The etiquette of sacking an alcoholic.

[sasguru]

Calling alcoholism an "illness" is just following the ongoing trend since the 60s of removing personal responsibility from people - if its an illness it's not your fault.
Yes its hard to stop drinking, just like it is to stop smoking, yet some people do it.
Is there any reasonable evidence to call it an illness or is it just (unfashionable concept I know) a weakness of character.

[Spacecadet]

One of my friends is a nurse and is in charge of the other nurses on her ward. She told us about a nurse on her ward who had time off due to the stress of her cat snuffing it amongst other things. She plotted this nurses days off 'sick' and found it was planned to perfection - just enough days at the right times to stay the right side of the rules and maximise the sick days.

One of the advantages of being a permie... paid sick leave

[cailin maith]

They should have used the Bradford formula.

My sis works in HR and swears by this.

My brother consults to companies on their drink and drugs policy and was telling me that sacking someone for a drink problem is quite a difficult process and will probably lead to an unfair dismissal charge. It is basically treated as an illness and you have to offer to pay for treatment and time off and be preapared to do that again when they fall off the wagon.

Yep, it is covered by the DDA

They will usually claim that the job turned them to drink and that the employer has a duty to heal, in the same way if they done their back in on the job.

Yep...

Being drunk where I work is gross misconduct and sackable on the spot. Thank God, no one is ever around on Friday afternoons

[Churchill]

My sis works in HR and swears by this.



Yep, it is covered by the DDA



Yep...

Being drunk where I work is gross misconduct and sackable on the spot. Thank God, the boss is in the pub on Friday afternoons

FTFY!

[expat]

Because an employee has the same rights as anyone with a physical or mental condition.

Fine, but if the Government/State/Society mandates treatment, let them pay for it. As a general principle, if the govt orders something they should pay for it. Yes, I know that they pay with our money, the point is that they pay with our recognised pool of funds, rather than forcing the nearest mug to fork out, which is what you do when you make the employer pay for a society need.

If I were employed, and I got cancer, would my employer be liable to pay for aqll my treatment?

Actually I am employed, by MyCo Ltd. Does MyCo Ltd have to pay for my treatment? I don't think it van afford to - should it be putting aside enough funds to cover potential treatment for it's employee? Or should it have insurance to cover health treatment? And if that's a regulatory requirement on MyCo Ltd, wouldn't that be an allowable expense? Etc etc etc.

[DaveB]

Because an employee has the same rights as anyone with a physical or mental condition.

But in this case only if the illness arose as a result of their employment or the employers negligence. Vibration White Finger in road workers for example or Pnumoconiosis in coal miners.

[SueEllen]

Is that the law or your personal (and therefore irrelevant) opinion? I don't know so it's a real question...

Not opinion what I've been told by a solicitor.

Have a look at the amendment to the Act here: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1996/Uksi_19961455_en_1.htm

Addictions
3.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2) below, addiction to alcohol, nicotine or any other substance is to be treated as not amounting to an impairment for the purposes of the Act.

However as already pointed out a clever employee would claim it's linked to a mental illness caused by the employer.

Edited to say: Interesting if you have "seasonal allergic rhinitis" or Hayfever you can't claim you have a disability but if you are allergic to something you can.

[Sysman]

Fine, but if the Government/State/Society mandates treatment, let them pay for it. As a general principle, if the govt orders something they should pay for it. Yes, I know that they pay with our money, the point is that they pay with our recognised pool of funds, rather than forcing the nearest mug to fork out, which is what you do when you make the employer pay for a society need.

Going back to my payroll days...

Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) allows the employer to claim from the government to cover sick pay. From what I remember there is an upper limit, but the employer doesn't have to bear the full cost.

[Sysman]

One of my friends is a nurse and is in charge of the other nurses on her ward. She told us about a nurse on her ward who had time off due to the stress of her cat snuffing it amongst other things. She plotted this nurses days off 'sick' and found it was planned to perfection - just enough days at the right times to stay the right side of the rules and maximise the sick days.

I used to work near a regional Securicor sorting office. Apparently the workers there had not just a holiday rota, but a sick rota as well.

That's right, they took their full sick entitlement as days off, and presumably management knew about it.

[Jeebo72]

My sis works in HR and swears by this.



Yep, it is covered by the DDA



Yep...

Being drunk where I work is gross misconduct and sackable on the spot. Thank God, no one is ever around on Friday afternoons

One of the places I worked last year made you sign a no alcohol consumtion during work hours contract, with immediate dismisal etc. They had major problems in the past. Never stopped anyone though ...