Reply to: The etiquette of sacking an alcoholic.

[BA to the Stars]

Don't let him have a leaving do at the pub then

[northernrampage]

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.

Got a couple of alcoholics and several heavy drinkers in my family... so I've done a fair bit of research on it and read about it when studying the brain. And driven myself paranoid while monitoring my own red wine intake

Think the jury is out. There is some evidence that certain genes mean some people can drink loads more than other people (which may not sound a big deal but means you're lacking a safety valve that tells you to stop e.g throwing up). Not sure about the other genes.

There are also certain chemicals in your brain that once you've activated them too many times (e.g. too much boozing over a sustained period) it can take years for them to be de-activated. You can then have a few sips and want to keep drinking, or doing something like smoking can trigger the urge as the pathways used for that activate other pathways associated for drinking. Which is why some addicts are advised to cut everything out.

Then again, I still think it's down the individual.... you make your choices, however I do think there should be more education on drinking. I speak to my American mates and they are horrified at the amount we drink here. A lot of the stuff now says "yeah, drinking every day is fine", but who sticks to the 1 or 2 units a day that's recommended for women.

A therapist I was talking to recently doesn't believe it's an illness either.. she reckons it's learned behaviour, you pick it up from others around you. But again, I guess you make your choices to not keep boozing like your family may have done.

And as for people taking time off... I had an ex-colleague take nearly 6 mths off (most on full-pay) for his alcohol and cocaine induced breakdown. He denied that to me though and said it was because his parents hadn't congratulated him on doing well in his career. While his work got covered by others

[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 ...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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

[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

[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.

[xoggoth]

Contractor I worked with got the boot for being drunk after an altercation with the front gate security bloke. Last I heard he was working for IBM.

[minestrone]

Illness, OK. Treatment, good. But why is it the employer who has to pay for it?

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.

[threaded]

Illness, OK. Treatment, good. But why is it the employer who has to pay for it?

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