Comments on: Worker fired for drinking is reinstated because of printer malfunction

By: Bob

Bob — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:56:25 +0000

to “LEU disregard my earlier post”

Maybe someone should have tested the tester?

By: Gary Moor

Gary Moor — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:53:23 +0000

Thanks Jay. You are absolutely correct. Do what is right and let the chips fall where they may.

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:33:27 +0000

Jay, buddy, it’s your world. We’re all just livin in it.

Kudos!

By: GT

GT — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:36:46 +0000

What should have been done was to have the employee escorted to a medical facility that is able to screen for drugs/alcohol after the field equipment showed that he was not in compliance. The results of the lab would have been enough documentation to enforce the termination

By: Jay

Jay — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:30:38 +0000

Public or private employer, with or without a printout, the depositions from breathalzyer operator, anyone who witnessed him “not dispute it”, and anyone else involved provides adequate testimony. Violation of Drug Free Work Place is grounds for discipline up to and including discharge in any workplace. Further: OSH Act Section 5(a)(1) states “Each employer shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or likely to cause death or serious physcial harm to employees.” Reporting to work twice with prohibited substances in his system is a recognized hazard.
Quit living in fear of lawsuits. Fight when you’re right. If you don’t, don’t complain when everyone knows to get their way by exploiting your fear. Fire his ass, force HIM to make the choice to take it to court, let the court system drag it on for months, years while he is out of work and no income, appeal an unacceptable decision, report the absurdity of his position to a sympathetic or deadline hungry reporter.

By: LEU

LEU — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:05:29 +0000

Brenda – I agree with you on principle, however, you’re talking about government here, and it is so difficult to fire someone WITH the goods, let alone the missing required printout. As long as our elected officials permit these specious regulations and technicalities to exist – the problems will continue. Just like the recent case about the guy in NY working for several years doing nothing

It’s government – and we read about these situations all the time. Although the private sector isn’t immune to these – one rarely reads about them.

By: Brenda

Brenda — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:01:24 +0000

Folks, at the end of the day right makes might. Whether or not there was a technicality issue with the receipt, the person has twice been at work under the influence of alcohol or drugs. This is unacceptable! This is a fight I would fight. I would fight it for the taxpayers who are paying this person a full salary and benefits when he doesn’t even deserve the privelege of having said job and I would also fight the fight for the culture of the organization. A strong message needs to be sent that anyone who comes to work under the influence of drugs or alcohol will not have a place in that organization. The taxpayers desreve better. His coworkers deserve better. His employer deserves better. This tiger is obviously not going to change his stripes. Give the job to someone who is excited to have the opportunity and who takes service to their community more seriously.

By: John

John — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:41:20 +0000

Gary

I understand. And I also would not put the employee back in a driver’s seat. I think what you suggest would be the next safest and smartest thing to do.

Just to give a little background on me and “what if’s”. I am a long term emergency service provider. I have been a police officer, medical technician, firefighter, tactical fire suppression officer and now the HR guy of a fire department. Many things have happened in my past that could have prevented forward movement based on the potential of “what if”. Then there were the situations that had me question “what if” for many years. I have had to explain to a surviving spouse a loved ones death while being questioned about what if this or that were different. I tell you what, I agree that is not a place you or I want to be.

I am not suggesting to anyone on this board that may have to face such a tough decision as this case presents that it would be unwise to consider a potential. Just that the potential must be handled in accord with policy and law. You did that and I appreciate what you and the others have said.

By: Gary Moor

Gary Moor — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:26:08 +0000

John: No emotions involved in my comments. An employer has a responsibility for the saftey of the people who work there. Allowing a person who has been caught operating heavy equipment twice to continue to operate that equipment is simply irresponsible. I personally would not want to explain to the surviving spouse why we allowed someone kill their loved one when we knew there was a safety issue. Put the offender on another job but do not allow this person to injure or kill someone.

The decision in this case, as any case, should not be determined by the actual results of driving while impaired but simply the fact that the driver was impaired. There is no what if.

By: Jackie T - SPHR

Jackie T - SPHR — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:10:53 +0000

LEU – You might want to read the article again…the cocaine test was July 07 and the alcohol test was Sept of the next year. Two different occasions.

Gary Moor, you are right on! Just hope it is not my family out there “next time” (and there is always a next time). Sometimes you just have to do the right thing.