Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Off duty employee caught drinking

This is topic Off duty employee caught drinking 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=001950

Posted by Ramin Hashemi (Member # 2694) on 11-09-2007, 02:09 PM:

Two of our minor employees (18 yrs old) were caught drinking alcohol while watching a movie. We have a zero tolerance policy on drugs and alcohol. The person who caught them is our security officer, who does security at the high school. He says that if we do nothing, we can be charged with contributing to the deliquency of a minor.

We take our policy seriously, and thus fired both of them (one admitted it, and one denied it). I have not had to deal with this before, and I hated losing one good employee over it (other employee, I can do without).

Anyone had similar issues, and what did you do about it. Could I have done anything else?

thanks

Ramin

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 11-09-2007, 02:15 PM:

quote: Ramin Hashemi
I hated losing one good employee

Drinking in your theater, his place of employment? How good was he? Where was his respect to you, his employer? What kind of example was he setting?

Good riddance to both in my opinion. Rules are rules and they must be followed. Sometimes good employees go bad, or do bad things. In that case, they must be disciplined. I think in this instance you did the right thing. If you let this go, it sets a precedent. Perhaps even an employee meeting is in order to go over rules again.

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 11-09-2007, 04:18 PM:

I don't know about contributing to the delinquency of a minor, but unfortunately both had to be fired. I say unfortunately, because unlike Frank I do believe you can have a good employee who because of a lack of descretion screwed up, which you feel has happened here. That employee must learn from his mistake and move on. (The one employee in denial likely won't learn and will get in trouble again...but somewhere else.)

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 11-09-2007, 06:21 PM:

Yeah... I'd have to agree with the above.
Last Summer I fired a kitchen person who turned out to be trouble. While he was here, he more or less befriended a couple of field attendants that had worked here for a couple of years. The night I fired the guy, the field people informed me they were going to quit "in support of our friend". Within 5 minutes I had their radios, earpieces and flashlights and they were looking in from the street corner.

Clearly, they hadn't expected us to be quite ready to deal with their tactic. The problem is I don't think you have any choice in the matter. Once you show you're willing to adapt the way you apply your policies, you've lost control. For all the reasons listed above... lack of maturity, bad judgment, lack of respect, stupidity above and beyond... you probably made the only choice you could.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-09-2007, 06:33 PM:

We have a random, company-wide drug and alcohol testing program in place where I work. An incident with one employee last year caused the program to be expanded to include everyone, not just people who drove crane trucks and such. And I think that's fair.

There's a lot of people in the general public who think they should be able to abuse illegal drugs and alcohol to their heart's content. Unfortunately for them, employers have the right to expect employees to be "clean" and not a walking legal/safety liability.

I'm not sure how the alcohol testing thing works. It isn't something to see if you're drunk on the job right then and there. It has more to do with testing to see if you habitually binge drink. I guess there's certain proteins in your blood or urine that show liver stress or that you're just a freaking lush.

Our system has a sort of "2 strikes" policy to it. If you test positive for something, depending on what it is you may get to do a few weeks of counseling and other stuff as a 2nd chance. Positive tests for certain drugs just get you immediately fired.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-09-2007, 08:27 PM:

It is easy and fair to have a "strike one you're out policy;" but only if you apply it evenly. You will need a written list of "things that will get you fired right now...no second chances." (drunkness, drugs, weapons, surly, lieing, stealing, etc.) Make the list, have each employee sign a copy, put it in his employee file for future reference. Be fair. This is cut & dried. Louis

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-09-2007, 09:15 PM:

At my old theater there was a kid who got caught by mall security smoking pot in one of the mall's bathrooms, got arrested, and trespassed from the mall. Hence he was fired since he wasn't allowed in the mall whatsoever.

And 3-4 people got fired (including an assistant manager) when they got caught smoking pot at a staff screening (the other managers realized they were gone for quite some time and found them in the bathroom).

Though each of those was a long time ago.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-10-2007, 01:00 AM:

I personally don't believe in "zero tolerance" anything, because then you're locked into a course of action. I'd hate to be forced to fire an otherwise-great employee because of one screwup.

People make mistakes. Many theatre employees are young kids who are still finding their way in life. I've had employees over the years who were valuable enough to me that I would tolerate a slip-up if it wasn't causing me any harm...and a good chew-out followed by a "I know you're smart enough not to make this mistake again" is better than an automatic "You're fired."

Posted by Christopher Crouch (Member # 3784) on 11-10-2007, 03:43 AM:

quote: Ramin Hashemi
Anyone had similar issues, and what did you do about it. Could I have done anything else?

I've had a few similar incidents over the years. In my opinion, you did the right thing. Anything less would have left the door open for future problems.

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 11-10-2007, 07:22 AM:

so i assume they were drinking on the job then, and not just watching a movie on their free time. otherwise, unless they had glass bottles or were [puke]

or something, i don't see what the issue is. you didn't sell it to them, did you?

edit: the topic title says they were off duty... [sleep]

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-10-2007, 12:22 PM:

Though how could the theater owner be charged with anything?

Contributing to the delinquency of a minor is "aiding or encouraging improper conduct." Sure, he did it at your place of business but you didn't contribute to it.

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 11-10-2007, 01:28 PM:

This was the part I had trouble wrapping my mind around: Is this some kind of California law or some local ordinance? I don't feel the theatre is responsible for the deliquency of a minor either. Some of these cops seem to have small-penis issues and like to throw their weight around and make stuff like that up.
Of course, California has the reputation of being more strict than other parts of the country...

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 11-10-2007, 03:01 PM:

quote: Chris Slycord
Contributing to the delinquency of a minor is "aiding or encouraging improper conduct."

The guard may mean that, technically speaking, if the employer caught them engaged in underage drinking and DID NOT fire them the employer was at the very minimum encouraging improper conduct.

quote: James Westbrook
Some of these cops seem to have small-penis issues and like to throw their weight around and make stuff like that up.

Which is most likely the case here. It was mentioned earlier that the guard also works in that capacity at the school these former employees attend. Perhaps his comment was a way to even the score for an altercation that began at school.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 11-10-2007, 03:08 PM:

quote: James Westbrook
Some of these cops seem to have small-penis issues and like to throw their weight around and make stuff like that up.

Especially when they are not even cops. Unless I'm missing something, Ramin states the person who caught them is a security officer, not a police officer. Now, I don't know the guy or know the situation, but sometimes security guys can be, how should I say, not so accurate with their interpretation of the law. I'm not saying you shouldn't have fired them - that's your theatre to run - but I don't see any possible way you could have actually been charged with contributing. Then again, California has some VERY weird laws.

My question that I cannot get answered by reading your post, is was this during a regular show with other guests, or was it after hours? I am assuming it was during operating hours unless your security guy stays late. If that is the case, I think there is some grey area here. Essentially, it was a couple underage kids drinking in your theatre, which probably happens on a monthly basis. I know it happens here. Again, I'm not saying you shouldn't have fired them - its your theatre. But had you found them to be drinking elsewhere on their free time would you have been so tough? Odds are most of us managers are well aware that some of our underage employees drink and so long as it doesn't affect their quality of work, we don't pay much attention. This was in the building, but while off work, so I think its a judgement call, not an open-and-shut case. You asked, "Could I have done anything else". I think the answer is yes, you could have, but I don't know for sure if you would have wanted to. I'm with Mike on the second chance ideology. How many of us at one time snuck a little booze in the theatre or drive-in when we were younger?

Is California a "right to work" state?

Posted by Tony Ratcliff (Member # 1196) on 11-10-2007, 03:18 PM:

I have only had to fire one person for "substance" abuse.
We suspected he smoked pot on his break and we eventually caught him. It was a shame because he was a good worker and not really a bad kid - he just hung with a bad crowd and had low self-esteem.

I think you have to have a zero-tolerance for certain things, like substance abuse and insubordination.

I fired a girl once for getting into an argument and cussing out a customer and then not doing what my Asst-Mgr said when she told the girl to stop. Her Mom called me all upset, threatening to sue, etc. I realized then where the girl got the attitude from.

Now, for general laziness or not doing all your job or maybe back talking in private, or money issues, I'll use the 3-strikes rule.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-10-2007, 05:32 PM:

quote: Aaron Mehocic
The guard may mean that, technically speaking, if the employer caught them engaged in underage drinking and DID NOT fire them the employer was at the very minimum encouraging improper conduct.

In terms of a spectrum, there's a lot of stuff in between "doing nothing" and firing.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-11-2007, 06:29 AM:

I am with Jack and Louis on this. "Zero Tolerance," while the term sounds strong and no-nonsense-law-and-order-ish (politicians invented it and love to throw it around), in many cases, as Jack points out, it merely ties your hands, forcing you into actions that many not be productive or beneficial to you in a given situation. ZT only makes sense if at some point in time, management had specifically, intelligently, with wisdom and forethought, decided that this or that particular action, under ANY circumstances, would be reason for dismissal, and that there could never be mitigating reasons why the actions would be acceptable, such as threatening another worker or patron, or brandishing a weapon, etc.

But then, as Louis rightly says, that list of ZT actions and the consequence for those actions must then be spelled out and published. There can be no doubt in anyone's mind, both employee and employer, of the list and the consequences. The idea of having employees sign such a list of ZT infractions is imperative. If you intend there to be serious consequence for an employee transgressing the list, then you seriously need to make it clear what will happen if they do.

You can't just assume people know the level of severity this or that action as perceived by management unless it has been clearly so stated. And as mentioned, these are teenagers. Things need to be made clear and specific; you can't assume that "everyone knows" you can't drink on your free time. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't -- they did if management had at some point made that very clear. If management hadn't made it clear, then they don't get to ratchet up the seriousness at the time of the infraction.

Other than the specific Zero Tolerance actions, there are going to be a whole host of other actions of lesser severity and importance which nevertheless management will certainly not want their employees to engage in, and although these need to be enforced as well, it doesn't make good managerial sense to take away the discretionary ability from managers on how to deal with infractions. Being able to assess employees' actions on a flexible, case-by-case basis is what good management is all about.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-11-2007, 09:37 AM:

quote: Frank Angel
you can't assume that "everyone knows" you can't drink on your free time.

Except that everyone DOES know that teenagers aren't allowed to drink at all (it being illegal and all).

But I agree with you on the rest of what you said.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-11-2007, 11:56 AM:

Any company with a drug testing policy in place -or a basic "if we catch you doing something you're fired" sort of rule- should have the employee sign an agreement to show he is fully aware of the policy.

When we made our random drug testing policy a company-wide policy including office employees and fabricators in the metal shops everyone had to read and sign an agreement. A couple of my co-workers did smoke pot on a recreational basis, but with that policy in place they had to quit. The threat of being piss-tested or having blood drawn at random is a powerful deterrent.

quote: Mike Blakesley
People make mistakes. Many theatre employees are young kids who are still finding their way in life.

I can agree with that regarding movie theater employees. It really sucks when a decent counter employee gets fired for even more stupid policies, such as forgetting to upsell drinks and snacks to a customer and that customer turns out to be a checker. Such acts can put a movie theater into a bind of being short-handed. Job turnover rates are already high enough as it is.

However, in environments where heavy/dangerous equipment is in use, the drug policy just absolutely has to be more harsh. What if an accident happens and a young employee turns out to be high or positive for some substance when it happened? Lawyers, law enforcement people and other regulators are not going to be interested at all in any excuses like, "the kid was young, impulsive and just trying to find his way in life." An incident like that could put the business out of business and have 20 some odd people tossed out of their jobs.

Posted by Patrick de Groot (Member # 858) on 11-11-2007, 11:56 AM:

I think a warning should be all... Or where they very drunk and misbehaving? Don't think so. The employer isn't reponsible for what they do in their free time. What the employer should pay attention to is if they function properly during working hours. Legally I think that the employer doesn't even have the right to fire them in this case.
Btw 18 years? A perfectly legal age to drink a beer in The Netherlands (it's officially 16).

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-11-2007, 12:00 PM:

Since the United States has over 70% of the world's attorney's it's a no-brainer for many companies to have written drug testing policies in place. You never know what's going to get you sued.

Posted by Shane Cooper (Member # 2510) on 11-11-2007, 02:01 PM:

For me it is not a matter of "a good kid who made a mistake". It also isn't an issue of being off duty or on the clock. The decision to bring beer into a theater ilegally shows a disrespect for their employer. One of the most common complaints from young people is that they are being disrespected, etc. That "respect" has to go both ways.

Posted by Donna Sylvester (Member # 726) on 11-11-2007, 07:07 PM:

I fired one of my employees several years ago for the same thing. My employees are all told, when hired, that they must obey all the theatre rules of conduct when they come in to watch a movie. As my employees, they are representatives of the theatre while in the theatre, whether they are on or off duty. They are told they must set the example for their friends. So, at least for me, if I had let it go, that would have been tacitly implying that I don't really care if my customers bring alcoholic beverages in and consume them at the theatre. By firing the employee, it sent a clear message to my other employees.

Posted by Ramin Hashemi (Member # 2694) on 11-12-2007, 11:13 AM:

Thanks for all the input.

I should have mentioned, that we do have the policy in writing, and I personally go through this policy specifically with every employee. Also, one of the employees was caught drinking and getting sick from it during a preview a few months back. The staff decided to handle it by warnings and "lets handle it ourselves" method. The top person at the time is no-longer with us of course. I was not told of this till months later when it was too late to do anything about it.

I was a bit on the fence between a 2 week suspension and termination, but both our manager and the guy who is head of security at the high school (he is our security guy and the one who caught the girls) felt strongly about termination.

I guess most things are not as clear cut as one might think.

thanks again

Ramin

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 11-12-2007, 11:32 AM:

quote: Patrick de Groot
Legally I think that the employer doesn't even have the right to fire them in this case.

I think that's true in some countries, but generally not so in the US. Washington is an "at will" state, meaning the employer may hire, fire and schedule an employee as he sees fit. On the other hand, the employee may walk off the job with no notice, should he feel like it, and we have to be prepared to deal with the possibility. Of course, there's probably not much chance he'll have a job to come back to. Union and contract rules can effect the above, but generally not at the entry level that most theatres work at. (Note... This doesn't apply to California, which is a separate country. Their employment rules are found nowhere else in the world!).

It may be a bit hard-nosed, but having come from a generation that was somewhat more strict about respecting authority and the wisdom of elders, I don't tend to start my new staff as if they have to be taught everything about general life basics.

By the time an individual is 16 or so, he/she should already know that habitual tardiness, theft, drinking, drug use, disrespect and general slovenliness is either wrong or illegal. I shouldn't have to assume that everyone who starts with me has a totally empty head, whether or not it may sometimes seem that way.

On the other hand, you do have kids (and some adults) who continue to bring weapons to school. Does anyone really believe there's a person out there who doesn't know the consequences of this? Seems like there will always be someone who will test the rules.

Sorry, but nobody outside of my family is so valuable that I feel my practices must always start with warnings. That is an option I reserve for my elective use. For the employee, being fired can be a learning experience in itself. The process of looking for another job can teach someone a lot about how to handle the next gig.

Is it really that draconian out here? No, of course not. We just keep a relatively simple rule set, which we try to apply fairly evenly to our customers and staff. That makes it generally fun and safe for large numbers to be here and minimizes the time we have to spend with individual issues. If I had a 200-seat single screen and 3 employees, maybe I'd look at things a bit differently... who knows?

BTW... I thought Donna put it very well in her post.

Posted by Blaine Young (Member # 3992) on 11-12-2007, 01:28 PM:

I've been going back and forth on this issue. There are a number of things that sway the issue back and forth, and change the dynamics of the issue.

For example, if this was a public showing and there were paying customers in the auditorium, it's pretty clear the course chosen was correct.

Where it becomes a bit more grey for me is if this is a private screening (an inspection screening, for example) and the employees are off-duty and not the responsible party for the screening (the projectionist), and of legal drinking age. Do the same rules apply?

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-12-2007, 01:57 PM:

Being in an at-will state has nothing to do with this situation. If a person breaks a written policy, they can be fired.

Posted by Floyd Justin Newton (Member # 1316) on 11-12-2007, 04:36 PM:

Alcohol has caused more strife between man since time began. Lets just do away with it and 'on-with-the-show!'
[thumbsup]

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 11-13-2007, 01:39 AM:

quote: Patrick de Groot
I think a warning should be all... Or where they very drunk and misbehaving?

Drunk or VERY drunk? What would the difference be? Their teenagers. They don't even have to be drunk, just drinking and their busted. Even if these employees were of legal drinking age, they should be fired.

People can have bad judgement like saying the wrong thing at the wrong time to the wrong person, and then theres drinking at your place of employment (which with most theaters don't even allow alcohol on the premises). One of these indiscretions deserves a warning, the other deserves termination. If you can't tell which deserves which.....management might not be your calling.

As for the security guard giving out any kind of legal advice, ignore him. Get your legal advice from the real police or a lawyer. "...but the security guard said..." would simply get laughed out of court.

Posted by Patrick de Groot (Member # 858) on 11-13-2007, 02:50 AM:

quote: Frank Dubrois
Even if these employees were of legal drinking age, they should be fired.

?? So your saying that if an employer of legal drinking age drinks a beer in his/her free time at your cinema he/she is fired? [beer]

There is nothing wrong with drinking a beer while watching a movie. At least here. Of course things would be different if no alcoholic drinks are allowed in the cinema.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-13-2007, 09:02 AM:

quote: Patrick de Groot
Of course things would be different if no alcoholic drinks are allowed in the cinema.

No alcohol is allowed in any place that doesn't have proper alcohol licensing.

Like I know back in Washington they had a license for a place to sell beer/wine but not consume on the premises (license for a grocery store), a place which sells and lets you consume on premises (like a bar), and yet another for people bringing their own to consume. Nonetheless, getting that licensing for a business is usually pretty damn expensive.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 11-13-2007, 10:47 AM:

quote: Patrick de Groot
So your saying that if an employer of legal drinking age drinks a beer in his/her free time at your cinema he/she is fired?
There is nothing wrong with drinking a beer while watching a movie. At least here. Of course things would be different if no alcoholic drinks are allowed in the cinema.

That's a good question. I know of one theatre (Pacific Place, in Seattle) that sells wine, and maybe beer, up at their second-floor concession area. I don't know if they allow the beverages in their auditoriums, though.

Posted by Thomas Pitt (Member # 4322) on 11-13-2007, 11:13 AM:

In this country, we have a law against drinking in public places unless the premises are licensed for consumption on the premises (such as public houses). Many places are known as off-licenses - that is, they can sell alcohol but only for consumption off the premises.

I've never seen a cinema that allows alcoholic drinks to be taken into the auditorium. Some have bars where you can drink before and after the movie, but you cannot drink while watching the movie. Most cinemas however don't allow the consumption of alcohol anywhere in the building - just like smoking.

However, if you act drunk and disorderly anywhere, in a way that causes danger or discomfort to other members of the public, you can be arrested [Wink]

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 11-13-2007, 08:21 PM:

quote: Patrick de Groot
So your saying that if an employer of legal drinking age drinks a beer in his/her free time at your cinema he/she is fired?

Absolutely. No alcohol allowed on the premesis. If your going to drink alcohol where its not allowed, why not light up a cig too? where does it stop?

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-13-2007, 09:43 PM:

quote: Jack Ondracek
That's a good question. I know of one theatre (Pacific Place, in Seattle) that sells wine, and maybe beer, up at their second-floor concession area. I don't know if they allow the beverages in their auditoriums, though.

Some of my old managers had worked there and they said it was a bar/beer garden, meaning that drinks weren't allowed outside that area. I bet it's related to the particular license they got for serving alcohol.

Posted by Scott McGuire (Member # 4508) on 11-14-2007, 12:17 AM:

I have been just reading the comments on this topic since it started. To tell you the truth, i do enjoy my share of adult bevrages and may also enjoy a few other peoples share as well. However, i do not ever drink while on the job and i also do not feel that my drinking has ever had an affect on my job. I show up on time, work my ass off while i am there and will stay late if needed. No matter what job i am working. The bottom line is that this was a company policy and they broke it. It may be a hard lesson for these young men to learn but rules are rules no matter how good of an employee you are. You should never take advantage of your place of employment on or off duty!

Posted by Patrick de Groot (Member # 858) on 11-14-2007, 05:57 AM:

To explain: here it is common practice for cinemas to sell alcoholic drinks, that's beer and wine. Beer is way more popular than wine. You need a license to sell it. But it is common practice. I'm shocked when a cold tasty beer isn't available [Wink]

You may take it with you in the auditorium just like other drinks.

edited

[ 11-14-2007, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: Patrick de Groot ]