DUI and keep your job...??

[TJx2]

http://www.ocregister.com/news/-301028--.html

There is no way in #@[email protected] I would even think about having a job....what in the world could the extenuating circumstances be?

If this is a repost, please point me to it and I will delete this post.

[PhilipCal]

http://www.ocregister.com/news/-301028--.html

There is no way in #@[email protected] I would even think about having a job....what in the world could the extenuating circumstances be?

If this is a repost, please point me to it and I will delete this post.

It is, and it was pretty well discussed. Believe it was in "Ask a Cop".

[TJx2]

Ah...I shall go search there

[jannino]

I can't comment over there so someone fill me in... why was he able to keep his job?

I say force him to resign and make him wait the mandatory period they require of applicants with the same charge. If that charge is an instant DQ.. well... good luck finding somewhere that will hire him.

[eagleI]

I haven"t read the other thread & have no inside information but many cities/counties have similar standards: If you are confronted with an addiction problem and you admit it and agree to go to rehab, you keep your job. If you refuse/deny, you are terminated. Keep in mind alcoholism is considered a medical issue and there are ADA/HIPPA issues. That is my guess.

[Murf425]

If you are confronted with an addiction problem and you admit it and agree to go to rehab, you keep your job.

Yeah, my last company had that rule (I actually think it's a law, but don't quote me on that). Problem is, he didn't admit it; he got caught. Sort of like the employee we had who had a vehicle accident on base involving company and Navy vehicles and then came to me before the mandatory post-incident drug screening and said, "By the way...I have a drug problem and I want to seek help." Sorry, cheif...it doesn't work that way. You have to tell us BEFORE you **** up.

[Aerohead]

Yeah, my last company had that rule (I actually think it's a law, but don't quote me on that). Problem is, he didn't admit it; he got caught. Sort of like the employee we had who had a vehicle accident on base involving company and Navy vehicles and then came to me before the mandatory post-incident drug screening and said, "By the way...I have a drug problem and I want to seek help." Sorry, cheif...it doesn't work that way. You have to tell us BEFORE you **** up.

Nah, it works if/when you f**k up too - almost like a "get out of jail free" card...had a few people at my dept like that...

[Iowa #1603]

Yeah, my last company had that rule (I actually think it's a law, but don't quote me on that). Problem is, he didn't admit it; he got caught.

Yep.............you just have to admit that you have a problem..............especially after you get caught.

BUT-------------if you something stupid enough, you can still get terminated the first time.

[Murf425]

if you something stupid enough, you can still get terminated the first time.

This guy basically played pinball in the parking lot with a tractor, two Navy fire trucks, and a DoD deuce-and-a-half. *facepalm*

[oneoldcop]

Yep.............you just have to admit that you have a problem..............especially after you get caught.

BUT-------------if you something stupid enough, you can still get terminated the first time.

I must concur, labor laws allow one to plead for help even after the fact...

[Murf425]

I must concur, labor laws allow one to plead for help even after the fact...

It might also have had to do with the substance. Since alcoholism is [considered] a "disease", I guess it makes sense. This dude popped positive for cocaine; perhaps since there's no ADA coverage for that, it was the difference.

(Sidenote: I had no sympathy for him anyway, since he was making $12/hour, I had processed his application for food stamps/Medicaid, as well as doing an employment verification for his THREE kids to get free lunch at school...but apparently he can afford his coke. **** him if he'd rather get jacked then take care of his family.)

[Iowa #1603]

It might also have had to do with the substance. Since alcoholism is [considered] a "disease", I guess it makes sense. This dude popped positive for cocaine; perhaps since there's no ADA coverage for that, it was the difference.

(Sidenote: I had no sympathy for him anyway, since he was making $12/hour, I had processed his application for food stamps/Medicaid, as well as doing an employment verification for his THREE kids to get free lunch at school...but apparently he can afford his coke. **** him if he'd rather get jacked then take care of his family.)

Actually there is ADA coverage on substance abuse..............the substance doesn't matter. Ask a couple hundred pro sports players.

There are several ways around the game, but sometimes it is easier for the department to play the game, give the idiot the chance to use stronger rope the next time----and there will usually be A next time!

Other times the incident might be just enough of a problem that it is worth it to go ahead and terminate----and let the cards drop as they will in the appeals process.


An instructor I had who taught discipline and discharge to our state managers stated that sometimes it is better to go ahead and terminate FULLY WELL KNOWING that the termination will be overturned (and knowing there will be a payout) just to show that certain things won't be tolerated.

[Murf425]

An instructor I had who taught discipline and discharge to our state managers stated that sometimes it is better to go ahead and terminate FULLY WELL KNOWING that the employee in question is too much of a dumbass to realize that he can challenge it.

Fixed to reflect the employee I was dealing with. ;-)