[dimtimjim]

Is it a good idea, or not? Discuss.

I'm firmly in the 'no' camp, as to be honest doing work is the furthest thing from my mind right now.

But, if the boss is inviting/paying, it'd be rude to refuse.

*hic*

[Nicola_Red]

It's an offence to drink in company time here. When I was at Ticketmaster I often used to go to the pub at lunch and have a swift pint and come back tipsy (I'm a lightweight). But I had no responsibilities and worked in a big call centre where it was easy to hide away in a corner. Here it would be immediately obvious if I'd been drinking.

[chrysostom]

Couple of swift G&T's goes down quite well on a slow day - I've always worked in teams which have had a good level of cohesion and liked a drink. Just no more than 2 drinks (unless it's a Friday)

[Boboff]

Absolutley No.

End of, No.

You will always realise too late why.... Trust me, No.

Work your lunch leave early, go then, and go home DO NOT DRINK AT LUNCH TIME..... please.

[dimtimjim]

Wow... Strong feelings there Bob, wanna tell us story behind that one? Working with someone who lost a limb after a lunchtime dram?!

[Johnny 1989]

Back when our office consisted of 150 people & there was a few of us we used to go to down to our local "sports club" thingy and drink in their bar, one of the girls in her early 40's always insisted on getting a bottle of red & sharing it with one or two of the girls, us blokes ended up having one or two pints in our lunch breaks. Since we moved & staff numbers cut dramatically (barely 20 in the office now) and our local pubs is burnt down & borded up we don't go to the pub at all, however considering how shite it is now at work the pub would be more handy now at lunch times than it was back then then

[Nicola_Red]

Before I knew him, my flatmate got sacked from Colgate for turning up drunk. He went on to a much better job with higher pay, so I think it was a blessing in disguise really.

[Johnny 1989]

To be honest it was senior people who got in trouble if we returned drunk & they were with us, but to be fair except for the office manager (who always used to lock himself firmly in his office and if he didn't then he'd only go and visit the sales department upstairs) they never really batted an eyelid if you were tipsy, as long as you did some work & didn't cause a nuisance of yourself, one of our supervisiors did that once but because she was going out with the departmental manager she didn't get in trouble.

Before I knew him, my flatmate got sacked from Colgate for turning up drunk. He went on to a much better job with higher pay, so I think it was a blessing in disguise really.

As case where turning up pissed to work does have it's upsides, I thought they had to give you a warning not a straight sacking for being drunk because you may be someone with drinking problems?

[Nicola_Red]

Before I knew him, my flatmate got sacked from Colgate for turning up drunk. He went on to a much better job with higher pay, so I think it was a blessing in disguise really.

As case where turning up pissed to work does have it's upsides, I thought they had to give you a warning not a straight sacking for being drunk because you may be someone with drinking problems?

I'm not sure. As I say, I didn't know him at the time. Also it must be at least 12yrs ago so legislation might have changed since then.

[Johnny 1989]

Before I knew him, my flatmate got sacked from Colgate for turning up drunk. He went on to a much better job with higher pay, so I think it was a blessing in disguise really.

As case where turning up pissed to work does have it's upsides, I thought they had to give you a warning not a straight sacking for being drunk because you may be someone with drinking problems?

I'm not sure. As I say, I didn't know him at the time. Also it must be at least 12yrs ago so legislation might have changed since then.

Ah I see, yeah it probably has changed over the last 12 years, I know in our place it's easier to make someone redundant than sack them, it can take up to a year to sack them if they're a poor worker, that been said one of our staff was sacked for fiddling his paperwork within a space of 3 weeks, but then again they got him bang to rights, if you're a shit worker they have to put you on warnings & try to drive you to improve before they can sack you.

[MK Chris]

I don't think gross misconduct needs a warning - whether that can count as gross misconduct or not I don't know.

[Johnny 1989]

I don't think gross misconduct needs a warning - whether that can count as gross misconduct or not I don't know.

True, I think we were just lucky as so many of our managers used to go out & drink anyway, probably would be different now that there's so few of us & that there's rumours of job losses as they demerge us

[Yudster]

I don't think gross misconduct needs a warning - whether that can count as gross misconduct or not I don't know.

*Puts HR Hat on*

It depends what the job is. Under most circumstances a warning would be required and the usual procedure gone through - although a Final Written Warning can be the first disciplinary outcome, you don't have to work your way up to that. However if the specific job involves operating machinery, driving (road vehicles or trains or any type of plant including forklifts) or any tasks which would be deemed as dangerous or inappropriate to be undertaken by someone who has been drinking it is permissable to dismiss immediately on those grounds. For instance if any of our support staff, who are responsible for the day to day support of extremely vulnerable people, was known to have been drinking whilst on duty, or coming to work whilst under the influence, they would be immediately suspended, and investigation undertaken, meetings held as per the disciplinary procedure, and the outcome would be dismissal. We couldn't sack someone immediately, but we would suspend immediately and the subsequent disciplinary procedure need only take a few weeks.

*Removes HR Hat*

[Nicola_Red]

The facts as it turns out are thus: he was an IT monkey (his words to me just now), so no dangerous machinery. But he was on a temporary contract and hadn't been there long enough to have full employment rights, hence he was indeed sacked on the spot.

[Yudster]

The facts as it turns out are thus: he was an IT monkey (his words to me just now), so no dangerous machinery. But he was on a temporary contract and hadn't been there long enough to have full employment rights, hence he was indeed sacked on the spot.

Hmmm - Even without the legislative protection you get after a year in post (forget your "6 month's probationary", means nothing, your full rights don't kick in for 12 months) you still have to follow process and these days you wouldn't be able to do that. It is more straightforward to get rid of someone in their first year of employment but you still have to have a demonstrable reason to do so and to be able to justify the action from an operational standpoint. My guess is they just assumed he would go quietly.

[R94N]

Well...it would probably affect my concentration...

[foot-loose]

Drink and then work is a bad idea. And very 70s.

[Bonanzoid]

There was a guy who comes in to the bookies I work in. He never bets, and he's either a drunk or a junkie, but he somehow considers us his mates. And he has a Brummie accent so he sounds silly (sorry Cat). He must have been on the dole before and he ended up getting a job at an airport, presumably doing manual labour or something, but he got fired in his 3rd (or so) shift because in order to warm up on a cold day he decided to put brandy in his coffee. What a tit.

[foot-loose]

The security guard in the place I used to work would sit happily drinking beer and openly looking at porn on his laptop. He doesn't work there anymore oddly...

[Bonanzoid]

Oddly, I've got a work porn story too. Head Office controls all the Sky boxes in the country simultaneously and there were a few incidents a while back where our TVs would be turned on to Television X and Babestation by Head Office. They said it was a 'fault' but I highly doubt that.

[dreamer1978]

In a former work place of mine, we used to go to the pub alot at lunch time for a drink. It was accepted by the bosses. When the fire alarm went either as a test or it actually went off, instead of standing at the meeting point we would head to the pub. Then someone would call us when it was safe to go back in. So i don't see the harm of having one at lunch time but no more, as long as you didn't come back drunk and couldnt work the rest of the day .

[Boboff]

This is a good discussion.

I like Yuds HR hat, "Right lets suspend have a full investigation and then sack him" just like the wild west, " Lets have us a trial then Hang Him"

It's a personal decision, Dreamer is good to stick to one.

Whilst working as a Finance Director the boss used to take us for a drink at lunch time, he was ex 70's Banker, as Foots says, it was all the rage. He would return to work after 4 pints sometimes, and be effectively in charge of 120 peoples work, taking phone calls from Supermarket Buyers, and frankly talking out his arse. Other colleques when taken would then decide to stay on with the boss and leave for their wives at 8p.m. only able to drive thanks to a business card slipped inside on side of their glasses. They would then think that they had done a 15 hour day as they started at 5 in the morning..........

If you are respnsible for anyone or you have a family, then I do not think it is right, fair, or proper to drink whilst working.

You wouldn't just have a couple of drags of a spliff and say it's ok would you?

[dimtimjim]

See, my general opinion is that a chilled beverage at lunch is a bad thing, but purely based on a drop in productivity. I certainly wouldn't do it if it wasn't a work thing and my whole team were going - as in yesterday. T'was a thank you lunch for meeting last weeks dealine, company was paying (11 of us all in) a drink and a baguette of choice. I had 'steak with onion marmalade'. Yumski. And I certainly wouldn't ever have more than 1 drink, thats just nuts. Can't imagine working (trying to work?) with 4 pints inside me.

Oh, and bob, you're wrong about the spliff thing, thats fine*...!



* Drugs are bad, kids. Hmmmmok?

[Yudster]

This is a good discussion.

I like Yuds HR hat, "Right lets suspend have a full investigation and then sack him" just like the wild west, " Lets have us a trial then Hang Him"

Don't be silly Boboff, we were talking about a situation where something HAS happened and the investigation will prove it, therefore the outcome is clear. If the investigation shows otherwise, then obviously the outcome changes, but we were discussing what happens when someone DOES something, not what happens when someone MIGHT have done something.

[Boboff]

Hahhahaha Lol..... Yuds called me Silly.

Love it!

I think you know you are wrong.

You can not have an investigation with an opinion as to what the outcome will be, and fixed as to what you believe the facts are, you can't do it.

That is not an investigation. It is an exercise in complying with HR strategy to cover your arse at Tribunal, which incidentally it would not.

Anyway, the stars on my calender match up for todays date so, I'll leave that one there!

I know I am obviously wrong, and you are right, and this whole post is pointless, so I am sorry, and silly, and know my place, I look up to you......