Actually, when I worked for a company that was headquartered in California, our HR Director told us that being an alcoholic was considered a “protected class”. I mean you can’t just show up drunk, run to HR yelling “SANCTUAAARY!!!” There is presumably some process where you need to make a declaration to HR and demonstrate that you are getting treatment. I don’t know the details.
I believe if you drank a lot, it can actually come out of your pores.
I think this is a bit of a class indicator in modern society. If you work a blue collar job, chances are your company may have a zero tolerance policy regarding alcohol in the workplace which could result in immediate dismissal. However at pretty much any tech firm I’ve worked at, drinking is often actively encouraged in the form of after work happy hours or alcohol served towards the end of a workday on a Friday or before a company meeting. And if I walk into a Capital Grille in New York around lunch time, I see a lot of guys in suits with drinks.
Now some of it is based on safety, as blue collar workers tend to work with machines and dangerous equipment. But in my observations, it seems consistent that the less money you make, the more controlling and intolerant employers tend to be of their employees.
They have every right to fire you at any time for any reason outside of “protected class”. Doesn’t matter if you’re sober or drunk. They’re using the fact you were hung over as an excuse, but really, you have no recourse.
I’m sorry.
Worse yet, I seriously doubt you will be able to collect unemployment. By all means, make the attempt, but don’t be surprised if “any alcohol at all in system” is sufficient reason to deny you the UI.
Nonsense. You don’t need to be an alcoholic to have alcohol in your blood. You just need to drink alcohol. There’s a large difference between drinking alcohol (even a lot of it) and being an alcoholic. As long as you aren’t dependant, you aren’t an alcoholic.
Right. I’d say if anything in the OP is a sign of possible alcoholism, it’s getting that trashed on a work night. Drinking interfering with work or other responsibilities is always among the top questions in any assessment test.
While this incident unquestionably interfered with work, the next question should be if “interferes with work” is a one-time thing or a regular pattern.
It’s a very rare person who has NEVER screwed up at least once. The real problem is the people who are chronic screw-ups.
True, but we don’t know if this is a one time thing or a pattern. I have to admit to a similar experience the morning after my 30th birthday. 23 years later, and it’s never happened again. I didn’t get fired. And, in fact, just left early and went back to bed.
If you get so plowed *on a night before work *that you blow a .019 when you finally get to the hospital at roughly 10:00 a.m., and you pass it off as just “being hungover”, there is a pretty strong chance that you are an alcoholic. And a very small chance you are not.
If you lose your job because you stink of alcohol and are hungover, there is a strong chance you are an alcoholic.
You guys aren’t doing the OP any favors by helping him rationalize. He’s doing that plenty well by himself. He needs to stop losing his job(s) by showing up shit-faced.
I agree somewhat. 1) he doesn’t seem to realize he was out of line, 2) the employer didn’t cut him any slack, which makes me wonder if there are ongoing issues, and 3) assuming he stopped drinking at 2:00 a.m., he must have had a pretty high BAC.
However, as posted above, I wouldn’t conclude he is an alcoholic just from what we know.
You’re assuming this is a recurring problem when, based on the information given, we have zero way of knowing that.
If it happens once the person should learn from the experience and not repeat it.
If it happens on a regular basis that’s a different story.
Frankly, I don’t see anyone “helping” him “rationalize” this. It’s been made pretty clear he has no legal recourse. Several people have told him he should have called in sick rather than shown up hung over. A couple of us have pointed out that if this is more than a one-time occurrence that is a sign of a problem. None of that strikes me as overly sympathetic.
15-20 years ago, that is the way we would have handled it. We would have done a workplace intervention, essentially, with the employee and his or her supervisor. We would have allowed them to continue working, but they’d have been put on probation until they completed a anti-alcohol program. Then, if they kept their nose clean going foreward, it would never have been mentioned again.
But a few years back, the responsibility to address alcohol issues was put back on the shoulders of the employee. Employers started offering EAPs (Employee Assistance Programs), which an employee is supposed to contact if they have any personal issues impacting their job performance. A kind-hearted supervisor can quietly send an employee home, if it’s a valued employee with a one-time issue, but once an incident is reported to management, we have to uphold the zero tolerance policy and let the employee go.
Aside from it being ‘the right thing to do’ keeping controlled substances out of the workplace, zero tolerance has a very pragmatic side. Your insurance rates skyrocket if a workplace incident is determined to have been caused by an employee impaired by alcohol or street drugs. And sadly, concern for the bottom line will outweigh concern for an employee every time.
And to the poster above who called me on the right-to-work and at-will distinction, you got me. I called someone out last week for that very mistake. Karma is a bitch.
