Alcohol in the workplace? | Page 3 | Vital Football

Alcohol in the workplace?

chris who

Vital Football Hero
#41
My (long dead) uncle was a traffic controller at Heathrow back in the 60's, I can only remember him pissed. As a kid I can remember asking why was "uncle" always asleep on the settee, only to be told "he's been working hard all night and needed to sleep". Bloody hell, thinking back he must have been my sub conscious role model which I long aspired to :yes: Great bloke, muchly missed - should have more like him (bollocks to this current no drinking culture).

As Humphrey Bogart said“ - Never trust a man who does not drink”
My Dad never drank Alcohol I maybe a little biased but a more truthful trustworthy and kind a generous person you will find hard to find.
 

OneSirKeefy

Vital 1st Team Regular
#42
Youve not explained WHY the blame is apportioned to the company. ........

At the end of the day its the person that chooses to break the law and put lives at risk. When i go out in london i get a taxi home from the station. If i drive, youre saying its the companies fault? I dont get it.
Yes I have. It’s WH&S.

You supply alcohol in your workplace, you have to ensure safety around that.

BTW - with regards to DD, I’m not saying the company is responsible for you getting pulled over and DQ’d and fined. You’d be on your own. I’m talking about if you were to say, cause an accident or run over someone because you were over the limit. The company would also be blamed and would have to defend themselves. They may be up for payment of damages etc.

And what I am saying is if you drink at a company function you have to be given a method of getting home safely. The company has to supply that and do what they can to see you adhere to it.

If you ignore it, lie, and simply duck round the corner and drive home, not much they can do. And that would clear them in a court case I’d imagine.


I think it’s seen in the same way anything else in the workplace is viewed. They can’t provide machinery and simply say “use it correctly or it’s your fault if you get injured”. They’ve got to put every safety feature in there and ensure you adhere.

I know it’s WH&S to the nth degree, but there you go.

With regards your comment about the pubs. In this country we also have “Responsible supply of alcohol” laws. It’s a lot different, I’m not comparing. But q If any place serving alcohol continues to ply someone with booze when they are obviously well over the top, there can be repercussions. It doesn’t actually get used much, and it definitely wouldn’t be an offence just because someone drove when over the 0.05 limit. But the law is there.

If, for example, someone simply drank themselves stupid, then walked out and stepped in front of a car, that bar might have some serious questions to answer if they just kept on supplying booze.

Lawyers are expensive things.
 
Last edited:

alphabet_king

Vital 1st Team Regular
#44
Yes I have. It’s WH&S.

You supply alcohol in your workplace, you have to ensure safety around that.

BTW - with regards to DD, I’m not saying the company is responsible for you getting pulled over and DQ’d and fined. You’d be on your own. I’m talking about if you were to say, cause an accident or run over someone because you were over the limit. The company would also be blamed and would have to defend themselves. They may be up for payment of damages etc.

And what I am saying is if you drink at a company function you have to be given a method of getting home safely. The company has to supply that and do what they can to see you adhere to it.

If you ignore it, lie, and simply duck round the corner and drive home, not much they can do. And that would clear them in a court case I’d imagine.


I think it’s seen in the same way anything else in the workplace is viewed. They can’t provide machinery and simply say “use it correctly or it’s your fault if you get injured”. They’ve got to put every safety feature in there and ensure you adhere.

I know it’s WH&S to the nth degree, but there you go.

With regards your comment about the pubs. In this country we also have “Responsible supply of alcohol” laws. It’s a lot different, I’m not comparing. But q If any place serving alcohol continues to ply someone with booze when they are obviously well over the top, there can be repercussions. It doesn’t actually get used much, and it definitely wouldn’t be an offence just because someone drove when over the 0.05 limit. But the law is there.

If, for example, someone simply drank themselves stupid, then walked out and stepped in front of a car, that bar might have some serious questions to answer if they just kept on supplying booze.

Lawyers are expensive things.
Its not just like giving people machinery WHILE AT WORK though is it. Its their actions outside of work, once they leave work that the company is being found responsible for. Its more like if i took some work tools home with me and started doing some diy with them. Then decided to staple someone with them. Apparently its the companies fault.

Also no idea what 'WH&S' is btw. Youve also no explained that.

All youve done is explain what the law is a couple of times in more and more detail, not WHY its there and what the justification for the law is. You seem to agree with it, but i really dont get why. Its a very odd law IMO. I prefer to make people responsible for their own actions. Rather than blaming someone that bought them a drink.
 
Last edited:
#46
Its not just like giving people machinery WHILE AT WORK though is it. Its their actions outside of work, once they leave work that the company is being found responsible for. Its more like if i took some work tools home with me and started doing some diy with them. Then decided to staple someone with them. Apparently its the companies fault.

Also no idea what 'WH&S' is btw. Youve also no explained that.

All youve done is explain what the law is a couple of times in more and more detail, not WHY its there and what the justification for the law is. You seem to agree with it, but i really dont get why. Its a very odd law IMO. I prefer to make people responsible for their own actions. Rather than blaming someone that bought them a drink.
I wouldn't like to try to explain the reason for some of the laws in the UK!
 

LancsGordoRoad

Vital 1st Team Regular
#47
How far back do you want to go?

Nobby you need to watch Gideon of Scotland Yard, a film made in 1958 and depicting a day in the working life of a Scotland Yard Inspector. Every drawer contains a bottle of scotch, a packet of fags and a pipe and I challenge you to find a 5 minute sequence without drink being taken at home, on the job and in the office. Worth noting that Jack Hawkins, who played the leading role probably lived that lifestyle. He died just short of his 63rd birthday.

Talking of going back, the Navy allowed and still does, I believe, the drinking of spirits whilst on duty.

Drinking on the job was widespread during the 70`s and 80`s - no matter what genre of occupation one was in - it was, at the time, broadly acceptable.

Re the police. Yep, they were probably some of the worst offenders in the 70`s and 80`s. Many police stations, especially those outside of London, had their own bars that would be used for social functions and also as a place of relaxation after a late day shift. In the CID there was definitely a culture of excess drinking, albeit mostly at the end of a shift and misguidedly "justified" and associated with working long hours, which, of course, was no excuse !

But, to be fair, police were among the very early runners in terms of culture change and ridding any form of drinking whilst on duty. It became absolutely (and rightly) unacceptable and police bars at police stations were universally closed down.
 

OneSirKeefy

Vital 1st Team Regular
#48
Its not just like giving people machinery WHILE AT WORK though is it. Its their actions outside of work, once they leave work that the company is being found responsible for. Its more like if i took some work tools home with me and started doing some diy with them. Then decided to staple someone with them. Apparently its the companies fault.

Also no idea what 'WH&S' is btw. Youve also no explained that.

All youve done is explain what the law is a couple of times in more and more detail, not WHY its there and what the justification for the law is. You seem to agree with it, but i really dont get why. Its a very odd law IMO. I prefer to make people responsible for their own actions. Rather than blaming someone that bought them a drink.
WH & S is Workplace Health and Safety. You may call it OHS or something. I think you may have heard of similar AK or are you trying to be like Wayne now?

The way the law views it in this country, and many others, if a company puts on a work function of any sort, a meeting, a seminar, a training day, it is still seen as the workplace. As such, they have a level of responsibility.

The Law is not absolving an individual of any responsibility. It’s just including the business in any litigation that comes from any wrongdoing. If I get pissed at a company function, and I drive and kill someone, the company would face litigation as well as me. They’d have to prove they took steps to ensure I didn’t (in this case) drink and then drive at a company sponsored function. I can’t see anything wrong with that myself.

I’m also not sure why you’d need me to explain why safety laws are in place and what they are there for.

I look forward to your next series of questions. What bits don’t you understand?
 

LancsGordoRoad

Vital 1st Team Regular
#49
I wouldn't like to try to explain the reason for some of the laws in the UK!
The Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Act of 1531 was one of my favourites, there was also another 14th century statute relating to grave yards but i`ve forgotten. The 1824 Vagrancy Act is still in force - "wandering abroad" what colourful language.

But in relation to "reason" - at the time a piece of legislation is constituted, the word reason is most relevant. Most legislation is built around what a contemporary reasonable person would deem acceptable/unacceptable. Trying to put ourselves, and our current perception of reason, in the mind of old lawmakers can be tricky.
 

OneSirKeefy

Vital 1st Team Regular
#50
Its not just like giving people machinery WHILE AT WORK though is it. Its their actions outside of work, once they leave work that the company is being found responsible for. Its more like if i took some work tools home with me and started doing some diy with them. Then decided to staple someone with them. Apparently its the companies fault..
And you might like to have a quick view at the first thing that comes up when googling - UK law drink driving after company function.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/hrnew...s-who-drive-home-drunk-from-a-work-event/amp/

The laws aren’t entrenched in UK. But it seems employers ARE liable for things that happen during or after company functions. They are already advised that they should tell employees of expected behaviour, and advise employees of alternate transport or local places to stay to avoid drink driving.

So it would appear even in UK the law is quite similar or going that way. You might want to get yourself versed in them 👍
 

alphabet_king

Vital 1st Team Regular
#51
WH & S is Workplace Health and Safety. You may call it OHS or something. I think you may have heard of similar AK or are you trying to be like Wayne now?

The way the law views it in this country, and many others, if a company puts on a work function of any sort, a meeting, a seminar, a training day, it is still seen as the workplace. As such, they have a level of responsibility.

The Law is not absolving an individual of any responsibility. It’s just including the business in any litigation that comes from any wrongdoing. If I get pissed at a company function, and I drive and kill someone, the company would face litigation as well as me. They’d have to prove they took steps to ensure I didn’t (in this case) drink and then drive at a company sponsored function. I can’t see anything wrong with that myself.

I’m also not sure why you’d need me to explain why safety laws are in place and what they are there for.

I look forward to your next series of questions. What bits don’t you understand?
Fucking hell mate.... I understand the law you've now explained about 20 times in more and more detail. That's not my question. My question is why. What is the actual reasoning behind it? And please dont just explain the law again. If you dont know why it's the case, then just say that, rather than just explaining the law again.

I see no reason WHY an employer should be given any responsibility for things a person does on their way home from work. They may have given them the booze, but i just dont see why they are deemed responsible for them drink-driving - something they've done off their own back.

I keep asking why, and you just keep responding '"because it's the law". Do we really have to keep going around in this circle?

Oh and I didn't have a clue what WH&S meant at all. I googled it and got no responses.

Do you actually agree with this as a law? Do you think it's a employers fault? Where do you draw the line? Are there any other things I can do on my way home from work after a few beers that the employer will get in trouble for?
 
Last edited:

alphabet_king

Vital 1st Team Regular
#52
And you might like to have a quick view at the first thing that comes up when googling - UK law drink driving after company function.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/hrnew...s-who-drive-home-drunk-from-a-work-event/amp/

The laws aren’t entrenched in UK. But it seems employers ARE liable for things that happen during or after company functions. They are already advised that they should tell employees of expected behaviour, and advise employees of alternate transport or local places to stay to avoid drink driving.

So it would appear even in UK the law is quite similar or going that way. You might want to get yourself versed in them 👍
You really are being very arrogant, to what was a fairly polite and simple question which you are embarrassingly misunderstanding again and again. I wont bother trying to explain it again. If you havn't grasped it by now you are unlikely to and ive better things to do with my saturdays.
 
Last edited:

Tarian

Vital Squad Member
#53
Fucking hell mate.... I understand the law you've now explained about 20 times in more and more detail. That's not my question. My question is why. What is the actual reasoning behind it? And please dont just explain the law again. If you dont know why it's the case, then just say that, rather than just explaining the law again.

I see no reason WHY an employer should be given any responsibility for things a person does on their way home from work. They may have given them the booze, but i just dont see why they are deemed responsible for them drink-driving - something they've done off their own back.

Oh and I didn't have a clue what WH&S meant at all. I googled it and got no responses.

Do you actually agree with this as a law? Do you think it's a employers fault? Where do you draw the line? Are there any other things I can do on my way home from work after a few beers that the employer will get in trouble for?
AK
I think the "why" is because employers (or their insurers) have deep pockets and a victim can be compensated generously.

To me that isn't "justice".
A) On the grounds that an employer should not have to prove that it limited alcohol or provided a lift home.
B) That it results in a lottery for victims.....
.....as well as encouragement to litigate - or worse, fake a claim.

But hey, lawyers can earn a crust !
 

OneSirKeefy

Vital 1st Team Regular
#54
Fucking hell mate.... I understand the law you've now explained about 20 times in more and more detail. That's not my question. My question is why. What is the actual reasoning behind it? And please dont just explain the law again. If you dont know why it's the case, then just say that, rather than just explaining the law again.

I see no reason WHY an employer should be given any responsibility for things a person does on their way home from work. They may have given them the booze, but i just dont see why they are deemed responsible for them drink-driving - something they've done off their own back.

Oh and I didn't have a clue what WH&S meant at all. I googled it and got no responses.

Do you actually agree with this as a law? Do you think it's a employers fault? Where do you draw the line? Are there any other things I can do on my way home from work after a few beers that the employer will get in trouble for?
Why? Don’t ask me. Maybe ask the law makers in just about every first world country on the planet.

Do I agree with it? That the employer has to ensure they do all they can to ensure their employees safety? Absolutely.

In all the above laws, they only have to provide the alternatives, advise everyone and do what they can. Responsibility is still with the individual but you seem to be continually ignoring that bit.

Read the article I linked. But don’t ask me to explain why. That’s the UK they are talking about.
 

OneSirKeefy

Vital 1st Team Regular
#55
You really are being very arrogant, to what was a fairly polite and simple question which you are embarrassingly misunderstanding again and again. I wont bother trying to explain it again. If you havn't grasped it by now you are unlikely to and ive better things to do with my saturdays.
WTF??

Anyone else able to see what I’m doing wrong trying to explain things to AK? Or should I just not bother?

You want to know why many countries have these laws. Why ask me?

Do I agree with them? Yes.

It’s not too hard. If you don’t agree, that’s up to you.
 

alphabet_king

Vital 1st Team Regular
#56
Why? Don’t ask me. Maybe ask the law makers in just about every first world country on the planet.

Do I agree with it? That the employer has to ensure they do all they can to ensure their employees safety? Absolutely.

In all the above laws, they only have to provide the alternatives, advise everyone and do what they can. Responsibility is still with the individual but you seem to be continually ignoring that bit.

Read the article I linked. But don’t ask me to explain why. That’s the UK they are talking about.
I find it very sad that I could take my employees out for a beer, and be found liable because once they've left to go home, they've got to their train station and decided to take their car home rather than just get a cab. It just doesn't make sense to me, but at least you've worked out my question now so you're not just quoting the law back to me again and again. We are making progress.
 

alphabet_king

Vital 1st Team Regular
#57
WTF??

Anyone else able to see what I’m doing wrong trying to explain things to AK? Or should I just not bother?

You want to know why many countries have these laws. Why ask me?
You definitely shouldn't bother mate. You've admitted you don't know why - and that's fine. Its just a shame it took you being arrogant, and me to explain it about 5 times to get there.

It was a simple polite question originally open to anyone really not just yourself, as I just found it an odd rule. It's ended up with you patroninsing and arrogantly responding to me which is hilariously ironic because up until your last post it's actually you are the one who's missed the point of my questions.
 

OneSirKeefy

Vital 1st Team Regular
#58
I find it very sad that I could take my employees out for a beer, and be found liable because once they've left to go home, they've got to their train station and decided to take their car home rather than just get a cab. It just doesn't make sense to me, but at least you've worked out my question now so you're not just quoting the law back to me again and again. We are making progress.
Thing is I’ve answered your “why” question in every one of my answers.

Basically, why ask me? I don’t know. How and why laws are thought of and passed is a long process.