So Who Takes a Breathalizer for Alcohol Every Day at Work?

Lindberg said:
Obviously none of us were there, but it seems very unlikely that they terminated a 22-year model employee for a single, undocumented bad result, especially when others have been given multiple chances. It sounds like there's going to be more to the story.
Click to expand...

That's what zero tolerance looks like. Same stupidity that expels 8 year olds from school for bringing a toy soldier with a 'gun' for show&tell and imprisons people for 25 years on their 'third strike' even if the final offense was check fraud.
 
Norman said:
The camel's nose is in the tent.....................

Take rights away one at a time end slowly so no one will notice.
Click to expand...

Bingo, it's not the "terrorists" or "racists" that scare me, it's these "mother may I types" who are more than willing to sell their rights AND MINE down the river for some BS illusion of saftey or security.

I'd rather those scumb bags just move to china or north korea, or somehwere where people have no rights and the "authorities" are like gods, and leave me alone.
 
weilke said:
That's what zero tolerance looks like. Same stupidity that expels 8 year olds from school for bringing a toy soldier with a 'gun' for show&tell and imprisons people for 25 years on their 'third strike' even if the final offense was check fraud.
Click to expand...
You missed the part about there allegedly being no documentation of the test result, and other employees falling on multiple occasions and not being fired. That's not zero tolerance, that's half the story.
 
On the general issue of mining. It is fun to contrast how the publicly traded mining companies run their shop with the bumbling idiots Discovery has on their 'gold rush' show. Of course, these people are essentially actors and get paid to play bumbling idiots on TV. Watching suits with corporate logo helmets audit some rock dust log makes much less entertaining TV than roughnecks carrying on 'conversations' that have to be completely bleeped out. Those corporate outfits dont dig a single hole unless they have a drill result that makes it worth their while. I also doubt they stockpile a seasons haul in mason jars while they have diesel deliveries that need to be paid for. But such is reality TV.
 
Lindberg said:
You missed the part about there allegedly being no documentation of the test result, and other employees falling on multiple occasions and not being fired. That's not zero tolerance, that's half the story.
Click to expand...

I didn't miss that, in fact I posted the law that says that the company can't take adverse employment action based on an on-site result. That may be the reason for the test on the dock as they can refer a positive test immediately to a in-town testing lab for the confirmatory test.
We have 1/2 the story second hand. We dont know what the written policies are, whether it was a first event etc.
 
weilke said:
That's what zero tolerance looks like. Same stupidity that expels 8 year olds from school for bringing a toy soldier with a 'gun' for show&tell and imprisons people for 25 years on their 'third strike' even if the final offense was check fraud.
Click to expand...
It's what happens when management is too lazy to try and distinguish between the merits of different cases, or when they are too afraid of being sued in the instance that someone decides they were too lenient. The other problem I see in this case is that the employee doesn't seem to have been given any other confirming test. No single test is infallible. On the other hand, if it is an "at will" state they can fire for any reason as long as it is not for one that is forbidden by law.
 
Everskyward said:
It's what happens when management is too lazy to try and distinguish between the merits of different cases, or when they are too afraid of being sued in the instance that someone decides they were too lenient. The other problem I see in this case is that the employee doesn't seem to have been given any other confirming test. No single test is infallible. On the other hand, if it is an "at will" state they can fire for any reason as long as it is not for one that is forbidden by law.
Click to expand...

Was it

'here is a .02 result, sign here to acknowledge the test and your separation from the company. If you sign, we list this as discretionary dismissal and wont object to your UI claim'.

Or

'here is your .02 result, go to the lab in town to get the confirmatory test. We'll fire you after the confirmatory test. We will also list it as 'for cause' dismissal and dispute your UI claim '.

We know nothing.
 
Doggtyred said:
No.. I didn't. I just chose to ignore it. Its a crappy point that is invalid. Unless you have a union and a contract you are a right to work/at will employee. You agree to it, or you dont work there. You say you'd walk. You might have that luxury where you are. I'm guessing where they are at its the only good paying gig in the region, and those who choose to live there there have to toe the line if they want to work there at the one good paying place. If they (that outfit) were spending the money on daily 100% breathalyzers, it makes me wonder just how much of a problem they had. The equipment and QC for that isn't cheap. Its a business decision. And clearly they saved money by spending money. Was this in an indiginous back country town with an alcohol problem?
Click to expand...

You actually seem to be agreeing with my basic point, if I'm reading your post correctly. Yes I said the employer has a right to set the standards as they see fit. And yes I think it's a crappy deal, particularly if they are the only employer in town.

You appeared to have been lambasting me for the appearance of condoning drinking in the workplace. Maybe I misunderstood you. Going from "we live in a police state" to "Sac promotes alcoholism in the workplace" is, however, a huge leap.
 
Bill lives in Juneau. The capital city. Politicians, lobbyists, tourists.... bars.
 
weilke said:
Or

'here is your .02 result, go to the lab in town to get the confirmatory test. We'll fire you after the confirmatory test. We will also list it as 'for cause' dismissal and dispute your UI claim '.

We know nothing.
Click to expand...
So what happens if the confirmatory test is clean?
 
Stewartb said:
Bill lives in Juneau. The capital city. Politicians, lobbyists, tourists.... bars.
Click to expand...
I am not defending the testing, as it seems to be missing some due process (though as a private enterprise with at will employment, that might not apply), but where is the mine located?
 
Stewartb said:
A day before? Bill described being tested before boarding a boat that transports workers to the mine prior to a shift. I'm guessing there are no taxis to take you home once you get to the other side.

I know the owner of a very popular fishing charter business that has a no alcohol policy for all his crew and staff members. Not for hours of duty but from date of hire until end of season. On duty or off. Have a drink, get fired. He doesn't have any problem keeping good crews and nobody that works for him complains about his policy.
Click to expand...

I have worked for a few companies like that, and there were no problems of hungover people too sick to fly. Also made the work place more fun for the season.

Now the end of season parties....
 
I suspect he works at Greens Creek on Admiralty Island. I don't think they run crews to Kensington with boats, but I'm no expert.
 
Stewartb said:
I suspect he works at Greens Creek on Admiralty Island. I don't think they run crews to Kensington with boats, but I'm no expert.
Click to expand...
So, there is only one village there and alcohol possession is illegal within the village limits. There may be some politics at play, since they are shipping in hundreds (just a guess) of workers every day.

Edit: IOW, in order to get sign off from the locals to run the mine, the breathalyzer testing may have been a concession.
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
Bingo, it's not the "terrorists" or "racists" that scare me, it's these "mother may I types" who are more than willing to sell their rights AND MINE down the river for some BS illusion of saftey or security.

I'd rather those scumb bags just move to china or north korea, or somehwere where people have no rights and the "authorities" are like gods, and leave me alone.
Click to expand...
Best post of 2017!
 
Everskyward said:
I meant the company you work for. Or maybe I am confusing you with someone else in the medical field.
Click to expand...

I just pointed to one of 10 ways how to get around the states testing law.

No, I would not handle it that way with my employees. That said, leaving a blunt in the company car is an automatic firing. I don't care whether it's your boyfriends, if that is the case you get fired for being too dumb.
 
weilke said:
I just pointed to one of 10 ways how to get around the states testing law.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I misunderstood.

weilke said:
No, I would not handle it that way with my employees. That said, leaving a blunt in the company car is an automatic firing. I don't care whether it's your boyfriends, if that is the case you get fired for being too dumb.
Click to expand...
I don't have any problem with that. But I have worked most of my life in an at will state where they can fire you for something as simple as perceived "bad attitude" or backtalking.
 
Everskyward said:
I don't have any problem with that. But I have worked most of my life in an at will state where they can fire you for something as simple as perceived "bad attitude" or backtalking.
Click to expand...

On the flipside, it is a state where as the employee you can just walk out without providing an explanation. Cuts both ways.
 
AKBill said:
The company change ownership a few years ago and the new owners have changed a lot of the policy's. I put up with the long hours and policy changes because they pay well and their other benefits such as 401K and health insurance are very good...

The safety policies are out there as well. Example, you are required to chock a tracked D-9 dozer, like a dozer is going to move on its own
Click to expand...
I've seen it happen, but, blade down and it ain't goin' no where.
 
weilke said:
On the flipside, it is a state where as the employee you can just walk out without providing an explanation. Cuts both ways.
Click to expand...
True but I didn't think an employee walking out ever had to provide a reason other than the fact that they didn't want to work there any more... that is unless they signed a contract.
 
22 years with the company. Depending on how old he was when hired, could be nearing retirement. Just food for thought.
 
Everskyward said:
Sorry, I misunderstood.

I don't have any problem with that. But I have worked most of my life in an at will state where they can fire you for something as simple as perceived "bad attitude" or backtalking.
Click to expand...

Hmmm . . . In the several "at will" states that I've worked in, a company can fire an employee for any reason at all, including no reason. And the flip side, an employee can quit at any time with or without notice; remember, however, that the company does not need to accept your notice. I've known two people who resigned with two week notices and were told, "thank you very much. This is your last day, you don't need to work the next two weeks."
 
Hank S said:
I've known two people who resigned with two week notices and were told, "thank you very much. This is your last day, you don't need to work the next two weeks."
Click to expand...
That is pretty common for sales people. One bad apple...
 
Hank S said:
Hmmm . . . In the several "at will" states that I've worked in, a company can fire an employee for any reason at all, including no reason. And the flip side, an employee can quit at any time with or without notice; remember, however, that the company does not need to accept your notice. I've known two people who resigned with two week notices and were told, "thank you very much. This is your last day, you don't need to work the next two weeks."
Click to expand...
That's all true, I'm not sure what part of my post you were questioning.
 
Everskyward said:
That's all true, I'm not sure what part of my post you were questioning.
Click to expand...

I was just clarifying that the company does not need a reason to let you go, regardless of your attitude or performance. "At will" goes fully in both directions.
 
Hank S said:
I was just clarifying that the company does not need a reason to let you go, regardless of your attitude or performance. "At will" goes fully in both directions.
Click to expand...
I should have made that clearer.
 
Not completely true. Fire a guy and he may drag you into a complaint with the State labor department. In that scenario the employer is guilty until proven innocent.
 
Nah, you just tell them they are laid off, they have no recourse, not worth trying to get a pound of flesh out of someone by telling them they are fired, unless it's something clear cut like theft or assault.
 
Laying off delays unemployment for them. That triggers a labor dept investigation, too. I just had one if those a few months ago.
 
bluerooster said:
I've seen it happen, but, blade down and it ain't goin' no where.
Click to expand...

I have watched an excavator surf into a gravel pit when he lost hydraulic pressure on the crawlers. No pressure, no brake action. Dozers sort of come with their chocks built in.
 
PaulS said:
Laying off triggers the investigation or firing?
Click to expand...

Probably depends on the state:

If you get discharged for misconduct, there is either a waiting period for UI (in MD it is 5-10 weeks) or the worker is ineligible alltogether (in cases of gross misconduct, theft, threatening employees etc). Of course, those who get canned for a reason know the ins and outs of the UI system and all the correct keywords to turn the states caseworker into their ally so the employer spends time going to hearings and appeals.

If you are laid off without a reason, you are eligible or UI whenever the state pays it (e.g. the following week).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top