If you get drunk on an airplane, forcing it to be diverted, should you lose your job?

[iamthewalrus_3]

@DianaG

I’m not focused on their location, per se. I’m focused on the level of bad behavior necessary to get a plane to make an unscheduled landing. That said, you behave that way in a bar, you’re certainly likely to be banned from that bar.

For a while, very possibly. For life? I doubt it, but maybe. For life from every bar? It’s a completely disproportionate response.

If they did it because they were too fucked up to drive, sure. Otherwise… really? No, really? You sure you don’t wanna try that one again, using a situation that bears some tiny bit of resemblance to the situation described in the OP?

My point here was that people do dumb reckless unsafe things that cause huge inconveniences to many more people with some regularity, but that we don’t usually consider a lifetime ban of that activity to be a reasonable response. I’m not sure why you think this is such an out-there example that it requires “really? No, really?” in response, but I’ll try to clarify why I think it’s a reasonable example. You said that part of the reason these jerkoffs deserve a lifetime ban is that they inconvenienced hundreds of people. So I provided a quite common case where even more people are inconvenienced through the fault of some asshole, but we don’t consider a lifetime ban on said asshole’s future participation in whatever system he provided the inconvenience to be an appropriate response. First time DUI arrests who cause a huge inconvenience (but don’t actually hurt anyone or cause any property damage) don’t get their licenses revoked for life.

I suspect a criminal penalty of being permanently grounded is unlikely, though it wouldn’t break my heart. Other than that, I think it’s up to the airlines, isn’t it? Is there some constitutional right to fly that I’m not aware of?

No, there’s no constitutional right to fly. Yes, it’s probably not a punishment that they will get, and to some extent it is up to the airlines.

None of that really pertains directly to my point, though, which is, and I’ll say it again: A lifetime ban on flying based on one incident is an excessive response. That’s the suggestion I initially responded to, and which as far as I can tell you are continuing to argue for.

I notice you didn’t care to respond to the bit about the nail clippers and tackling people for standing up. Do you agree with me that those are excessive responses?

[ShibbOleth]

@Declan

i agree with what happened to them, but personally myself the first thing I would be doing is lawyering up for the lawsuit against rim. They probably have something in their work place book, that says something about employee privacy. Since I have no idea about how different it is for the higher paygrades, I’d assume that it should not be all that different than mine, that my current employer can only say that I worked between x and y time frame and that the last position I held was z.

Executive implies to me, officer of the company (usually director or VP level or higher). Unfortunately I don’t recognize those names, so can’t say for sure, but someone could probably check an annual report. Net, those sorts of jobs don’t typically have the same sort of protections and of course have a lot more benefits than yours and mine.

Of course, Canadian law is different than American (or Irish or Chinese) law. So we’d need a Canadian legal person with HR background to give us a real idea.

[Typo_Negative]

@KarlGauss

In other words, a standard is being applied here based on their employer (RIM) and their executive status.

Maybe I’m dense, but I do not get this.

Yes, a standard is being applied but it’s RIM’s standard.

This has been said a couple of times but I will say again (or write, ya know)…If my name makes the papers for any reason that is unseemly, whether my company is mentioned or not, they are going to fire me. And they would be right. It shows incredibly bad judgment on a large scale. That means I am not the person they want.

(WARNING!!! Wild-ass speculation ahead!)
The plane was diverted and landed. That has to mean that pilot thought there was a threat. When reading it, I thought they must have been getting physical with the crew. I imagine that they got grabby with a flight attendant. Or got tired of each other and decided to duke it out Canuk-style.

[Spoons]

@ShibbOleth

Of course, Canadian law is different than American (or Irish or Chinese) law. So we’d need a Canadian legal person with HR background to give us a real idea.

Canadian lawyer here. Among my areas of practice is employment law and human rights law. These dovetail as we shall see; and I have represented both employers and employees in the courts and in human rights actions. I’ll take a stab at the legal issues–and only the legal issues, as I have no knowledge of RIM’s internal policies or procedures.

In a nutshell, it boils down to these questions:

1. Can RIM fire the employees for drinking or being drunk? No.

2. Can RIM fire the employees for causing such a disturbance that an airliner must make an unscheduled landing, costing passengers and the airline plenty, and damaging RIM’s good name? Yes.

Understand the Canadian employment context: there is no “at will” employment here. Employers can fire employees on the spot without notice only “for cause.” Those causes tend to be narrowly defined, but I would guess that what these guys did would fall within the narrow definition.

So why can’t RIM fire these guys for being drunk? Because an alcohol problem is covered under the protected grounds of all applicable human rights legislation. An alcohol problem is seen as a physical disability, so no employer who knows better will attempt to fire an employee because of a drinking problem. Doing so would expose the employer to a human rights action based on the protected ground of physical disability.

That does not mean, of course, that alcoholics get a free ride off Canadian employers, with the ability to be as drunk as they like on the job. They don’t.* Employers who wish to keep the employees will send them to treatment (as Muffin mentioned above); if they fail the program or backslide, they’re out. Or, employers might escalate warnings to the problem employee: an oral warning or two, then a couple of written ones; and at all times, let the employee know that they must seek treatment in a rehab facility or through AA or similar programs. Either way, if no change for the better is noticed, the employee is out. The key is twofold: (a), did the employee seek help and improve; and (b), did the employer document everything? The documentation is especially important, as it will prove to any court or human rights commission that the employer tried to help and/or implored the employee to seek help; and if the employee did not, the consequences were also stated. So if the employee did not respond appropriately (seeking help, etc.), he or she knew the consequences. The employer has protected itself against an unlawful dismissal lawsuit.

In RIM’s case, it would do well to let these guys go for causing a disturbance that reflected badly on the company and potentially cost it plenty of money. That seems to me to be a proper “for cause” reason for dismissal, and the guys can be let go. But RIM would similarly do well to mention nothing about alcohol. Doing so could open them up to a long, messy lawsuit, that might see these guys settle for something, when a “for cause” firing would prevent them settling for anything.

• Of course, employers can adopt zero-tolerance-to-alcohol policies for employees in safety-sensitive positions: motor vehicle operators, heavy equipment operators, locomotive engineers, airline pilots, and the like. But these RIM employees do not seem to fall into this category.

Note: My comments are based only on those facts that I have read in the media. The people in question are not my clients, and I have not communicated with them. There may be other facts that have not been reported in the media that could change my answer. Again, I have no knowledge of RIM’s policies or procedures, so my remarks cannot, and did not, comment on those.

[Oliveritaly]

@Icarus

From your description I fly at least as much as you and this is one of my pet peeves.

Not to pick on you specifically but I would really prefer that folks did not see airports and planes as drinking opportunities. In general, a lot of folks don’t hold their liquor as well as they think they do, and it affects their functioning in negative ways.

When I’m out in the world going about my daily business I shouldn’t expect to have to deal with people drunk out of their heads, and airports and planes should be in the same category.

Just sayin’

Certainly I’d never drive in the condition that I’ve boarded many planes but I can assure you that my ability to board, find my seat, stow my overhead baggage and finally sit down, shut up and buckle the safety belt has never been an issue. I didn’t mean to imply that I was at the point of loss of motor skills. My apologies.

I’d suspect, or at least hope, that my fellow passengers have no idea what, if anything, I’ve had to drink.

Finally I don’t see a plane as a drinking opportunity, usually. Sometimes I’ll have a beer but that’s rare. I honestly could care less if other passengers do drink, why not? As long as they keep their shit together what’s it to me.

But drinks before a long flight? You bet. Nine times out of 10 it’s (for me at least) a way to ensure that I’ll not wake up until touchdown.

The more I think about it though you’re right, visibly or verbally drunk passengers suck. There was one flight last winter, Philly to Chicago, where the guy next to me was tanked. So tanked he would not shut up. As we began our decent the idiot got out of his seat and went to the bathroom and vomited. The crew, rightfully so, was pretty pissed at him. I was just happy he’d finally shut up.

YMMV …

[Muffin]

@Declan

i agree with what happened to them, but personally myself the first thing I would be doing is lawyering up for the lawsuit against rim. They probably have something in their work place book, that says something about employee privacy.
. . .
At the very minimum, I would be suing Rim to cover what they are supposed to pay Air Canada for diverting that flight

The Washington Post reported that the men were fighting with the flight attendants, that it too the entire crew to subdue them, and that they were handcuffed to their seats. The Hamilton Spectator reported that the RIM employees were George Campbell, 45, a senior vice-president at RIM and Paul Alexander Wilson, 38, a vice-president. The Vancouver Sun reported the following: “‘RIM does not condone behaviour that conflicts with applicable laws. The individuals involved in this incident are no longer employed by RIM,’ said RIM in a brief statement.” Tom’s Guide reported the following: “‘RIM expects that its employees conduct themselves in a manner reflective of our strong principles and standards of business behavior,’ the Waterloo-based company said. ‘RIM does not condone behavior that conflicts with applicable laws and employees are expected to act, at all times, with integrity and respect.’”

Spoons has covered the employment and human rights aspect.

Privacy here is covered by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. (IAAL and used to give seminars on PIPEDA.) What it comes down to in this matter is whether RIM’s disclosure of the drunks’ personal information was reasonable in its course of business. At this time we don’t know all of what RIM might have disclosed, so it would be premature to guess as to whether or not RIM violated the act. If all that RIM disclosed about the drunks’ personal information was that they had been sacked, as would appear from the cites above, that would be reasonable. If RIM released the drunk’s employment incomes, or their street addresses, or their HR files, that would be unreasonable. Any comments that RIM made or may make that set out RIM’s opinion on the incident (e.g. statements saying that RIM does not condone illegal activity and that RIM expects its employess to act with integrity and respect) are not relevant to PIPEDA because such comments do not release company held records of personal information.

Since beating on flight attendants is not something even remotely related to the drunks’ jobs, I doubt if anyone (the drunks, the carrier, the crew, or the passengers) would have a cause of action againt RIM, so while you Declan might go after RIM for the cost of the criminal court ordered restitution, I wouldn’t.

Apart from all this, if I were one of the drunks, the last thing I would do would be to sue RIM. I’d be wanting to find a job, and I would expect that most employers would not want to hire someone who sued his former employer for his own misdeeds. As an employer, I would consider hiring someone who had a slip the way the drunks did, but there is no way in hell I would ever hire someone who launched a nuisance suit against their former employer.

[constanze]

@Spoons

That does not mean, of course, that alcoholics get a free ride off Canadian employers, with the ability to be as drunk as they like on the job. They don’t.*
snip

• Of course, employers can adopt zero-tolerance-to-alcohol policies for employees in safety-sensitive positions: motor vehicle operators, heavy equipment operators, locomotive engineers, airline pilots, and the like. But these RIM employees do not seem to fall into this category.

I only work in offices (and in Germany, not Canada, though with similar restrictions about firing and worker protection), and they usually all have a part in their contract about it being forbidden to be drunk on the job.*

While it’s true that alcoholism is classified now as disease and therefore, must be treated (like other disabilities that must be accomodated, or a long sick leave if somebody breaks his leg etc.), a person who’s drunk can’t simply pull the alcoholic card to get out of firing. If it’s just a single instance of being heavily drunk, I think (not a lawyer myself) that they would need to prove that they actually are alcoholic and not just jerks with a lack of self-control and common sense.

*Hijack: this actually was important several years ago when an employer in Bavaria forbid the sale of alcoholic drinks in his employee-cafeteria. The workers went to labour court to protest, arguing that beer is part of the Bavarian lifestyle and needs to accompany some foods, while the company argued that it was forbidden to be drunk on the job, so why sell alcohol in the employee cafeteria?

The court made an interesting ruling: yes, beer is indeed part of the bavarian lifestyle, so the sale of it shouldn’t be forbidden; but while the workers can do what they like during lunch break, once they return to their job, they must not be drunk. (The court didn’t say how the workers are to achieve this miracle - drinking alcohol-free beer is abomination to real beer drinkers, and taking 2-hour lunches is usually frowned upon by the company. Leaves only Friday afternoon to drink and leave early.).

[DianaG]

@iamthewalrus_3

For a while, very possibly. For life? I doubt it, but maybe. For life from every bar? It’s a completely disproportionate response.

In light of this

The Washington Post reported that the men were fighting with the flight attendants, that it too the entire crew to subdue them, and that they were handcuffed to their seats.

I’m really not sure it is.

My point here was that people do dumb reckless unsafe things that cause huge inconveniences to many more people with some regularity, but that we don’t usually consider a lifetime ban of that activity to be a reasonable response. I’m not sure why you think this is such an out-there example that it requires “really? No, really?” in response, but I’ll try to clarify why I think it’s a reasonable example. You said that part of the reason these jerkoffs deserve a lifetime ban is that they inconvenienced hundreds of people. So I provided a quite common case where even more people are inconvenienced through the fault of some asshole, but we don’t consider a lifetime ban on said asshole’s future participation in whatever system he provided the inconvenience to be an appropriate response. First time DUI arrests who cause a huge inconvenience (but don’t actually hurt anyone or cause any property damage) don’t get their licenses revoked for life.

I’d be entirely in favor of one DUI resulting in a lifetime suspension of driving privileges. Other than that, when people cause accidents it’s generally because they made one split second bad decision, not because they made a sustained effort to be assholes.

No, there’s no constitutional right to fly. Yes, it’s probably not a punishment that they will get, and to some extent it is up to the airlines.

None of that really pertains directly to my point, though, which is, and I’ll say it again: A lifetime ban on flying based on one incident is an excessive response. That’s the suggestion I initially responded to, and which as far as I can tell you are continuing to argue for.

Sometimes a person commits only a single incident of murder, but if it’s a really nasty one, the punishment is greater than it would otherwise be. The idea that a punishment is by definition excessive in response to “a single incident” is kind of silly. Depends on the incident. This one was especially egregious.

I notice you didn’t care to respond to the bit about the nail clippers and tackling people for standing up. Do you agree with me that those are excessive responses?

Sure they are. They’re ridiculous. But they’re also a ten year old reality, so no passes will be given.

[constanze]

@Oliveritaly

Certainly I’d never drive in the condition that I’ve boarded many planes but I can assure you that my ability to board, find my seat, stow my overhead baggage and finally sit down, shut up and buckle the safety belt has never been an issue. I didn’t mean to imply that I was at the point of loss of motor skills. My apologies.

I’d suspect, or at least hope, that my fellow passengers have no idea what, if anything, I’ve had to drink.

The problem with that attitude is that all studies show that the very first thing that is impaired by alcohol, before all others, is self-evaluation. You believe you are steadier, quicker etc. than you actually (as measured) are. So while you believe you’re still in control of yourself, walking normally and not showing anything, outside observers will see another drunk.

But drinks before a long flight? You bet. Nine times out of 10 it’s (for me at least) a way to ensure that I’ll not wake up until touchdown.

Why is that important, and why use alcohol? If you are afraid of flying, there are special seminars to help overcome that. If you are taking a lot of late-night flights, a mild sleeping pill would be much better.

A long-time flight is stressful for the body anyway - the cramped position, the dry air, the confined space - without adding alcohol that further dehydrates (increasing headaches afterwards). A sleeping pill and lots of water or juice would be far better for you.

The more I think about it though you’re right, visibly or verbally drunk passengers suck. There was one flight last winter, Philly to Chicago, where the guy next to me was tanked. So tanked he would not shut up. As we began our decent the idiot got out of his seat and went to the bathroom and vomited. The crew, rightfully so, was pretty pissed at him. I was just happy he’d finally shut up.

I’ve read enough stories of Dopers here about seat neighbours who won’t shut up (on planes, but also on buses or trains, even when people are reading or wearing headphones) to know that it’s not the alcohol alone to blame there…

[hogarth]

I thought this part of the article quoted above was interesting:

Because the daily direct flight between Toronto and Beijing extends for 13 hours, any unscheduled stop puts the flight crew — four pilots and 13 flight attendants — beyond the hours they are allowed to fly for health and safety reasons.

I once took a direct flight from Detroit to Shanghai (about 14 hours) that had to make an unscheduled stop in Alaska for a medical emergency and yet we were allowed to continue. Was the airline violating rules in my case?

[colonial]

@Muffin

Since beating on flight attendants is not something even remotely related to the drunks’ jobs, I doubt if anyone (the drunks, the carrier, the crew, or the passengers) would have a cause of action againt RIM, so while you Declan might go after RIM for the cost of the criminal court ordered restitution, I wouldn’t.

Hopefully Mr. Spoons can clarify Canadian law on this point, but I would be willing
to bet it does not differ much from US law.

Under US law employers may be liable for loss to 3rd parties caused by their employees
anytime the employees are functioning as the employers’ agents, regardless of whether
the loss was caused by “job-related” activity. The presumption may be rebuttable on a
case-by-case basis, but I have a feeling no court in Canada is going to throw out any action
brought against RIM and with good reason.

The good reason lies in the fact that an employee, even a well-paid employee, may not
be able to afford resitution for loss caused by his behavior. Here we have over 300
potential claimants, and two drunks may not have the wherewithall to take care of all of them.

[iamthewalrus_3]

@DianaG

I’d be entirely in favor of one DUI resulting in a lifetime suspension of driving privileges.

I think you are in the minority on that. FWIW, I think a first time DUI (assuming no one was injured) should lead to a year’s suspension. Even that is more strict than most of our DUI laws.

Sometimes a person commits only a single incident of murder, but if it’s a really nasty one, the punishment is greater than it would otherwise be. The idea that a punishment is by definition excessive in response to “a single incident” is kind of silly. Depends on the incident. This one was especially egregious.

I see what you mean about the severity of the incident meaning something. Obviously, some murderers are given life sentences with no parole and some are not. I still think a lifetime ban is unreasonable in this case. To me, a lifetime ban indicates that there is no reasonable hope of improvement. These guys will always be a danger to airplanes in any form. Even when they’re both 80 years old. That seems absurd to me, given that no one was hurt. But I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I think we both understand each other.

I keep coming back to the idea that this is somehow a very weird punishment to apply to someone due to the happenstance of location. People get drunk and belligerent and thrown out of or arrested at bars fairly commonly. Those people have proven that they (a) can’t handle alcohol responsibly, (b), are assholes, and (c) required the use of force to subdue. As far as I can tell, it’s the same thing that these bozos on the plane have shown. So, shouldn’t we ban all of them from flying?

Like, if I got in a fight in a bar, and some other guy got in a fight in the library, does it make sense to ban me from bars and him from libraries? Is the location of our jerkishness at all relevant? Won’t people who drink to excess and act like violent assholes potentially do it anywhere?

[Steve_MB]

@Chronos

And also of course, it makes perfect sense to hold executives to a different standard than ordinary workers, since that’s exactly what being executives means. You get paid more because you’re held to a higher standard. Did you think they earned those big bucks just by virtue of being born into an old-boys family? Well, maybe that’s how it often works out, but it’s not how it’s supposed to.

The fact that this even needs to be pointed out speaks volumes about the decay of the traditional understanding or personal responsibility (for people generally) and noblesse oblige (for the wealthy and powerful in particular). Ultimately, many of our current problems are a result of that.

[Steve_MB]

@KarlGauss

I sense a bit of disagreement with my position. Just a tad.

In truth, I hadn’t thought out the appropriate consequences given that they were “flying on the company’s dime” to quote several of you. In that light, in the sense that they were on the job at the time, you are right - they should be canned.

But, it seems to me that the main reason, and maybe the only reason it’s come to all this is because they work for RIM. As has been mentioned upthread, RIM is fast becoming a Canadian icon and, almost as fast, is going down the tubes. As a result, anything involving RIM (and apparently its employees) is news. And, as put forward by a number of you, the company cant be seen now, of all times, to tolerate idiocy from anyone in its employ. I still think if they worked for Noranda Mines or Asshole Asbestos Inc, they’d be employed.

That may be the reason they got caught (in the sense that it became impossible to discreetly sweep the mess under the rug). That has no bearing on whether or not they deserve to be fired.

[Acsenray]

Getting fired is a reasonable and just consequence in this case.

Getting banned for life from airplanes is entirely disproportionate. Travel isn’t a luxury or a privilege in our world. It’s necessary to make a living. It’s necessary to live a life. Bannign someone from an entire mode of transportation is a serious imposition on one’s liberty.

We live in a globally interconnected world. People need to go places. Not letting someone use an airplane ever is similar to actual imprisonment, different only as a matter of degree.

[DianaG]

That doesn’t make it a right. That makes it a privilege that you should make damned sure not to forfeit if your livelihood depends on it.

[boytyperanma]

@Acsenray

Getting fired is a reasonable and just consequence in this case.

Getting banned for life from airplanes is entirely disproportionate. Travel isn’t a luxury or a privilege in our world. It’s necessary to make a living. It’s necessary to live a life. Bannign someone from an entire mode of transportation is a serious imposition on one’s liberty.

We live in a globally interconnected world. People need to go places. Not letting someone use an airplane ever is similar to actual imprisonment, different only as a matter of degree.

They haven’t been banned for life from airplanes. There doesn’t even appear to be any type of government sanction against them flying in the future.

Air Canada acting as a private company has said they have banned them from any future flights.

You are arguing a private company should not allowed to refuse service. If you want to make that argument go right ahead, I completely disagree with it.

[Acsenray]

@DianaG

That doesn’t make it a right. That makes it a privilege that you should make damned sure not to forfeit if your livelihood depends on it.

That’s a tautology. It doesn’t really support the claim that this one incident is sufficient to essentially ruin someone’s life over it.

[Bridget_Burke]

Their lives won’t be ruined; they can still travel in Canada…

[Acsenray]

@Bridget_Burke

Their lives won’t be ruined; they can still travel in Canada…

That’s not really for an outsider to judge. What are their job skills? What are their aspirations? Who is likely to hire them if they have a no-fly restriction? Do their life dreams and goals require them to travel overseas? Isn’t it likely that you’re restricting their future income? Their personal goals and aspiration?

I don’t touch alcohol and I have no sympathy for people who choose to drink and misbehave as a result. Punishment is warranted. A lifetime ban on flying is an overreaction.