Problems at work..

[Zico]

I have suspected my manager of going off to the pub at luchtimes as she has smelt of drink on quite a few occasions, She has reeked of it in the mornings on occasion also, last week after she came out of the ladies she was breathing in heavily through her nose and out thru her mouth.. like someone who had just snorted something would do, after noticing this I started listening out for it when she visited the toilet and sure enough.. 7 or 8 long hard sniffs.. as you would expect from someone snorting something, after she left work on friday I decided to go and have a look in the ladies for any signs of powder residue, I didn't find any but I did find 4 empty beer cans in the bin... no.. I doubt it was the beer she was snorting!
She drives the work van home.. probably over the legal limit and she is quite probably out of her face on some powder or other also.

We do not see eye to eye, she has had me up on disciplinary action for something she basically told me to do.. then promptly reported me, I raised a grievance because of this and also told how she had told me to do something else very similar, they gave me a final written warning etc while she got off scot free.. I now have this situation where if I report it to management they will just see it as me trying to cause trouble to get my own back.. dont get me wrong I wouldn't mind seeing her get her just desserts but drink/drug driving is obviously totally wrong in itself..

I feel I have a responsibility to do something about it but unsure what the best option is.. from past incidents I suspect management will either cover up or completely dismiss my allegation, at the moment, Im thinking next time she is under the influence, just wait until she steps out the door to drive off then call the cops and that way I can be sure something will be done..

Your thoughts?

[Drew]

Phone the police before she leaves work telling them she about to drink and drive. That way work themselves won't get involved, you probably won't get into trouble and she'll get sorted out.

[Drew]

Plus if work / your manager do find out it was you who reported her, you can defend yourself simply by saying you're doing your duty as a citizen, to protect others on the roads.

[BDunnell]

It's easier said than done, I know, but you must inform someone — as suggested, the police if necessary. There should be no comeback at work, and if there is, it would be completely — possibly legally — unjustified given the situation.

[Roamy]

Maybe she is getting some dick it the flat above to office and having a few martinis

[Tazio]

Just do her!
Cocaine makes most chicks hornier than a ##### in ####! :s mokin:

[Bob Riebe]

We do not see eye to eye, she has had me up on disciplinary action for something she basically told me to do.. then promptly reported me, I raised a grievance because of this and also told how she had told me to do something else very similar, they gave me a final written warning etc while she got off scot free..

NO, she either told you to do it, or she did not.
There is no " basically told me...". This sounds like what you want is revenge or you are being self-righteous because you do not like her.

Let it go, or you will be the only one going down.

[MrJan]

Let it go, or you will be the only one going down.

I agree with this. At the minute you have no proof that she is off her face and it will just seem like you're out for revenge. It's a **** situation but I think that you're better off pretending that you didn't know.

[Mark]

Phone the police before she leaves work telling them she about to drink and drive. That way work themselves won't get involved, you probably won't get into trouble and she'll get sorted out.

Yep, tell the police on the understanding that you're kept out of it. Unlike some other criminal cases where they'd need a witness to testify (i.e. you!) if they stop her and find her over the limit (and possibly on drugs too) that's enough to secure a conviction so you should need to be involved at all.

In addition, do you have some senior management or HR department you can go to speak to in confidence, not so much to demand that something must be done, but just to tell them about the situation, so if it all kicks off again you've got things on record.

[Hondo]

I would suggest you seek employment elsewhere. It is obvious that you are not going to get along with her and you've already come off badly after the first incident. Aside from your opinion based theories, you have no proof of facts or a legitimate chain of evidence to support your argument. Indeed, unless you are female, the firm may take a dim view of your "fact finding" tour of the ladies restroom. The police aren't going to give a rat's ass about your call involving a potential drunk on the road. They may even call the firm back and admonish them about playing games with the telephone. In any case, the police would have to witness the woman driving in an unsafe manner to stop her anyway.

If the woman's conduct and behavior is blatantly and obviously improper, you are probably not the first genius to have spotted it. You might want to take that as a clue that she has the protection of somebody above the both of you. Leave it be.

[Mark]

The police aren't going to give a rat's ass about your call involving a potential drunk on the road. They may even call the firm back and admonish them about playing games with the telephone. In any case, the police would have to witness the woman driving in an unsafe manner to stop her anyway.


I doubt that. Depends what country you are in.
Certainly in the UK they would love the idea of bagging a drunk driver "for free" and they can stop her at any time if they have reasonable belief she is committing and offence.

You don't have to even be driving to be convicted, just sitting in the car with the keys in your pocket is sufficient!

[Hondo]

Why am I not surprised?

[Mark]

Why am I not surprised?


About what?

[Zico]

Just do her!
Cocaine makes most chicks hornier than a ##### in ####! :s mokin:

What a scary thought.. I doubt you'd be saying that if you saw her!



NO, she either told you to do it, or she did not.
There is no " basically told me...". This sounds like what you want is revenge or you are being self-righteous because you do not like her.

Let it go, or you will be the only one going down.


If you want to know the full story you'd better have a look at this thread.. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/employment-problems/262699-disciplinary-action-suspension-advice.html
Im not ashamed to admit that I do not like her and I wouldn't mind seeing her get her just desserts.. but self righteous? No.. I dont think so, I can honestly say I would feel the same even if the above had not happened.
Maybe you dont see much wrong with drink driving Bob but I feel quite strongly about it. I lost my cousin 5 years ago in a boating accident where the person in control of the boat was later found to be under the influence, took a wrong turn at a fork in the river and hit a chain safeguarding a weir throwing everyone into the water and into the weir, everyone else survived apart from Eilleen... this affects how strongly I feel about drink drivers... drink affects judgement and reaction time.. fact.



I'm inclined to go with Drew, BDunnell and Marks views on the situation, Im fully aware this could backfire on me big time but I have a responsibility to the general public to do the right thing. Im currently looking for a new job and Im not going to be working there for much longer anyway. Thanks all for your input.

[Mark]

I've read the thread. Seems they are out to get you for... I'm not exactly sure what!

[Zico]

I've read the thread. Seems they are out to get you for... I'm not exactly sure what!

Yep, the day before it all kicked off, I think I'd questioned something she said which annoyed her. She wants me out the door and so they will back it, just a matter of time I guess. Some of the measures she/they have taken/engineered to set-up something on me are simply scandalous and crooked. Im awaiting my appeal results of the almost farcical disciplinary action.`

While their branch manager is drinking on the job and quite probably on drugs.. oh the irony.

[Jag_Warrior]

Since she's a branch manager, just going to HR might backfire (especially if they alert her that it was you who reported her). I'd wait for her to leave while stinking drunk and then call in a description of the van, the tag number and the route that she's going to take. Especially if the cop sees her weave while driving, that would work in the U.S. or probably any place else. And if she has any "happy powder" in her purse when they take her in for drunk driving, you probably won't ever see her again (at the office anyway).

She sounds like a train wreck that the company would be better off without. Good luck.

[Bob Riebe]

What a scary thought.. I doubt you'd be saying that if you saw her!





If you want to know the full story you'd better have a look at this thread.. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/employment-problems/262699-disciplinary-action-suspension-advice.html
Im not ashamed to admit that I do not like her and I wouldn't mind seeing her get her just desserts.. but self righteous? No.. I dont think so, I can honestly say I would feel the same even if the above had not happened.
Maybe you dont see much wrong with drink driving Bob but I feel quite strongly about it. I lost my cousin 5 years ago in a boating accident where the person in control of the boat was later found to be under the influence, took a wrong turn at a fork in the river and hit a chain safeguarding a weir throwing everyone into the water and into the weir, everyone else survived apart from Eilleen... this affects how strongly I feel about drink drivers... drink affects judgement and reaction time.. fact.



I'm inclined to go with Drew, BDunnell and Marks views on the situation, Im fully aware this could backfire on me big time but I have a responsibility to the general public to do the right thing. Im currently looking for a new job and Im not going to be working there for much longer anyway. Thanks all for your input.
I read it and you should not have had one thing to do with the gent, and let the manager do all.
Here for taking outside work while on the job, can get you fired.
Electricians here who do "outside" work are very clear in saying do not tell anyone I did this or I can lose my job.
Nothing wrong with working on the gents machine, in my opinion, but by making the contract while at work, they have every right for you to be fired or at least disciplined.
If one cannot communicate well with employers, best to keep one's mouth shut unless absolutely necessary. (I have a cousin who got fired because he has p--- poor communication skills, and now he is complaining about his new job for reasons incredibly similar to yours in general.)
He does not know how to deal with upper levels, nor does he have enough brains to keep his mouth shut. (Oh yes at the job he got fired from he also filed a complaint.Twenty plus years flushed down the drain.)

Move on, and unless you have absolute proof on your accusations, any misery comes your way is deserved.

As for your cousin, my father after I was nearly killed in a car accident as a passenger, weeks in the hospital, told me plainly I had no reason to blame anyone for anything, I CHOSE to be in that car. Your cousin chose to be on that boat.

[Zico]

As for your cousin, my father after I was nearly killed in a car accident as a passenger, weeks in the hospital, told me plainly I had no reason to blame anyone for anything, I CHOSE to be in that car. Your cousin chose to be on that boat.

Yes its natural in times of grief to search for reasons, causes, to blame those responsible but would you have chosen to get into the car if say for talking sake, you knew the driver had been drinking? I doubt she would have made that choice either... We are each responsible for our actions and how they affect others, by your twisted logic people are responsible for how their own actions affect themselves directly only.. responsibility for others and collateral damage seems to be irrelevant to you?

An example of your logic- It wasn't the hijackers fault that the people in the twin towers lost their lives on 9/11.. because the victims CHOSE to go to work that day.

[GridGirl]

A friend of mine who works in manufacturing once sacked someone because they were an alcoholic and basically couldn't do their job properly. The guy that was sacked took the company to a unfair dismissal tribunal and argued that alcoholism is an illness. The company were advised to re-employ they guy and help him with his drinking problem. My mate conducted his back to work interview where the guy was drunk and actually urinated on himself while sat in the chair talking. The guy is still working for the company. :s

[gadjo_dilo]

I have 2 little questions:

1. What consequence on your manager career will have your complaint to police/other institutions?

2. Will you be able to sleep well knowing that your manager will be affected by your civical attitude?

[Zico]

I have 2 little questions:

1. What consequence on your manager career will have your complaint to police/other institutions?

2. Will you be able to sleep well knowing that your manager will be affected by your civical attitude?

1. Im not 100% sure I can answer that accurately, she already has a criminal record for fraud from a previous emloyment 'incident'... the previous manager of the branch (who she also managed to get sacked to gain her current position) has a cut-out of the newspaper clip detailing the case... possibly the reason why she has the protection of those above her who did not do their homework correctly when they employed her.

2. I'll have no problems sleeping.... well certainly less than if I didn't report it and her intoxicated state ended up being the cause of a serious accident involving innocent people.


Its been very interesting to note the various views on drink driving from different countries/cultures. Here in the uk it is viewed as not only against the law but completely unacceptable socially and morally very wrong.

[Bob Riebe]

Yes its natural in times of grief to search for reasons, causes, to blame those responsible but would you have chosen to get into the car if say for talking sake, you knew the driver had been drinking? I doubt she would have made that choice either... We are each responsible for our actions and how they affect others, by your twisted logic people are responsible for how their own actions affect themselves directly only.. responsibility for others and collateral damage seems to be irrelevant to you?

An example of your logic- It wasn't the hijackers fault that the people in the twin towers lost their lives on 9/11.. because the victims CHOSE to go to work that day.
Your analogy is bogus.
Such illogical analogies often come out when some is blaming another with vengeance as a objective.

I chose to get into the car with a known acquaintance; she chose to get in the boat with a known acquaintance knowing the state of the drivers; the people in the towers did not choose to go there knowing that their friends were going to destroy them.

In Minn. at least, judges used to tell people in court, who said they "did not know", that ignorance of the law is not an excuse, ditto for "not knowing" what state the driver of a vehicle is in.
As I grew up, parents, and NOT just mine, first response was " you SHOULD have known better" when a son/daughter made an excuse-reason for why they had difficulties.

[Zico]

I chose to get into the car with a known acquaintance; she chose to get in the boat with a known acquaintance knowing the state of the drivers.

No Bob, like me.. you do not know if she knew the state of the driver. Over here the law places responsibility on the driver to be in a fit state to drive and I cant' see the law in Minn viewing things much differently.


In Minn. at least, judges used to tell people in court, who said they "did not know", that ignorance of the law is not an excuse, ditto for "not knowing" what state the driver of a vehicle is in.

How can you compare ones knowledge of the law to 'knowing' if someone is in a fit state to drive or not? Are you absolving the driver of any responsibility? By your own argument.. Shouldn't the driver have 'known' he was unfit to drive?

I suppose the mother and toddler mown down by a drunk driver should have 'known' the driver would fail to see them at the pedestrian crossing?

I find your argument not only quite bizzare but down right disrespectful to the memories of the many thousands of victims killed by drink drivers.. and their families.

[MrJan]

Your analogy is bogus.

No it isn't. By your reasoning we shouldn't ever get into a car in case the driver happens to be drunk. You don't always know whether someone has been drinking or not, I'm guessing from Zico's description that this is the case in this instance.

[Bob Riebe]

[quote="Zico"]No Bob, like me.. you do not know if she knew the state of the driver. Over here the law places responsibility on the driver to be in a fit state to drive and I cant' see the law in Minn viewing things much differently.
It is, very much.
In my town a person who had alcohol in her blood struck and killed a child who darted between parked cars.
Were it not for the neighbors who, without exception said that the parents lack of control of the child, she did this continually, this was an accident that was inevitable, authorities were going charge the driver who was not over the DWI limit with a DUI.
The driver was not charged.

It was HER, and no one elses responsibility to know exactly what condition the driver was in.
Stupidity, or apathy, has just rewards and she got hers.
You are making excuses for her, which is this day and age is becoming the norman-- someone else is ALWAYS at fault. Personal responsibility has been flushed down the toilet.



How can you compare ones knowledge of the law to 'knowing' if someone is in a fit state to drive or not? Are you absolving the driver of any responsibility? By your own argument.. Shouldn't the driver have 'known' he was unfit to drive?

I suppose the mother and toddler mown down by a drunk driver should have 'known' the driver would fail to see them at the pedestrian crossing?

I find your argument not only quite bizzare but down right disrespectful to the many thousands of victims killed by drink drivers.. and their families.

[b]Respect is earned, why does getting yourself hit by a driver, or being stupid enough to get into a vehicle with a intoxicated driver, earn respect.
It does not.

When I was a grade school kid, it was HAMMERED into our heads, by school authorities to LOOK BOTH WAYS, check traffic, before stepping into ANY INTERSECTION, repeatedly, not just once in one grade.
The driver had no legal excuse and should be punished as the law dictates, but at the same time those struck had no excuse for not double checking before crossing.
Pedestrians, crossing legally, being hit because they had their heads-in-the-clouds (nowadays up their arses) was part of the videos we saw as kids that told just because you had the right-of-way, was no excuse not to MAKE SURE it was safe to cross.

Your rhetoric sounds of revenge, and that is all.

[Bob Riebe]

You don't always know whether someone has been drinking or not, I'm guessing from Zico's description that this is the case in this instance.
You are making excuses.
The same attitude by far too many parents today where neither they, nor their children, (amplified by the flurry of law-suits nowadays) have any responsibility for their actions; after all, it is ALWAYS someone else's fault and the law makers are doing their best to make sure they push this asinine standard nowadays.

There is no excuse for not knowing. If you are not sure, don't do it.

[Zico]

No Bob, like me.. you do not know if she knew the state of the driver. Over here the law places responsibility on the driver to be in a fit state to drive and I cant' see the law in Minn viewing things much differently.
It is, very much.
In my town a person who had alcohol in her blood struck and killed a child who darted between parked cars.
Were it not for the neighbors who, without exception said that the parents lack of control of the child, she did this continually, this was an accident that was inevitable, authorities were going charge the driver who was not over the DWI limit with a DUI.
The driver was not charged.

It was HER, and no one elses responsibility to know exactly what condition the driver was in.
Stupidity, or apathy, has just rewards and she got hers.
You are making excuses for her, which is this day and age is becoming the norman-- someone else is ALWAYS at fault. Personal responsibility has been flushed down the toilet.



How can you compare ones knowledge of the law to 'knowing' if someone is in a fit state to drive or not? Are you absolving the driver of any responsibility? By your own argument.. Shouldn't the driver have 'known' he was unfit to drive?

I suppose the mother and toddler mown down by a drunk driver should have 'known' the driver would fail to see them at the pedestrian crossing?

I find your argument not only quite bizzare but down right disrespectful to the many thousands of victims killed by drink drivers.. and their families.

[b]Respect is earned, why does getting yourself hit by a driver, or being stupid enough to get into a vehicle with a intoxicated driver, earn respect.
It does not.

When I was a grade school kid, it was HAMMERED into our heads, by school authorities to LOOK BOTH WAYS, check traffic, before stepping into ANY INTERSECTION, repeatedly, not just once in one grade.
The driver had no legal excuse and should be punished as the law dictates, but at the same time those struck had no excuse for not double checking before crossing.
Pedestrians, crossing legally, being hit because they had their heads-in-the-clouds (nowadays up their arses) was part of the videos we saw as kids that told just because you had the right-of-way, was no excuse not to MAKE SURE it was safe to cross.

Your rhetoric sounds of revenge, and that is all.


Are you a troll? Words almost fail me... you are repeatedly ignoring the drivers responsibility in all this, in effect you are condoning the act of driving under the influence. I doubt you will find much support for your personal views on here.

Your second name should be 'Bag'.

[MrJan]

There is no excuse for not knowing. If you are not sure, don't do it.

Well you can never actually be sure....unless you've followed someone for the last day or so. If I had to go somewhere with someone at work no (10:30am) I can't be sure that they weren't on the binge last night or had a liquid breakfast. Does this mean that I should never go in a car with someone?

The incident with the little girl that you mention, of course the parents were at fault, but it wasn't completely their fault. If the driver was sober then they may have been able to react quicker and avoid the accident.

The drink drive laws in most of the US is completely screwed anyway, ours is much stricter (although many believe it's not strict enough)

[janvanvurpa]

Are you a troll? Words almost fail me... you are repeatedly ignoring the drivers responsibility in all this, in effect you are condoning the act of driving under the influence. I doubt you will find much support for your personal views on here.

Your second name should be 'Bag'.

No but read anything he writes and you can safely bet whatever the normal, basically well adjusted human reaction to something MIGHT be, this man will write the opposite, so while not a troll, he is clearly maldeveloped, crippled in both logic and utterly lacking in humanity, insight, foresight, empathy, sympathy...
In short a typical corn-servative American midwesterner: loud and full of ****

Ignore him.

[Bob Riebe]

Are you a troll? Words almost fail me... you are repeatedly ignoring the drivers responsibility in all this, in effect you are condoning the act of driving under the influence. I doubt you will find much support for your personal views on here.

Your second name should be 'Bag'.
I am not looking for support or pity, you are.
You are ignoring the responsibility anyone has when they put themselves in the hands of another driver.
The driver is responsible only for his actions; the only one responsible for your cousin putting herself in that position your cousin.

You are looking for pity, whilst whining and crying "Oh poor me", grow-up and act like an adult, not a whining child.

[Bob Riebe]

No but read anything he writes and you can safely bet whatever the normal, basically well adjusted human reaction to something MIGHT be, this man will write the opposite, so while not a troll, he is clearly maldeveloped, crippled in both logic and utterly lacking in humanity, insight, foresight, empathy, sympathy...
In short a typical corn-servative American midwesterner: loud and full of ****

Ignore him.
I pity your world where the "normal well adjusted human reaction" is self-righteous self-pity and revenge, but then you are liberal twit and that is the world they thrive in.
Ignorance is bliss and you are a very happy person.
Fini.

[Bob Riebe]

Well you can never actually be sure....unless you've followed someone for the last day or so. If I had to go somewhere with someone at work no (10:30am) I can't be sure that they weren't on the binge last night or had a liquid breakfast. Does this mean that I should never go in a car with someone?

The incident with the little girl that you mention, of course the parents were at fault, but it wasn't completely their fault. If the driver was sober then they may have been able to react quicker and avoid the accident.

The drink drive laws in most of the US is completely screwed anyway, ours is much stricter (although many believe it's not strict enough)
It is YOUR responsibility to know the condition of the driver; you are looking for excuses why it is not responsibility when you go a vehicle, you are trying to blame some on else for your decision.
I did not say never, but what ever decision your make, it is YOUR decision, no one elses.

The driver was legally sober, DWI and DUI are not the same thing, and the witnesses all said NO ONE could have even hit the brakes, much less stop because the child darted out from between parked cars.

[Zico]

No but read anything he writes and you can safely bet whatever the normal, basically well adjusted human reaction to something MIGHT be, this man will write the opposite, so while not a troll, he is clearly maldeveloped, crippled in both logic and utterly lacking in humanity, insight, foresight, empathy, sympathy...
In short a typical corn-servative American midwesterner: loud and full of ****

Ignore him.


I have since read some of his pearls of wisdom on other threads, I will take your advice and ignore him.

Thank you..


Your second name should be 'Bag'.

In case you missed it Bob... http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bawbag

[Bob Riebe]

In case you missed it Bob... http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bawbag
Ah first was wiki Eki, now wiki Zico, that says a lot about your/his intellect.

Now you boys run along before you run out of whine.

[MrJan]

Interesting. So if I get in a car with someone and they crash it then it's my fault? You should work in insurance with logic like that. I'm not pitying anyone or making excuses but if a I get in a car with someone and that driver causes a crash then there is only one person to blame. I might have been safer if I weren't in the car but it's certainly not my fault that the crash happened. You must be full of self loathing if you're happy to blame yourself in that situation.

[Bob Riebe]

Interesting. So if I get in a car with someone and they crash it then it's my fault? You should work in insurance with logic like that. I'm not pitying anyone or making excuses but if a I get in a car with someone and that driver causes a crash then there is only one person to blame. I might have been safer if I weren't in the car but it's certainly not my fault that the crash happened. You must be full of self loathing if you're happy to blame yourself in that situation.

So if you chose to get into a car, it is some one elses fault. Children think like that, but adults are supposed to grown out of it.

Typical liberal response, we are speaking of it is YOUR responsibility to determine the state of your driver, and you change it to any driver at any time.
If the driver has an accident, **** happens, insurance pays for it.
Unless like my sig. is hit by an uninsured driver, and she ended up suing her insurance company to get anything at all.

If you get in a accident with a totally sober driver, next time be more choosy; if you get into an accident with an impaired driver, it is your fault and no one else's that you chose to get into a car with some one in that state.
It is your responsibility to know the state of the driver.

Self-loathing, hmmm, that is new definition for taking responsibility for one's own actions.
Pathetically self-righteous, but new, although it is one hell of a lot better than being full of self-pity.
If it makes you feel any better, my father never really forgave the driver of the car that put me in the hospital, but at the same time he was not going to let met get off with self-pity, whine and blame some one else for my foolish decision.
The insurance company settled out of court, because I refused to take my friend to court.
As bad as my injuries were they were, as my lawyer said, not the kind that juries fall such as, missing arm, disfiguring scars, etc. so he wanted me to play some lawyer games that would make me seem worse than I was at that point.
Now maybe some of you boys think that is fine as you think some one owes you something but I have more self-respect, and higher standards than that.

Blame some one else, no matter what, is the typical liberal response, but then lawyers are getting rich off it, liberal politicians are backed by lawyers, so the **** is getting deeper.

[Mark]

Typical liberal response,.

Perhaps I should ban this specific response! I do grow tired of posters coming up with crazy ideas such as yours and then when someone points out how utterly idiotic they are the stock reply is "Typical liberal".. please...

[MrJan]

So if you chose to get into a car, it is some one elses fault. Children think like that, but adults are supposed to grown out of it.

Getting into the car is my fault, them crashing it is their fault ;) If I'm not holding the wheel I fail to see how it's my fault. I'd have the same opinion if I crashed a car with someone in it, that would be my fault and I wouldn't want the passenger blaming themselves, so how the hell do you think that "Blame some one else, no matter what, is the typical liberal response". Before levelling comments like that at me how about actually finding out who I am, instead of just assuming that I'm liberal.

If I'm driving and crash then it's my fault, if someone else is driving and they crash then it's their fault. Simples. And, funnily enough, I find it a bit tricky to judge how someone will drive before I get into a car with them, am I supposed to run a driving test so that I can deem who is competent enough to drive me about?

I'm done with this though, you've either got a bafflingly stupid angle on this, or are being deliberately obtuse.

[Rudy Tamasz]

A friend of mine who works in manufacturing once sacked someone because they were an alcoholic and basically couldn't do their job properly. The guy that was sacked took the company to a unfair dismissal tribunal and argued that alcoholism is an illness. The company were advised to re-employ they guy and help him with his drinking problem. My mate conducted his back to work interview where the guy was drunk and actually urinated on himself while sat in the chair talking. The guy is still working for the company. :s

Still there's a difference between being an alcoholic and not being able to do your job properly. In the U.S. alcoholism is an illness according to the Federal Disability Act. In theory an alcoholic employee can even have the employer cover the cost of treatment. That is, if he or she does the job properly. I heard of some pretty highly positioned drinkers who perfectly coped with their duties and nobody could fire them, smell or not. On the other hand, if he or she is not performing, firing will not take long.

[Jag_Warrior]

A friend of mine who works in manufacturing once sacked someone because they were an alcoholic and basically couldn't do their job properly. The guy that was sacked took the company to a unfair dismissal tribunal and argued that alcoholism is an illness. The company were advised to re-employ they guy and help him with his drinking problem. My mate conducted his back to work interview where the guy was drunk and actually urinated on himself while sat in the chair talking. The guy is still working for the company. :s

Especially in union shops, that's very common here. In those companies, it's very difficult to fire someone unless they've harmed another employee or become violent in alcohol related situations. How and when you can test people for drugs & alcohol is tightly regulated in most union facilities here. Even in non-union facilities, if the employee is quick on his feet, he can still get away with it. One fellow that comes to mind got hurt on the job and he had been drinking (not completely blotto, but under the influence). He went to the hospital to get his wound treated, but before they could do the blood test, he left and came back to HR to announce that he had a problem with alcohol and wanted treatment for it. The company had no choice but to send him to a treatment center... couldn't fire him. He got something like 60% of his pay while in the insurance paid treatment center, as it was considered a "short term disability".

As for this woman that Zico is talking about, I'd drop a dime on her and not give it a second thought. Whether one believes that drug and alcohol abuse is (truly) a disease or not, people are still responsible for their actions. That bottle doesn't jump into her mouth and that coke doesn't put itself up her nose. And if she can't bring herself to admit that she has a problem, getting caught might be a good wake-up call for her. But in any case, that's not anyone's problem but hers. If some upper level person is protecting her, then either the company has some systemic problems and doesn't care that it has a drunk/drug abuser on its payroll (and I'd probably look to leave) or her protector/friend is willing to risk their own career to look out for her.

I would use law enforcement to take her down, Zico. Best case, if you stay there, maybe they'll hire a better manager and the entire staff and company will be better off. What happens to her? Not your problem. Don't worry about it. Only SHE can fix herself.