"Garcia worries that Mayor Martin Chavez might be going too far with a new zero tolerance policy mandating the termination of any public safety employee who is convicted of drunken driving.
“Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to work next to a guy with two or three or 11 DWIs,” Garcia said. “But some people do make bad decisions or stupid mistakes. With this new policy, there’s no way to help people the first time they have a problem.”
Chavez announced extensive policy changes after learning veteran Albuquerque firefighter Peter Lopez continued working for the department despite racking up 11 drunken driving charges."
Well, BOO-FRICKING-HOO! I’m glad that someone in this state finally has grown a set and is taking a stand against drunk driving, instead of giving drunk drivers a pat on the back.
When I was in Denmark for New Year’s Eve many, many years ago, they had very tough laws about driving while intoxicated. I’m sorry that I can’t be more specific, but the laws were so hard that no one drove under those circumstances.
I went to a large party of people – mostly in their twenties – and the Danes do love their Tuborg and their schnapps. But everyone had made arrangements before hand either to be picked up at a certain time, to ride with a designated driver, to stay overnight or to walk to a friend’s house or home. I was just amazed that these arrangements were taken for granted.
Driving under the influence is so unnecessary. I drink alcohol myself. But in forty-three years of driving, I’ve never driven while intoxicated.
I say that for the most part, any efforts to make a “zero-tolerance” for anyone who is caught DWI is useless.
I can understand the firing of someone who works for the city, and drives for a living, such as a firefighter, or a police officer. But for the average schmuck who works in the mail room. and decides to have a few barley pops too many before getting in the car, well, the fact that there are legal measures for that should be punishment enough. In essence, by firing someone for their conduct outside the workplace, well, I think that is a little overboard.
Was he drinking while driving the fire truck? Then you can fire him. Employers need to stay the hell out of people’s lives when they are off duty. The place to deal with this is the criminal justice system.
Yes, people make mistakes, people have problems, but for the fifty millionth time:
DRIVING IS NOT A RIGHT.
Once you make the choice to drive home while drunk, who’s to say you won’t make that choice again? I don’t want anyone driving except people who can be trusted not to be drunk while they’re behind the wheel. My bodily integrity (and everyone else’s, for that matter) is far more important than your ‘right’ to make the same stupid mistake twice.
I think we all agree that drunk driving is a horrible thing that must be prevented whenever possible. And if you’re enough of a moron that the possibility of killing/maiming someone is not enough to prevent you from doing it, then maybe the possibility of losing your job will do it.
So when a person is convicted of DUI, are they to never hold a job again and go on welfare? Or is it only a gov’t job that should become out of reach for them?
Nowhere in the article was the person alleged to have been intoxicated while on the job.
Proactive organizations will assist an employee with rehab treatment, and help with getting their lives back in order.
If we wish to censure our fellow citizen for self-destructive behavior on their own time, I’d place a large bet that this board will run much faster, were everyone’s dirty laundry turned out for view.
I’ll tell you who I would fire: people who give their threads totally meaningless titles which make people open the thread just to find out what gut the OP split. 437 views - 9 posts. The hamsters hate you. If the title had been more descriptive I would not have opened the thread but since I’m here already I’ll tell you what I think: your OP is stupid and wasted my time. Oh, and boo-fricking-hoo to you too. My regards to the wife and kids.