I've Got Someone Sacked .....

Srengam said:
What a snitch, why grass on him at all, his work might have even improved with a few drinks, I drive the bus far better after 3 or 4 scotches.
Click to expand...

When I used to get the bus to school, it had to go all the way down a big hill to pick people up at the bottom, then drive down a narrow road to a car park by the seafront where it could turn round. The narrow road was always all parked up down one side. Our bus driver once went down there and knocked off half a dozen wing mirrors in a row, then get out of the bus, picked them up and threw them in the hedge. We were all like WTF.
 
I'm sorry, actually I'm not, I havn't read the whole eleven pages, But you should had said to this guy "I am your immediate boss and don't want to know this" and taken him home and told him to pull a sickie to be quite honest. As you say, he is one of your hardest workers, why would you do this?
 
Castiel said:
Actually sick in this context refers to being unfit for work. 'sick' simply refers to absenteeism in the workplace and it is up to the policies and management of the company to decide what is an acceptable level or reason for that absenteeism.

Any company is within their rights to dismiss or discipline any member of staff for absenteeism regardless of the reason, whether it is self inflicted or not, even something serious and out of the employees control like cancer can be subject to a companies Attendance at Work policies.

Different companies refer and categorise their policies differently, but the term Sick in this context simply implies an unfitness to work or carry out your contractual obligation, it doesn't mean you have a specific category of absence.
Click to expand...

I have not yet worked for a company who would class sick as being unfit for work due to drinking alchohol. Ive worked for 3 FTSE 100 companies and 3 global ones and none see it this way.
This "hes sick" is why so many companies now monitor sickness so obsessively, tracking trends, number of cases, days lost etc.
Thats also why they now regularly document return to work after sickness, potentially people can be caught lying and its deemed as misconduct.

Holiday, is days you can take off work, paid for doing your own thing. Some even offer a number of "personal days" and stuff like that, or even allow you to take a day at no notice as retrospective holiday.

When I have been involved in any sickness issue with an HR department (in management role not personally) I have found their definition to be medically unfit for work (eg a doctors definition of sick) as opposed to a general unfit for work.

Once you start accepting hangovers as "sick" how do you draw the line, whats allowed and unallowed, how many days before you get a warning, how do you handle someone who says "im not coming in today Im tired" compared to the guy who says "im sick I got a hangover cant operate machinery safely"

Generally you won't get caught out as being "sick" when you have a hangover but for a more senior member of management to tell someone to go home as "sick" when they have a hangover or have consumed alchohol would set a dangerous precedent which every other employee could then assume would apply to them as well.
 
robskinner said:
I have not yet worked for a company who would class sick as being unfit for work due to drinking alchohol. Ive worked for 3 FTSE 100 companies and 3 global ones and none see it this way.
This "hes sick" is why so many companies now monitor sickness so obsessively, tracking trends, number of cases, days lost etc.
Thats also why they now regularly document return to work after sickness, potentially people can be caught lying and its deemed as misconduct.

Holiday, is days you can take off work, paid for doing your own thing. Some even offer a number of "personal days" and stuff like that, or even allow you to take a day at no notice as retrospective holiday.

When I have been involved in any sickness issue with an HR department (in management role not personally) I have found their definition to be medically unfit for work (eg a doctors definition of sick) as opposed to a general unfit for work.

Once you start accepting hangovers as "sick" how do you draw the line, whats allowed and unallowed, how many days before you get a warning, how do you handle someone who says "im not coming in today Im tired" compared to the guy who says "im sick I got a hangover cant operate machinery safely"

Generally you won't get caught out as being "sick" when you have a hangover but for a more senior member of management to tell someone to go home as "sick" when they have a hangover or have consumed alchohol would set a dangerous precedent which every other employee could then assume would apply to them as well.
Click to expand...

If I were you I would actually read what was written properly before posting.

Actually sick in this context refers to being unfit for work. 'sick' simply refers to absenteeism in the workplace and it is up to the policies and management of the company to decide what is an acceptable level or reason for that absenteeism.

Any company is within their rights to dismiss or discipline any member of staff for absenteeism regardless of the reason, whether it is self inflicted or not, even something serious and out of the employees control like cancer can be subject to a companies Attendance at Work policies.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the common usage of the phrase 'sick day' or 'sickie' rather than the specific terminology used by various companies in the Attendance at Work policies or how they classify each absence.

I thought I made that clear.
 
Last edited:
A simple way to get a feel for units is that the strength of any alchohol tells you the number of units in a litre of that product.

E.g a bottle of spirit is 70cl (or 700ml) if its 40% proof it contains 70/100 x 40 units = 28 units.
Beers/lagers etc are trickier since we measure them in pints. But 2 pints isnt that far off 1.1 litres which is simpler maths for most to do in their head, round up and you wont be far off. E.g Stella is a 5% proof beer, 2 pints would put you just over 5.5 units which for the average person takes 5.5 hours to process.

4 cans of 6.5% would be 4x440(assuming normal cans) = 1760ml /1000 = 1.76x 6.5 = 11.4 units. Your practically talking 11.5 hours for that amount of alcohol to be removed by the average body.
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
If I were you I would actually read what was written properly before posting.



I was referring to the common usage of the phrase 'sick day' or 'sickie' rather than the specific terminology used by various companies in the Attendance at Work policies or how they classify each absence.

I thought I made that clear.
Click to expand...

You were taking my original out of context hence my reply. You were talking "sickie" I was just stating the fact that he was not in fact sick but was infact unfit for work.

Whilst generalisation is that "unfit for work" = "sick" its just not the case

When people keep saying "send him home sick" its just wrong. Are you saying you would send one of your drivers home sick? Clearly you wouldn't actually do that since they aren't "sick"

Reporting yourself as sick when you are in fact not could land you in all sorts of trouble at most work places should you be in fact be proven to not be sick at all.

Its arguing semantics which is pointless. I just wanted to reinforce the message that thinking just going sick is a magic solution as many seem to think it is.
 
robskinner said:
You were taking my original out of context hence my reply. You were talking "sickie" I was just stating the fact that he was not in fact sick but was infact unfit for work.

Whilst generalisation is that "unfit for work" = "sick" its just not the case

When people keep saying "send him home sick" its just wrong. Are you saying you would send one of your drivers home sick? Clearly you wouldn't actually do that since they aren't "sick"

Reporting yourself as sick when you are in fact not could land you in all sorts of trouble at most work places should you be in fact be proven to not be sick at all.

Its arguing semantics which is pointless. I just wanted to reinforce the message that thinking just going sick is a magic solution as many seem to think it is.
Click to expand...

You mentioned the phase self inflicted injury, which can and does constitute as medically unfit as defined by a physician in many cases, including alcohol abuse.

Like I said, it is up to the company to assert it's own policy and procedures and while I have said send him home and report the incident to the management, I have not presumed to judge the attendance policies of his company and the way they would define such an absence. Either way, it will be applicable to their Attendance at Work policies however you word it.
 
Srengam said:
+1,

I wouldn't have even taken him home, I'd have asked him if he wanted to go home instead.

If he didn't want to then I'd of kept stum.

SNITCH.
Click to expand...

That's just retarded. The man, through his own actions, was in no fit state to work. Yes, the OP could have not told his boss, but then should something have come of it, the OP could be in trouble as well. It's not worth getting yourself potentially fired because someone else can't stick to basic health and safety rules.
 
Tbh haven't read all 16 pages of this thread,

Where i work atm, the managers, well the nicer ones, take the view that if they can claim not to know about something, then it didn't happen etc.

We had one guy who rather courageously in my opinion made it into work when he must have felt like death warmed up rather than take a sickie, but the managers said he should have taken a sickie cos now they couldn't claim not to know he was hammered and had to follow disciplinary procedure etc.

So lesson learnt, call in sick, flu or something, you know its a lie, they know its a lie, but it saves paperwork.
This is probably one of the reasons businesses lose so many days on sickies.

In this situation i would have probably forced him to take a sick day and given him a friendly warning not to come to work in a state or at the very least don't advertise it in future.

But if he was obviously hammered then a private but more serious bollocking and sick day.
 
Last edited:
Also,

Its not good to be in this position, cos either way it could cause you problems.

A) If you don't say anything, your boss finds out, blames you and causes problems for you.

B) You say something, boss doesn't want to lose the guy cos hes a good worker, would rather you had overlooked it, now boss not happy with you cos hes lost a good worker etc.

Maybe it was a badly kept secret that this guy drinks and stuff, but it hasn't caused a problem so far and his work is still good, so its just not talked about, cos then the boss can't claim not to know about it and must take action, which he doesn't want to do etc.
 
TBH the idiot is the guy who was drinking but not for the actual drinking itself (although obviously thats an idiotic thing to do) but for saying it to the OP who, friend or not, is his direct superior! My sympathy runs out at this point because he is putting the OP in an impossible situation.

In an ideal world the suggestions of stopping the car, telling him to get out and phone in would be be my preferred option just to give the guy a chance but i guess thats easy to say now.

The OPs first responsibility is to himself and to ensure his actions dont end up risking his own livelyhood
 
Wizzfizz said:
Is he 13?
Click to expand...

Of course not, nearly three times that and in a very responsible position.

It surprises me how many people think OP done the right thing, their's more to life than was is officially right and wrong. This should be called the polically correct thread where anthing not absolutely PC is spat at.

Their must be a lot of proud Mums out there, they're probably actually sat next to the PC posters where maybe one day friends could sit (maybe).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom