Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Moonlighting and FMLA Arkansas

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Not my area of expertise, but I was always told that having company policies and not equally enforcing it is MUCH worse then policy at all.

    True story. We had some employee get drunk (after work), decide he was too drunk to make it home, so ended up parking on the company's front yard. HR had a meeting about setting a policy against this sort of thing. Finance was sending me to these meetings, and my recommendation was no policy. When HR insisted we needed a policy I suggested a "no bone-head rule". The policy in its entirety was the same as the title. Bone-heads are not a legally protected class, even under ADA and it is perfectly legal to fire someone for being one.
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".
    Philip K. **** (1928-1982)

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by hr for me View Post
      I have to wonder if you even read the post that you copied from SHRM above. Assuming you meant "shouldn't" -- and that is your judgment call for your place of business if you have the authority to make that kind of policy. But it's not always best business practice to forbid it.
      Yes I meant "shouldn't".

      I was mainly responding to ElleMD's comment about dealing with only abusers.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by daw View Post
        not my area of expertise, but i was always told that having company policies and not equally enforcing it is much worse then policy at all.

        True story. We had some employee get drunk (after work), decide he was too drunk to make it home, so ended up parking on the company's front yard. Hr had a meeting about setting a policy against this sort of thing. Finance was sending me to these meetings, and my recommendation was no policy. When hr insisted we needed a policy i suggested a "no bone-head rule". The policy in its entirety was the same as the title. Bone-heads are not a legally protected class, even under ada and it is perfectly legal to fire someone for being one.
        love it!!!

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by DAW View Post
          Not my area of expertise, but I was always told that having company policies and not equally enforcing it is MUCH worse then policy at all.

          True story. We had some employee get drunk (after work), decide he was too drunk to make it home, so ended up parking on the company's front yard. HR had a meeting about setting a policy against this sort of thing. Finance was sending me to these meetings, and my recommendation was no policy. When HR insisted we needed a policy I suggested a "no bone-head rule". The policy in its entirety was the same as the title. Bone-heads are not a legally protected class, even under ADA and it is perfectly legal to fire someone for being one.
          Sounds reasonable, somewhat. I would be willing to give some leeway, however, in a case such as his, since it is far safer to tick off a boss & park on company property after a rought night on the town, instead of driving home intoxicated.
          I don't believe what I write, and neither should you. Information furnished to you is for debate purposes only, be sure to verify with your own research.
          Keep in mind that the information provided may not be worth any more than either a politician's promise or what you paid for it (nothing).
          I also may not have been either sane or sober when I wrote it down.
          Don't worry, be happy.

          http://www.rcfp.org/taping/index.html is a good resource!

          Comment


          • #20
            And if he had parked in the nearby very large unlocked parking lot I would agree with you. But he instead drove over a low fence, and some bushes and flowers to get to the lawn. Property damage. A call to the plant manager at 3 in the morning by the police. Us having to send someone to the police station to pick him up. (His wife apparently felt she had done this too many times before). Also, it is not like someone forced him to get s***faced drunk. At least he did not kill anyone, so I guess it could have been worse. Being a fall down drunk may be ADA. Messing up the front yard is not.
            "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".
            Philip K. **** (1928-1982)

            Comment


            • #21
              Oh. Well. I suppose there are a few things that would get in the way of a boss being lenient.
              Last edited by cactus jack; 06-17-2017, 09:29 PM.
              I don't believe what I write, and neither should you. Information furnished to you is for debate purposes only, be sure to verify with your own research.
              Keep in mind that the information provided may not be worth any more than either a politician's promise or what you paid for it (nothing).
              I also may not have been either sane or sober when I wrote it down.
              Don't worry, be happy.

              http://www.rcfp.org/taping/index.html is a good resource!

              Comment


              • #22
                I understand that being a drunk may be covered by ADA. But doing Really Stupid Things while drunk is not. If someone wants a company policy, write one telling employees to NEVER drive to work while impaired. No one is important enough that missing a day is that big of a deal. I had an employee drive to work drunk (AM), hit several cars in the parking lot, and his excuse was that he did not want to "let me down". I had a meeting with all my staff (dozen) and told them none of them were important enough to justify doing that. If you are impaired, take the day off, and if you have an ADA issue, talk to HR. I can get 20 temps with one phone call. There is nothing I can do to make a dead pedestrian alive. I do not need those kind of "favors".
                "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".
                Philip K. **** (1928-1982)

                Comment


                • #23
                  http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/ada/ch4.htm
                  The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I'm late to the party on this one but current substance use is never protected under ADA.
                    I post with the full knowledge and support of my employer, though the opinions rendered are my own and not necessarily representative of their position. In other words, I'm a free agent.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Not an ADA expert but that is good to hear. I have heard this both ways.

                      I do not mind an employee taking time off work for treatment or missing the occasional day. I mind very much having one of our employees run someone over. That being the case, I am very much in favor of hammering any employee who comes to work impaired. The last/only time this came up with someone reporting to me, HR assured me I could not fire the person. My VIP was so P.O. he paid $5K to one of the big boy law firms getting a formal opinion telling HR what they could do with their opinion.
                      "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".
                      Philip K. **** (1928-1982)

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Sounds as they should have replaced the HR person that said that as well.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          35 person HR department. You do not fire people for being wrong. You train them. (You fire people for being wrong and not caring that they are wrong - re Bonehead rule).

                          If you fire people for making mistakes, people will lie and hide their mistakes. I never fire people for honest mistakes. I want them to bring mistakes to me so I can fix the mistakes and prevent them from reoccurring.
                          "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".
                          Philip K. **** (1928-1982)

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by DAW View Post
                            35 person HR department. You do not fire people for being wrong. You train them. (You fire people for being wrong and not caring that they are wrong - re Bonehead rule).

                            If you fire people for making mistakes, people will lie and hide their mistakes. I never fire people for honest mistakes. I want them to bring mistakes to me so I can fix the mistakes and prevent them from reoccurring.
                            I like that philosophy very much.

                            My 2 instructions are that if we make a mistake, I want to try to keep in in house (ie find it before it impacts an employee), and if we make a mistake, what actions will we take to make sure it doesn't happen again.

                            Now, don't care about mistakes, keep making the same mistake over and over again - those are different issues.
                            I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have.
                            Thomas Jefferson

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              While terminating someone for being under the influence at work is not illegal, there are times it *may* be ill advised for other reasons. Those reasons are going to be very few and far between (IMO), but they do exist.
                              I post with the full knowledge and support of my employer, though the opinions rendered are my own and not necessarily representative of their position. In other words, I'm a free agent.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Agreed, but if the employer knowingly allows an impaired person to remain at work and they hurt someone, the employer *may* be held responsible for THEIR action. Remember that not allowing an impaired employee to work (or remain at work) and terminating their employee are legally unrelated issues. My last two major employer's policy was that if you are impaired for any reason, DO NOT COME TO WORK. PERIOD. If an impaired employee reports to work, the supervisor was supposed to send them home by cab (which we paid).

                                Termination can and should be discussed later as an unrelated issue, hopefully with a non-impaired employee.

                                I worked for a manufacturing employer with 1,000+ employees. It used to take two maintenance people 1/2 hour each to sweep up the beer cans consumed prior to shift. Our union went on strike and most of the employees were permanently replaced. And we got real hard ball about being impaired on the job. WC claims dropped by 80%, something our union previously stopped us from doing.
                                "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".
                                Philip K. **** (1928-1982)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X