This is topic Alcoholic Managers in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000593
Posted by Justin McLeod (Member # 1329) on 08-05-2002, 01:24 PM:
 

Have a manager that I have heard is a functional alcoholic. I think if its true, how would you deal with this problem if this person "was" under the influence during the job.

Alot of the employees dont get along with this person. He will often say one thing but mean another and will get into an arguement besause of it. One day just recently this gentleman told a empoyee to go up to the employee break room and sweep up a tiny little rodent. The employee did what he was ordered and swept it up. Later on the manager asked why this employee did'nt sweep up the whole breakroom. The employee replied "you only told me to sweep up the rodent". You can guess what happened after that.

This seems to be a ongoing problem from this manager, saying one thing an meaning something else then getting into a big arguement over it.

How would any of you deal with it? Would you go over the GM's head and go directly to the district manager or talk about it with the GM?

We are fixing to start lossing employees beacuse of him and I fear more will follow.
 

Posted by Jennifer Osborne (Member # 1220) on 08-05-2002, 02:05 PM:
 
Justin,

I recently had a similar problem with a manager at my theater. One day he came in to work under the influence, and was just recently arrested for a D.W.I. . . . Myself and fellow managers went to our G.M with the problem, and our GM went and voiced our concerns to our district manager...My manager is now under close watch by the company, and I believe that he'll be fired soon. I hope things get better for you.

------------------
I'm not a people person, that's why I'm in the booth.
 

Posted by Adam Fraser (Member # 1074) on 08-05-2002, 02:16 PM:
 
Personally, I think that this is something for you to talk about between you and your bosses at this company. In larger companies they usually have procedures and policies to handle things of this nature. And maybe they can even help the guy out if he wants it. Public forums could be a dangerous place to post things about other people since someone who knows someone who knows that guy could be reading this right now and possibly get you into a situation that you would not want to be in.

------------------
Adam Fraser
www.pinestheatre.com
 

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 08-05-2002, 02:37 PM:
 
Personally, I would not get involved unless I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that he/she is an alcoholic, and if the person was caught red-handed drinking alcoholic beverages on the premisis. What a person does with their personal life is nobody's business, as long as it does not interfere with the rights and well-being of other people. If this person is intoxicated while on duty, it should be called to the attention of higher authority.

This could be mis-construed as a "witch hunt" especially if nobody likes that person.

Just my 2 cents worth.....

Paul


 

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-05-2002, 02:38 PM:
 
I've got to agree with Adam here, this is a touchy subject and not one that is in your best interest to be posting on a worldwide public forum. Call your Human Resources department or go to your DM directly. If the GM hasn't done anything about it, he/she is probably not going to and you don't want to get cornholed if the two of them are buddies. Take it to a higher level and outside of the building.


 

Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 08-05-2002, 02:42 PM:
 
Justin,
I agree with Adam here. Be careful what you say. If you and your co-workers are having a problem with a manager, then I think you should deal with it in an appropriate way. It sounds like you have a definite problem with the way he is managing, and that is certainly an issue that you could, and perhaps should bring up with upper management. I would watch your allegations of him being an alcoholic and/or drunk on the job. If you can't substantiate your claim with some proof, then you could get yourself in a situation you don't want to be in.
 
Posted by Manuel Francisco Valencia (Member # 710) on 08-05-2002, 04:00 PM:
 
Justin
Brad was right about the GM. If the GM hasn't done anything by now chances are that he/she won't or doesn't care. If you can back up your claim then definately go up the ladder. You are looking out for your theatre, bottom line. If they have personal problems I can somewhat understand them drinking but it isn't that hard to be sober on the job. Most important of all, watch your back.
 
Posted by Justin McLeod (Member # 1329) on 08-05-2002, 05:59 PM:
 

I completely agree with all of you. I will talk to my GM about it first.

Thanks for the advice!!
 

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-05-2002, 06:02 PM:
 
Justin, I don't think you bothered to read this thread very closely. You might want to read it again before you go talking to your GM.
 
Posted by Justin McLeod (Member # 1329) on 08-05-2002, 06:25 PM:
 

I understand what you are telling me brad. I read the thread very close and two thirds of them suggest going to the higher up's instead of going to the manager. I wont be able to speak to my GM if I decide talk with him about this issue until friday. However, I dont have access to the corporate numbers. I haft to go through a manager and if i go through a assistant manager, word is eventually going to get around to the GM. I dont want to dissrespect the manager, we are good friends. However, I dont know how well the GM and this assistsnt manager get along.

I guess I can e-mail the corporate website.

Thanks for the heads up though!!
 

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-05-2002, 07:58 PM:
 
Upon re-reading the details of this thread Justin, I am starting to think your best option here is to just stay out of it, at least until you have more info.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-06-2002, 07:20 AM:
 
I agree that discussing specific cases (which could, even if the possibility is very small, be identified by a third party from the information you have given) on an Internet forum is a very bad idea which could cause no end of problems if and when the matter gets official.

I once had to contend with a line manager who had a drink problem. Without saying any more than that about my experience, I would only make the following suggestions.

Finally, if you do decide to take action, do not do anything unilaterally if at all possible. Discuss the issue with colleagues you feel you can trust, take the action jointly and make it clear to anyone you report the matter to that you are doing so not out of any ill will towards the individual concerned, but only because his or her behaviour is endangering safety and/or the effective operation of the workplace.


 

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 08-06-2002, 02:32 PM:
 
Well considering how public this forum is (I've found this out the hard way) I think that Justin has no recourse but to talk to someone about it unless Justin happens to be the only one in his theater or company that reads these forums.
 
Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 08-07-2002, 11:53 PM:
 
Do remember that in the United States Alcoholism is considered a disability, and therefore is covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act. You cannot fire someone for showing up drunk on the job if it is the first time it has happened. Remember that non-documented incidents do not count. I believe if the employee in question does not seek help for their problem however, they may then be terminated. Before proceeding further it would wise for you to read up on the legal details.
 
Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 08-08-2002, 04:28 PM:
 
Let's assume this guy is a "functioning alcoholic". If his management practices stink because of his boozing it will have a trickle down effect on the staff, the customers and ultimately, the bottom line. As a responsible employee you have no choice but to call it to the attention of the corporate brass making certain they know you are concerned about the business and not out to get the guy.
Alcoholism is a self-induced "disease" that can be cured the same way.
If the brass cares at all about their bottom line (and ever get out of their offices to actually go into a theatre) they should respect your concern and treat your report in confidence while they investigate the situation. Enough of this "let's not step on anybodys toes" philosophy. If he worked for me, after one warning he'd be gone, ADA be damned.

Bob
The Old Showman
 

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 08-08-2002, 05:41 PM:
 
I never said I liked it, I just stated the law. The law is the law, and if you fire someone for showing up to work drunk, even 'can't walk a straight line' drunk, you can be sued under the ADA. It might suck, but the theatre would lose.
 
Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 08-08-2002, 07:39 PM:
 
The simple solution in that case would be to not fire them for showing up drunk but fire them for their actions while drunk. For instance if someone is drunk and carelessly damages an expensive print because if it, than you fire them for ruining a print (not even mentioning that they were drunk in the offical report). This way they can't sue.
 
Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 08-08-2002, 08:32 PM:
 
I'm not so sure about that. The best solution is to contact the companies HR department and talk to someone who knows all the details of the law.
 
Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 08-08-2002, 11:21 PM:
 
Most professional companies have a piece of paper that every employee has to sign when they are hired. With every company - it has a different name. With my company - it is called the "Respect Works Here" document. An employee (or manager) reads and signs this document when they are hired. In it - it explains that there are certain conditions under which their employment can be terminated immediately. Drug and alchohol use is included.

------------------
"Running through life at 24 frames per second"
 

Posted by Justin McLeod (Member # 1329) on 08-08-2002, 11:43 PM:
 

Just a reminder, I have only heard this assistant manager is a "functional Acoholic", but his attitude towards the staff is unacceptable. He gets into arguments with employees very often and for the dumbest reasons. His attitude could very well be from drinking alcohol. This assistant manager is very forgetfull and he lacks a kind of common sence thats needed when things get busy. This gentleman is very courtous to the customers though.If he does any drinking he does it at home because I have never seen him drinking at work but I believe the attitude he gives to the employees is from drinking.

Nobody from my theater has any intrest in film-tech especially the other projectionists so I have no worries about anyone reading these posts.

I guess I will wait and see what happens in the future before I talk to somebody about it.
 

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 08-08-2002, 11:58 PM:
 
Dennis, those pieces of paper often times have no value in a court of law. You cannot sign away your rights. As an extreme example, one could sign a piece of paper that says, "I understand that I can be terminated at any time because of my sexual orientation." Despite signing it, you could sue after being fired for just that, and you'd win.
 
Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 08-09-2002, 12:22 AM:
 
Actually, when it comes to extreme issues -like alchohol or drug use in the workplace - those pieces of paper do hold up in a court of law.

Judges usually have common sense. When it comes to a person drinking alchohol on the job (not having an illness of alchoholism) IT IS ILLEGAL AND IT IS GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION.

If a person has an alcohol problem outside the workplace - that is a different story.

If a person has a mental illness which causes them to hurt people - do they have a right to work with the public? No- It's common sense that they belong in a hospital or in a situation where they are being controlled.

------------------
"Running through life at 24 frames per second"
 

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 08-09-2002, 10:22 AM:
 
This is an interesting topic.

One note: I'll bet there is a significant legal difference in showing up drunk and actually bringing an alcoholic beverage. The second would probably be a more air-tight reason to fire someone since it is easier to have a policy against it. Bringing an alcoholic beverage on premises does not imply the comsumption, or previous consumption, of alcohol. For example, if I brought alcohol to the university where I work, I could be disciplined or terminated even if I never drank alcohol.

I won't name the theatre company or anything, but from a previous employee at one establishment, I found out that one manager from a few years ago did cocaine in the booth (and wasn't around too long), and that the company had one employee from there on rehab for a while. Is it common for any of the major theatre chains to attempt to rehabilitate employees that develop drug problems?

Very seldom do I encounter people that have any serious problems with drugs or alcohol in my environment. There have been some student lab assistants from several years ago that developed some problems, and one in particular nearly destroyed himself in the process (and did some permanent damage to his mind and body). One sad case from the 80s was one guy who many said had 2 Ph.D.'s, but had a severe alcohol problem and did so much damage to himself that he could not spell or talk clearly. Email messages I would get from him would have severe misspellings. I did come across a technical bulletin of his from the 1970s once, and it was well-written. That's really sad. He died 2 or 3 years ago.

------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Information Site


 

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 08-09-2002, 10:50 AM:
 
As for his/her ability to function, this person may be able to handle floats and tally register receipts and other garden-variety duties, but what happens if there is ever an emergency (e.g. fire, bomb threat) requiring quick thinking and heightened awareness? I wouldn't want an alcoholic (functioning or otherwise) in charge of the place.

However, having said all of that...I wonder why it is assumed that a "bad attitude" is linked to the alleged drinking problem..? I think it is a stretch (if not a total leap) of logic.

I agree with what Paul said: It doesn't matter how well-intentioned you may be; this could look like a "witch hunt." I can pretty much guarantee that you will wish you had left this entire matter alone if that is how your talk with the higher-ups is perceived.

~Manny (100% all-natural since 1969)


 

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 08-09-2002, 03:08 PM:
 
Even though alcoholism is listed under the ADA, you can terminiate someone whose alcohol use is nnegatively affecting their job performance. Basically, you can't fire someone for being an alcoholic, but you can fire them for showing up to work under the influence.
 
Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 08-09-2002, 04:35 PM:
 
Dennis, I've known several lawyers over the years, and all of them sneer at warning labels on products and pieces of paper employees sign. Neither is very effective when a good lawyer has the case. You can not sign away your rights, that I know for a fact. Now, like Evans said, drinking alcohal on the job and coming to work drunk are two different things legally.

I'm not saying having employees sign policy change forms isn't a good idea, as a matter of fact it is a great idea. Notice in my original post that I said '...those pieces of paper often times have no value in a court of law.' The reason is that many times employees think they can get around the law by having someone sign a piece of paper, and as I've said this is just not true. But that doesn't mean you can't have employees sign off on policies that are legal, as a matter of fact you should, as it is the only way to prove they were informed of the policy. For example, in my district if an employee is caught not upselling or suggestive selling, they are immediatly terminated. All employees have signed a letter showing they understand this policy.

Back to the problem manager, yes, you can fire him for other reasons besides being an alcoholic. A few things though:

1) You must be very carefull never to mention the drinking problem during or after the termination. Any indicatoin that that was the real reason and you could be in trouble.

2) In most states you can fire anyone, anytime, for any reason-so long as that reason doesn't violate Title IX or the ADA (see above). HOWEVER, if you terminate someone for no reason, you will be obligated to pay unemployement.

The best course of action if you want to get rid of this guy is to start building a record of disciplinary actions. Once you have a big enough file of infractions-which shouldn't take too long by the sound of it-termination will be easy. As a further caution though, be carefull not to write him up for too obscure of offenses. For example, if you write him up for eating or drinking behind the concession stand (if that is against your policy) you better make sure your writing everyone up for that.
 

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 08-09-2002, 08:52 PM:
 
Not every company I have worked for has been willing to help employees with drug and alcohol problems. As a general manager I have always offered that help to employees that have obvious problems.

------------------
"Running through life at 24 frames per second"
 

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 08-09-2002, 09:01 PM:
 
Dennis, I feel the same way. People should be given at least one chance to clean up before being booted.
 
Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 08-12-2002, 08:26 PM:
 
How many people honestly believe that the threat of losing one's job would be enough to convince an alcoholic to sober up? Or a drug user to clean up?
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-13-2002, 12:00 AM:
 
There is a significant difference between a druggie and an alkie. Most alkies don't rob houses and mug people to support their habit.

Oh, and Michael Gonzalez, your have no email ID and therefore no credibility...your ass should be kicked outta here...


 

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-13-2002, 12:11 AM:
 
Michael does have an email address. There is an option that users can check if they want to that keeps their email address private from the public. Although I don't recommend it, it is an option available to anyone who feels they need it for whatever their reason may be. His registration info is of course kept completely private.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-13-2002, 12:28 AM:
 
Ummmm... Oh Thanks Brad. But my post still stands...

 
Posted by Brad Haven (Member # 954) on 08-13-2002, 07:22 AM:
 
A druggie and an alcoholic suffer from the same disease, just a diffrent choice of drug. Not all druggies rob houses ,i didn't and neither did any of my friend's at the time!.
Due to the haze of the disease , choice isn't always at hand, not when you need it anyway!.
I speak only from my own personal experience!, have a nice day .
 
Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 08-13-2002, 12:09 PM:
 
Hey Phil. Where in my post do I say that an alcholic and a drug user were the same thing? In fact if you look at the post that I wrote, I don't even put the two in the same sentence. I am not going to get dragged into a societal arguement on the two subjects. I have my reasons for keeping my e-mail address private. However I could always open a hotmail account or something that I could make available for people to see here. However I am not into making any kind of personal attacks and I don't feel like opening up an E-mail mailbox and seeing one there directed at me. If you want to start a topic on something to debate rationally and intellectually in Film Yak, you are more than welcome too. However if you just want to hurl insults and obscenities than I am not going to waste anymore time on you.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-13-2002, 03:02 PM:
 
In retrospect, I guess my attemp at an example of compassion and the lack of compassion was not the best choice....or maybe it was.

I apologize Michael.

Sincerely,

>>>Phil


 

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-15-2002, 02:25 AM:
 
[apologies in advance for divergence from topic...]

Another reason for not publishing your e-mail address is spam avoidance.

I get round this problem by having three addresses: one provided by my employer, which is used for non-sensitive work e-mails only, one personal address which I give to anyone who wants it (and also use to subscribe to listservs and so on) and a third which I only give to family and friends. So far, I've managed to keep the third one spam-free, but I reckon to get around 15 to 20 spam and/or virus e-mails a week on the address I give out.


 





Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2