J LEVY | BikeTechArticles | Chain Suck DETAIL::
The chain-rollers did not ride as far up from the tooth roots when under How much wear to a granny-ring does it take before chain-suck becomes a problem ?
http://www.fagan.co.za/Bikes/Csuck/DETAIL.htmHOME |
When something goes really wrong at a company and a worker dies who all should be held accountable. Exsample: Your a trained manager, your staff is fully trained. Yet one day, out of the blue procedure is not followed and as a result the person dies. To make matters worse a illegal drug is found in the blood of the victim. Is the manager responsible? What about the District MGR.? His Boss? Where does responsibility stop. If everyone is trained in this story, who did wrong(outside the person who chose not to follow procedure)?
Under any and every circumstance? As a written policy? Any employee who is injured or killed on the job, fire the supervisor?
Originally posted by Dave
When something goes really wrong at a company and a worker dies who all should be held accountable. Exsample: Your a trained manager, your staff is fully trained. Yet one day, out of the blue procedure is not followed and as a result the person dies. To make matters worse a illegal drug is found in the blood of the victim. Is the manager responsible? What about the District MGR.? His Boss? Where does responsibility stop. If everyone is trained in this story, who did wrong(outside the person who chose not to follow procedure)?
if the person was properly trained, took illegal drugs, and did not follow the procedure of which he had been made fully aware then i would say it is that person's fault. he was given all the chances to suceed and did not take them.
Originally posted by RepublicanGal
What about the employee who ducks into the bathroom to shoot up/snort/smoke? Hard to document, and can certainly account for previously unnoticed behavior.
I've fired people who have done that, but our medical group does not do drug testing. It was because of the employees' symptoms (e.g., suddenly jittery, sweating, appearing drugged), behaviors, and lack of focus that I fired them.
Gsport::
this month lets look at the chain. ALL bicycle chains are made up of inner Then this dimension is how far your chain should be from the frame centre-line.
http://www.gsportbmx.com/tech/chain.phpHOME |
An almost sure clue is someone who frequents the restroom, say, every hour or so.
In reading all of this, I realize that my changed role in my position has tied me up so that I can't do my "drive-bys" as frequently; I rely on supervisors, but I am responsible ultimately. It has always made me uncomfortable, but now I realize there is much more to it.
There are two sides to this: the company can settle to avoid embarrassment, true...but the company may be sued (again, depending on the circumstances) for unwarranted termination. I wonder now much was housecleaning?
How very sad that this happened.
In my position, if I think someone is under the influence, I must get a second opinion. If we're wrong, You can just give that employee a large check and by the way we're fired.
In the above case, the manager had the day off, and the DM was runner up for DM of the year.
As harsh as it sounds, I think there comes a time when you have to say this person screwed up and paid a high price. I'd also like to point out the drug was cocaine. I do not know if the employee was currently using or if it was just still in his blood.
(quoting myself) Now, of course, that does not take into consideration that this employee may have ignored the rules before and was not counseled or fired for this. Then you have a problem.
You said it much better than I, gopman. If the employee's behavior indicated a problem, yes...he should have been removed from the position. To allow any recognized problem continue, it is most definitely the supervisor's and company's legal responsibility, even though they may argue that they did their part in telling their employees not to do such-and-such.
Ricks spam digest :: How chain letters (dont) work::
far into the subject, I should probably draw a distinction here between chain Suppose someone makes up a chain letter and sends it out to 1,000
http://www.rickconner.net/spamweb/chainletteranalysis.htmlHOME |
Latest images shock officials -- baltimoresun.com::
forcing Iraqi prisoners to perform sex acts and to injure themselves as part of their abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison shocked How far up the chain? the question is: How far up the chain of
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal-te.prisoners13may13,0,1745395.story?page=2HOME |
I think the original question needs more detail.
I'm not sure of the DM's role in this firm, but I find it hard to believe he could have been held accountable. I imagine the manager was at the scene, so I can understand why he would be fired. I don't believe that it was the responsibility of the employees, unless he was visibly intoxicated. Since I don't know what the drug was or its outward symptoms, I can't judge that. The supervisor should have seen him at least once before this happened. One of his jobs has got to be to make sure that the employees show up ready and able to work, then make sure they do.
The thing that can and should have been done differently was that the supervisor or manager should have recognized the problem and dealt with it before this happened. I sure hope that the court realizes the responsibility lies ultimately with the offender and doesn't award a very large sum, but odds are that the company will settle for a relatively large amount to avoid the embarassment and hassle.
Originally posted by gopman
There are outward symptoms of virtually all drugs. With cocaine for example he at least should have seen dilated pupils and sweating or something of that nature.
All in all, it's a very difficult call to make. If your right in your jugdement, you can save a life. If you wrong, you destroy lives including your own. Let's say I tell Billy that I believe he is under the influance of something, and send him to be tested. Oops, he's clean. Do you think this just drops here? No, now Billy has the right to sue, if he's in a career position, it's now scarred for how ever long. your Judgement as a manager comes into question and your held back if not fired.
I don't think it's as easy as seeing someone sweat and know he's using drugs. I wish it was though.
No, but in this circumstance. If it's just an accident, there's nothing the supervisor could have done about it, but if someone's on drugs, his supervisor should be aware.
Originally posted by RepublicanGal
You said it much better than I, gopman. If the employee's behavior indicated a problem, yes...he should have been removed from the position. To allow any recognized problem continue, it is most definitely the supervisor's and company's legal responsibility, even though they may argue that they did their part in telling their employees not to do such-and-such.
I think the original question needs more detail.
Pre-employment drug screen was preformed and the employee passed. All training has been well documented. There is no known past history of the employee failing to follow procedures. It's a very costly mistake, how many now most pay. Does WC pay anything to the family, will the company pay anything? For sure there will be law suits, but I see no wrong the company has done. Do you fire the supervisor, manager, DM or who? I can tell you what will happen or has happened, but I don't think it's right. Hence, I want input into the situation. A Chain Reaction::
between the Great Chain of Being and a food chain is how far the chain of issues that also evoke the image of a chain of being? Follow-up Activity
http://www.cbc.ca/newsinreview/sept98/ice/chain.htmHOME |
Howard Monroe And The Morning Show:::
The truth about torture.its ineffectiveness Former FBI agent Ali Soufan also The WVLY Radio Network. WVLY and how far up the chain it went
http://www.talkradio1370.com/howard_monroe_and_the_mor/2009/05/thsh-interrogation-tec.htmlHOME |
If there were any noticeable outward symptoms of the drug whatsoever, the supervisor should be held accountable, and there is a very strong case for the victim's (for lack of a better word) family in court. In all likelihood, the supervisor should be fired.
Originally posted by gopman
If there were any noticeable outward symptoms of the drug whatsoever, the supervisor should be held accountable, and there is a very strong case for the victim's (for lack of a better word) family in court. In all likelihood, the supervisor should be fired.
In the outcome I know you'll be right. The court system will award the family x amount of money. Why? What could have been done differently. Can a supervisor truely be expected to see every minute of every hour of every day of his entire staff. The training was given, understood, and followed. (except once of course) What about the DM. Can he/she be at every location every day to assure no violations take place?
FYI
4 employees, 1 supervisor, 1 manager, 1 DM lost their jobs. It may cause the firing of a VP. Nothing in comparison to a life, but I don't see a error on the company behalf.
Well I would say the supervisor should be held accountable, as well as the co workers, if it was at all possible for them to recognize that he was somehow intoxicated. Also the head of HR should be somehow held responsible if it is found that better background checking in the hiring process or drug testing during hiring could have prevented this. Other than that, I would transfer the employees and supervisor, make necessary changes to the hiring procedure, have some kind of a memo sent out to tell employees to report to their supervisor if anyone is at work under the influence of any substance, and add that to job training. If it is found that the supervisor was aware of the intoxication and allowed him to continue, he should be fired.
There are outward symptoms of virtually all drugs. With cocaine for example he at least should have seen dilated pupils and sweating or something of that nature.
Cocaine use on the job, any job, is probably the most common type of drug abuse. It's easy to hide, easy to take, and basically shows no symptoms unless one has overdosed. That's the most common duck-into-the-restroom abuse, and there's really no way to catch it. In fact, their work may be even more focused than before, unless they're really badly addicted.
And if random drug testing is not applied to ALL employees, yes...you can open yourself to a lot of risk by singling out one or two. It would be considered discrimination.
Your company, under the circumstances, has opened itself to several wrongful termination lawsuits if all the usual precautions were in place.
The company may be forced to offer the employees their jobs back. The employees, however, would be branded and the dogs would be on their heels until they found a reason to fire them...or until they quit.
If this is highly likely or if there is a history of wrongful termination or harassment, the employees may be able to settle for an amount of money, but it would be a nasty battle.
It's one way of someone getting rid of people he/she doesn't like, without the need for documentation of errors and warnings.
Metabolism of cocaine:
Elimination half-life : 0.5 - 1.5 h (cocaine), 5 - 8 h (benzoylecgonine), 3.5 - 6 h (ecgonine methylester).
Detection time : Up to 6 h (cocaine) and 60 h (benzoylecgonine); up to 60 days (metabolites) after chronic daily use.
To be aware, then, of any drug in the system, one would have to do a daily pee-in-the-cup, supervised, and undergo supervised restroom trips.
You're assuming that there is a specific way all drug users behave. There isn't. Especially with cocaine.
If you are responsible for the person's behavior every day, you should be able to notice a difference in behavior, and follow that up with a closer inspection. Just go up and pretend to ask a question and check his pupils. That's the supervisor's responsibility.
What about the employee who ducks into the bathroom to shoot up/snort/smoke? Hard to document, and can certainly account for previously unnoticed behavior.
I've fired people who have done that, but our medical group does not do drug testing. It was because of the employees' symptoms (e.g., suddenly jittery, sweating, appearing drugged), behaviors, and lack of focus that I fired them.
An almost sure clue is someone who frequents the restroom, say, every hour or so.
In reading all of this, I realize that my changed role in my position has tied me up so that I can't do my "drive-bys" as frequently; I rely on supervisors, but I am responsible ultimately. It has always made me uncomfortable, but now I realize there is much more to it.
There are two sides to this: the company can settle to avoid embarrassment, true...but the company may be sued (again, depending on the circumstances) for unwarranted termination. I wonder now much was housecleaning?
How very sad that this happened.
Whether or not he is really responsible, I would still fire the supervisor for not seeing it before it became a problem.
If you can document that the person was present for training (that's what a sign-in sheet is for), and if all OSHA requirements were in place, the rules were breached by the employee, and the employee had illegal drugs in his system, it is the employee's fault. A lot may depend on the type of work and whether drug testing is normally done. Still, if the employee ignores the rules and you can document that the employee was properly trained, then it is the employee's choice to endanger himself.
Now, of course, that does not take into consideration that this employee may have ignored the rules before and was not counseled or fired for this. Then you have a problem.
Why do you ask?
 Heres my question?
 Why would someone get bored with doing IT for 10 years?
|
How far up the chain