[nfitz]

At my mom's work about 4 years ago, a worker came to work drunk was fired.

The Union threatened Job Action (well because he was a leader of the union) and well he is still there.

I'm in the private sector, and I don't think we'd fire someone simply for showing up drunk (we've had staff not show up, drunk ... and I'm talking found in a ditch and hospitalized drunk ... and we've had staff who need to drive, loose their licences). Rehab, counselling ... and they are productive employees. The question is why are they drinking? One who was in the office drunk was in so much physical pain from a medical problem, it was all they could do to get through the day ... that's not a firing offence ... that's disability.

We do however fire people for not working, falsifying documents, incompetancy, etc.

 

[Eug]

I'm in the private sector, and I don't think we'd fire someone simply for showing up drunk

My workplace has lots of public employees. They'd be fired if they showed up drunk... as they should be.

 

[Maggie]

I'm in the private sector, and I don't think we'd fire someone simply for showing up drunk (we've had staff not show up, drunk ... and I'm talking found in a ditch and hospitalized drunk ... and we've had staff who need to drive, loose their licences). Rehab, counselling ... and they are productive employees. The question is why are they drinking? One who was in the office drunk was in so much physical pain from a medical problem, it was all they could do to get through the day ... that's not a firing offence ... that's disability.

We do however fire people for not working, falsifying documents, incompetancy, etc.

So are you saying that they show up drunk and still work? If so you should revisit your corporate ethics especially if your in an industry that uses dangerous or hazardous materials.

 

[kEiThZ]

I'm in the private sector, and I don't think we'd fire someone simply for showing up drunk (we've had staff not show up, drunk ... and I'm talking found in a ditch and hospitalized drunk ... and we've had staff who need to drive, loose their licences). Rehab, counselling ... and they are productive employees. The question is why are they drinking? One who was in the office drunk was in so much physical pain from a medical problem, it was all they could do to get through the day ... that's not a firing offence ... that's disability.

We do however fire people for not working, falsifying documents, incompetancy, etc.

Wow, where do you work that employees aren't disciplined for showing up drunk? I get the compassion part. And I don't think employees would be fired if they had a real health issue and were self-medicating with alcohol. But I doubt that most places would tolerate that kind of self-treatment either, especially if the employee has access to rehab, counselling, etc. But one thing is for certain...you can be damn sure that in the private sector being on drugs while operating machinery would probably be a one strike and your out offence. But apparently that doesn't seem to apply to TTC employees (if you recall the various newspaper investigations into the on the job drug habits of TTC staff).

 

[afransen]

I know of private sector (though unionized) workplaces where not only is drug use a problem, but there is a substantial amount of trafficking occurring. Only part of the problem is union's resistance to dealing with the issue--a good chunk of it is privacy law preventing more heavy-handed approaches such as drug screening. I am fairly libertarian, but I do think employers have the right to screen employees for drug and alcohol use, especially when their job involves use of equipment that could endanger others.

 

[mangasparky]

I know of private sector (though unionized) workplaces where not only is drug use a problem, but there is a substantial amount of trafficking occurring. Only part of the problem is union's resistance to dealing with the issue--a good chunk of it is privacy law preventing more heavy-handed approaches such as drug screening. I am fairly libertarian, but I do think employers have the right to screen employees for drug and alcohol use, especially when their job involves use of equipment that could endanger others.

Care to elaborate for us?

What private sector unions? How are these unions resisting to deal with the issue? Are these union privacy laws?

I would assume a union membership would vote to institute a drug screening program. This would allow for proper addiction treatment and curb drug usage.

 

[Therion]

Generally companies have "three strikes and you're out" or a "if you do this again, you're done here" type of policy. The more progressive ones will pay for treatment for various addictions, but not forever. Certain public union contracts (teachers, for ex.) make it difficult to fire members for addiction issues.

 

[nfitz]

So are you saying that they show up drunk and still work? If so you should revisit your corporate ethics especially if your in an industry that uses dangerous or hazardous materials.

Good god no ... they'd be sent home. But it's unethical to fire someone simply for showing up drunk; what if it's a mental health issue? Then you just fired someone for being sick ... and that's not a route you want to go down. I'm not saying one wouldn't be fired for say a "Bright Lights, Big City" situation; but it's not simply 20 years of perfect service, shows up to work one day plastered, here's the pink slip. First you figure out why ... well first you sit down and give them all the contact information for the Employee Assistance Program. At least in a private workplace ... perhaps this is why you need unions in a government workplace?

Wow, where do you work that employees aren't disciplined for showing up drunk?

Of course they are disciplined; but discipline doesn't start with termination.

But one thing is for certain...you can be damn sure that in the private sector being on drugs while operating machinery would probably be a one strike and your out offence.

Yeah, we have some staff operating heavy machinery ... not many ... if they showed up drunk, it would likely be goodbye, that's a safety issue.

I am fairly libertarian, but I do think employers have the right to screen employees for drug and alcohol use, especially when their job involves use of equipment that could endanger others.

You might think that, but Canadian courts don't; we've never got our legal staff to sign off on that for Canadian employees; but we do it in the US where they employees have less rights. But trafficking? That's surprising, in any significant way; they might not be able to test your blood; but searching the premises is pretty easy.

 

[afransen]

Care to elaborate for us?

What private sector unions? How are these unions resisting to deal with the issue? Are these union privacy laws?

I would assume a union membership would vote to institute a drug screening program. This would allow for proper addiction treatment and curb drug usage.

Sorry, no. I won't be making any potentially libelous statements about particular firms or unions without documented evidence. I have heard first-hand accounts from people working in these environments. I'll tell you that one was a manufacturing environment, while the other is a consumer goods warehouse.

I didn't suggest that the unions have laws, since they don't. Employer mandated drug tests have been challenged on privacy grounds and have been difficult to defend.

I think your assumption is misguided--unions have a legal responsibility to defend their members from actions taken by the employer. Failure to do so exposes the union to potential liability.

 

[mangasparky]

think your assumption is misguided--unions have a legal responsibility to defend their members from actions taken by the employer. Failure to do so exposes the union to potential liability.

My assumption carries the same weight as your assumption. I believe that your distaste for unions is misguiding you.

Canadian Human Rights Commission:
http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/pdf/poldrgalceng.pdf

another article:
http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?section=article&articleid=932

I'm failing to understand how drug abuse and drug trafficking is a union workplace issue, rather than just a general workplace issue.

Here is one of those I know of statements for you. I know of a woman who was dismissed from her job because of a coccaine addiction, based on heavy handed threats and allegations from management that led to her own addmission. She was fired, her union fought it, won, and placed her into a full-time drug treatment program. She is now back to work and has her life together.

 

[afransen]

I think that is the responsibility of the state, not the employer. Perhaps that is where we differ. I'm of the mind that screwing over employers tends to make them less likely to employ people, wherever possible.

 

[Eug]

Good god no ... they'd be sent home. But it's unethical to fire someone simply for showing up drunk; what if it's a mental health issue?

It's unethical to show up for work drunk.

They're free to contest the firing, but nonetheless I'd often fire someone like that.

 

[nfitz]

It's unethical to show up for work drunk.

They're free to contest the firing, but nonetheless I'd often fire someone like that.

Well if you were running our HR, I'd move to have you fired, if it wasn't properly considered; that could cost a company a lot of money if not done carefully.

 

[Eug]

Well if you were running our HR, I'd move to have you fired, if it wasn't properly considered; that could cost a company a lot of money if not done carefully.

I'm glad you don't work here then.

It's pretty cut and dry... If you're drunk you're endangering other people (esp. in specific jobs), and that's grounds to be fired. Of course, there are always other considerations, but drunks at work simply should not be tolerated.

Being drunk at work in a position that can endanger others is a one-strike-and-you're-out type of offence.

But one thing is for certain...you can be damn sure that in the private sector being on drugs while operating machinery would probably be a one strike and your out offence.

Hmmm... It seems I'm repeating what's already been said, almost word for word, except with better spelling.

 

[pickleberry]

Being drunk at work in a position that can endanger others is a one-strike-and-you're-out type of offence.

Most of the places I have worked at cite intoxication at work as being an example of gross misconduct in the contract/employee handbook.

I'd imagine even if it's not specified in others, there is enough precedent out there to successfully argue in favour of an immediate first-time offence firing.

This is assuming the correct HR procedure is followed, of course.