesting that the union isn't really backing him up either.

[baggdis300]

why would they?

he broke a LAW and now has to face the punishment just like everyone else.

[BNR32_Coupe]

I don't get what the guy's whining about. If you work with your hands you don't stick them in a blender on your free time. If you're a model you don't tattoo your face when you're off work. If you're a politician you can't post pictures on face book of yourself getting drunk with teenagers.

oo oo, i got one! if you don't want to get sexually harassed, don't wear slutty clothes and flirt in the office

[2damaxmr2]

QQ moar.

[nns]

I didn't realize refusing to blow into a breathalyzer would mean an automatic 90-day license suspension.

The article didn't state he was driving drunk, causing him to be suspended. It says:
On Jan. 29 he was pulled over by police in Port Moody while off work. He refused to blow into a breathalyzer.

That decision earned him the same administrative punishment of a legally drunk driver who blows over .08: fines, fees, a 90-day licence suspension and a one-year, post-suspension requirement that any vehicle he drives be equipped with an ignition-interlock device.

Fines and fees will end up costing around $5,000, and Prosser’s lost almost $7,000 in wages since he was immediately suspended from driving for 90 days after refusing to blow on the breathalyzer.


BTW, I don't support drinking and driving. I figured they would take him to the station or something to do some other test to determine his alcohol level. Instead, they just immediately deemed he was guilty and penalized him.

[baggdis300]

thats the law.

refuse a breath sample, then your considered guilty of said charges.

[nns]

If that's the case, I hope he was advised during the stop that if he refused the breathalyzer, he would be penalized.

However, if the guy did not know before the stop, nor was he informed during the traffic stop, I think he deserves some sympathy.

[Soundy]

http://dalmationmusic.net/images/Animated%20Violin.gif

[Nlkko]

He should not only lose his job. They should have given him a pat on the back for "never been pulled over" then arrested him on scene, impounded his truck, throw his ass in jail. What a little bitch!

If he drives for a living, he should know better. To think he could have killed someone else's family driving drunk.

[fliptuner]

KNOW THE RULES IF YOU WANT TO PLAY THE GAME!!!

dumbass...

[TheNewGirl]

If that's the case, I hope he was advised during the stop that if he refused the breathalyzer, he would be penalized.

However, if the guy did not know before the stop, nor was he informed during the traffic stop, I think he deserves some sympathy.

I imagine this will be the issue at hand if it goes to trial. I believe they ARE obligated to tell you that by refusing a breathalizer you face the full consequences. I wonder why the hell he wouldn't take it, was he so drunk he thought he'd blow a FAIL? He's going to face the same penalty, I'm not sure why anyone would refuse.

[Soundy]

I imagine this will be the issue at hand if it goes to trial. I believe they ARE obligated to tell you that by refusing a breathalizer you face the full consequences. I wonder why the hell he wouldn't take it, was he so drunk he thought he'd blow a FAIL? He's going to face the same penalty, I'm not sure why anyone would refuse.

We don't know that he wasn't informed, at least not based on the article as quoted. Possible he was too blasted to grasp the consequences (in which case he deserves no sympathy from anyone, not even sebberry).

[Gt-R R34]

I imagine this will be the issue at hand if it goes to trial. I believe they ARE obligated to tell you that by refusing a breathalizer you face the full consequences. I wonder why the hell he wouldn't take it, was he so drunk he thought he'd blow a FAIL? He's going to face the same penalty, I'm not sure why anyone would refuse.

Doubt it would go to trial. Above said it pretty clearly, the statue's in place.

This is really the point of - know what you do for a living, and don't f- around with it.

You a cook, don't put poison in the food.
You a lawyer, don't go breaking laws
you a doctor, don't go giving the wrong med knowingly to ppl.

You know what you do. Don't Fuck around.

[quasi]

What a dumbass. The laws are the same for everybody and if you don't want to lose your licence don't drink and drive. I don't know any sober people who would refuse to blow considering the reprocutions. Time for him to find a new job, one near a bus route.

[MG1]

The laws are the same for everybody

http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb75/89blkcivic/Misc/p__mugshot-gordon-campbell-copy-200x300.jpg :fullofwin:

[BNR32_Coupe]

http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb75/89blkcivic/Misc/p__mugshot-gordon-campbell-copy-200x300.jpg :fullofwin:

ooo 89blkcivic chimes in with the limp-kick as usual! nice low blow on that dead horse, buddy. pretty witty stuff you got there

[Mr.HappySilp]

His own fault. He knew what he does for a living yet decided to risk it.

[The_AK]

oo oo, i got one! if you don't want to get sexually harassed, don't wear slutty clothes and flirt in the office

especially this one, at the club

[MG1]

ooo 89blkcivic chimes in with the limp-kick as usual! nice low blow on that dead horse, buddy. pretty witty stuff you got there

First of all, I'm not your buddy. I don't know what your problem is, but I really don't think you've made a lot of friends on RS. Now just be a nice little boy and go away. I have no time for you.

[Greenstoner]

fucking right! bastard deserves to lose his job.... keep driving drunk bitches !!!!!!!

[Soundy]

First of all, I'm not your buddy. I don't know what your problem is, but I really don't think you've made a lot of friends on RS. Now just be a nice little boy and go away. I have no time for you.


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.

[MG1]

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.

[Gumby]

The shit you do in your free time, effects your job.
Affect. :)

Edit: :bluemad:

[Soundy]

Affect. :)

AffectS (just in case you were wAndering).

[hotjoint]

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

[Jayhall]

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.

[Gumby]

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!

[bloodmack]

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.

[BNR32_Coupe]

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.

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

[TheNewGirl]

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.

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.

[bloodmack]

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.

[Klobbersaurus]

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.

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

[Soundy]

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.
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.

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.
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.

That decision earned him the same administrative punishment of a legally drunk driver who blows over .08: fines, fees, a 90-day licence suspension and a one-year, post-suspension requirement that any vehicle he drives be equipped with an ignition-interlock device.

The latter imposition has proved to be Prosser’s undoing. Interlock devices require an alcohol-free breath to allow the car to start. City of Burnaby officials aren’t keen to see any such devices on the 40 or so garbage, recycling or dump trucks Prosser might operate.

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.

[stewie]

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..

[TheNewGirl]

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.

[zulutango]

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.

[bengy]

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..

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:

[Nightwalker]

Interlock devices require an alcohol-free breath to allow the car to start. City of Burnaby officials aren’t keen to see any such devices on the 40 or so garbage, recycling or dump trucks Prosser might operate.

Bahahahaha!

[Acuracura]

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.

[Jayhall]

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

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.

[GabAlmighty]

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.

[dangonay]

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


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.


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.

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.

[Culverin]

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


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.
Maybe it's City of Burnaby policy that everybody on the crew can drive? Just as an emergency situation thing.
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.

[adambomb]

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?

[SpuGen]

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

Anything under .08 gets a warn.

Which will get you a DUI.

[optiblue]

I don't drive for a living, but I no longer drink when I'm out if i have to drive. Since he drives for a living, he should have played it even more safe than myself IMO. My cousin is an eye surgeon and although he loves seafood, he won't touch crabs or lobsters at resturaunts in fear of cutting up his hands.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Soundy]

http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/200168_10150469952635377_212641675376_17758397_421 0302_n.jpg

[Elements604]

The crime simply does not fit the punishment. The law does not state that he should loose his career ontop all the expensive fines. Im sure everyone here has done something against the law at one point or another, imagine loosing your career over it. All I see here is one sided posts of he deserves it with out knowing all the details.

There is obviously a flaw in the whole imobolizer system if the city isnt making it possible to install it on the work vehichles. There should be another method for people who work.

[bengy]

The crime simply does not fit the punishment. The law does not state that he should loose his career ontop all the expensive fines. Im sure everyone here has done something against the law at one point or another, imagine loosing your career over it. All I see here is one sided posts of he deserves it with out knowing all the details.

There is obviously a flaw in the whole imobolizer system if the city isnt making it possible to install it on the work vehichles. There should be another method for people who work.

Are you 12 or just trolling?

There is no flaw with the BAC immobilizer system. They won't put it on the trucks because A: it's expensive, and B: it sends the message that they tolerate drinking and driving!

The law states that you lose your license for 3 months if you drink and drive.

If your job depends on you driver's license, don't drink and drive.

[Soundy]

The law doesn't state that you should lose your career if you murder someone, either, but guess what?

[Jayhall]

what if he paid to have all the trucks outfitted with the blow me device?? I kind of doubt that they would need to put the device on EVERY truck. In most of my experience most workers who drive usually drive the same truck from day to day.

[Soundy]

Well, this is from the Yukon government's website (http://www.community.gov.yk.ca/dcb/aiip_facts.html#7), but I would expect BC to similar:

The interlock devices are leased from the service provider who sets the fees. The service provider charges $200 for the installation/de-installation of the device. In addition, there is a $125 monthly fee for monitoring and monthly service of the device.

So let's see... 40 trucks, $200 each... that's $8,000 to install them, and $5,000 *per month* to monitor and maintain. He'd be further ahead just to quit.

And legally, yes, I think they would insist it be on every vehicle that he MIGHT need to drive in his employment.

[Ronin]

If Charlie Sheen can't fuck hookers, snort coke and call his boss an idiot and keep his job...then there's no way this guy should be able to drive drunk and keep his.

[Klobbersaurus]

Well, this is from the Yukon government's website (http://www.community.gov.yk.ca/dcb/aiip_facts.html#7), but I would expect BC to similar:



So let's see... 40 trucks, $200 each... that's $8,000 to install them, and $5,000 *per month* to monitor and maintain. He'd be further ahead just to quit.

And legally, yes, I think they would insist it be on every vehicle that he MIGHT need to drive in his employment.

you forgot the cost to train all the employees of the trucks to learn how to blow into one of those things, i've had to do it to a customers car to get it to start once, took me approx 30min to get the thing to work properly

[observer]

The problem, is the bad law. Guilty until proven innocent. We give the police too much power on selective enforcement.

Of course the man would go to the press, why not, it's all about political lobbying. Those with the means brainwash and campaign for their own interests.

[Soundy]

The problem, is the bad law. Guilty until proven innocent. We give the police too much power on selective enforcement.
Er... there's not much to prove here: he was required to provide a breath sample, and he didn't. What's the argument? "Your honour, I actually DID blow into the breathalyzer and the cop is mistaken"?

Of course the man would go to the press, why not, it's all about political lobbying. Those with the means brainwash and campaign for their own interests.
Uh... wat?

[zulutango]

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?


It got coverage because the city was being forced to install the interlocks at taxpayer expense because of his choice to drink and drive...because the unions got involved.....and maybe because water cooler talk about how somebody could "just not get it" and expect others to cover up bad choices? Just a guess. The fact that we are talking about something as straightforward as "don't drink and drive, get caught and whine when you do"
proves them right.

[zulutango]

The problem, is the bad law. Guilty until proven innocent.

Not exactly, Police have a duty to investigate impaired drivers...even the supreme court said our rights could be over ruled because of the danger they cause. This is not about a .05 or .08 reading causing him to loose an impounded vehicle...this is about him refusing to provide a sample. . Long before Police had roadside screening devices they investigated impaired drivers. They need grounds to do so. When you refused to go back and provide a breathalizer sample, you were charged with refusal to provide a sample. I was doing this back in the early 1980s. Nothing new.


We give the police too much power on selective enforcement.



This is nothing to do with selective enforcement unless you call removing impaired drivers from the roads selective enforcement? ...or looking into cars to see if they are wearing their seatbelts, or using Radar or Laser to monitor their speeds.[


Of course the man would go to the press, why not, it's all about political lobbying. Those with the means brainwash and campaign for their own interests.

I agree with you on that. He doesn't accept his punishment.

[Marco911]

You're Fired! Next...

[Culverin]

I wish they could start taking a stronger stance against the police like this.

[stewie]

what if he paid to have all the trucks outfitted with the blow me device?? I kind of doubt that they would need to put the device on EVERY truck. In most of my experience most workers who drive usually drive the same truck from day to day.

city works differently, theres about 30 garbage trucks, hes not assigned to one specific truck, every day hes on a different one.

im pretty sure the only reason ken went to the papers with this is because a few years ago a foreman ended up needing one of the blow devices in a vehicle and the city rigged his truck with one.

[bengy]

Next up: rigging interlock devices in police cruisers :fullofwin:

[Soundy]

^Only required in West Van...

[OTG-ZR2]

I have no sympathy for this individual.
If your job is based on your license, why bother to risk it?


If I lose my license, I lose my job....Not worth the one night of drinking.

[vafanculo]

I have no sympathy for this individual.
If your job is based on your license, why bother to risk it?


If I lose my license, I lose my job....Not worth the one night of drinking.

Exactly. I work in a call center. If I lose my license, I bus to work. If I lived in a country where the consequence for theft is losing your hand, I probably wouldn't steal.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Soundy]

You can still answer the phone with your elbows... :troll:

[Jayhall]

If I lose my license, I lose my job....Not worth the one night of drinking.

a night of drinking is ace in my books, just dont drive home after and everyone is happy. The closest bar to my house is $6.70 cents away.

[hotjoint]

I have no sympathy for this individual.
If your job is based on your license, why bother to risk it?


If I lose my license, I lose my job....Not worth the one night of drinking.

:werd:

[fliptuner]

You can still answer the phone with your nubs/hook... :troll:

fixed

[baggdis300]

city works differently, theres about 30 garbage trucks, hes not assigned to one specific truck, every day hes on a different one.

im pretty sure the only reason ken went to the papers with this is because a few years ago a foreman ended up needing one of the blow devices in a vehicle and the city rigged his truck with one.

yeah, the foremen is HARDER to replace/ train than a simple garbage truck driver that pretty much anyone with the proper license can operate, and they switch trucks. Unlike the foremen that usually gets to take his truck home.

[falcon]

I have a friend who is here for a year from Japan. He is still shocked that people even drive after one beer. We went out to a pub and when we left he asked how we were going to get home. That was after only one beer for me and I was the one driving. Incase you don't know, Japan has ZERO tolerance for drinking and driving.

[BillyBishop]

Notice how he cries about his job but doesn't address the drunk driving accusation?

“I’m not trying to downplay the severity of drinking and driving,” Prosser said. “The penalties, I deserve it.”

[EatDog]

Key words here. "City" and "Driver"

This means he has a strong union and is overpaid for his services. He has a Grade 12 education at most.

Anecdotal story: I was at a Blenz on a weekday for 3+ hours (for legit reasons, for a meeting) and next to me were two young, able-bodied but extremely lazy looking young men. Both of them didn't say a word the entire time, just basked in the sun, not even buying a coffee. No sooner did i wonder "why haven't these guys got a job" did a City truck pull up and the driver asked "how's your break going?"

The words "city worker" need to be replaced with "extortion racket"

[stewie]

Key words here. "City" and "Driver"

This means he has a strong union and is overpaid for his services. He has a Grade 12 education at most.

Anecdotal story: I was at a Blenz on a weekday for 3+ hours (for legit reasons, for a meeting) and next to me were two young, able-bodied but extremely lazy looking young men. Both of them didn't say a word the entire time, just basked in the sun, not even buying a coffee. No sooner did i wonder "why haven't these guys got a job" did a City truck pull up and the driver asked "how's your break going?"

The words "city worker" need to be replaced with "extortion racket"


i happen to be a city worker, are you trying to say were lazy and have grade 12 educations and overpaid? cause if so....you are highly mistaken