The better policies identify and define safety critical roles and functions where the risk of impairment due to alcohol (and/or substance abuse) requires specific controls. You can never stop the use or consumption but I never saw that as the point. It is a standard to which one must adhere if you wish to hold such positions. Fail to do so and at best you get sacked on the spot and at worst you significantly harm yourself and others.
Even better policies recognise that there are also commercially critical roles and functions where the risk requires controls. That may include sales/contract/senior staff for instance.
I agree that any blanket ban without assessment and thought is at best a lazy way to control risks. They are also rarely a good idea since they are much less effective in the grey areas that will always exist around any policy. And those are the areas that cause the most reaction!
What is important is to match the policy to the specific nature and culture of the organisation. Where in the world it operates or with whom it does business may have an impact. For example, some organisations have a policy that alcohol must not be consumed whilst at work, wherever and whenever that work may be taking place. This is not driven by safety or commercial criticality but for cultural reasons. This makes it easier to understand and thus to implement; choose to work here and you choose to accept the policy.
It is vitally important to be clear about which parts of any policy are based on safety or commercial risks and which are cultural. The health and safety risks associated with alcohol impaired executives and employees are obvious wherever they work in the organisation; the difficulty is knowing if and when an individual is actually impaired. Since, without testing, that is most likely to be only when they are obviously impaired then managing the risk proactively is problematic to say the least. Thus many policies cover all employees and make working under the influence an automatic disciplinary matter. In effect making each individual responsible for ensuring that they are not impaired. And that, if successfull, leads to a 'no alcohol whilst at work' culture.
P48

The rail industry policy on alcohol has been in force for over 20 years now, and as Bob says, it's accepted by all as part of the job. It is a bit of a culture shock to some outside the industry, but it's our policy and it applies to all. The rail limit is half that of the road driving limit, and the penalty is instant dismissal.

Interestingly, no one's really touched on the drugs siode of things which is in some ways the more difficult one to deal with.

Pete48

Thank you - your post has put it all into perspective

Carol

Interesting one this, especially in how it reveals what I perceive as the limits of ‘health and safety’ – in response to the original question, and to reinforce Pete 48's point - I don’t believe we are here to be the nanny state, or the ethical custodians for our businesses, so whilst it is crucial that safety critical roles (including driving) are booze free without exception, the same can not be said for senior managers and sales reps, where safety critical (other then driving and maybe on-call) doesnt really count.

But arguably, to set an example, having a booze free office, and employees free from the effects of booze at the office is important. However, some important questions to think about might be what constitutes 'work' for people, and what are their working hours? Its different for different people.

I would argue that senior managers should police themselves, if someone is a liability to the business at that level, then the MD should sort it out, unless its safety related that is, and we may need to help that process.

And what about sales reps? So long as it’s ethical then why not allow them to consume alcohol as part of the process of buttering-up potential buyers? Note: If I employed buyers then I would have a policy of no alcohol what-so-ever for them, but not for reasons of safety.

Senior managers and sales reps do a lot of their work away from the office, out of normal working hours. Training courses, away-days, conferences, a meal before a meeting the next day, a meal after the meeting. Important work gets done at these events. I dont believe that any ban in these grey areas is achievable or justifiable.

Bob - sounds a bit personal, but I'll go with it as I already work for a rail business.

But let me share with you some times when I have had a drink or two with other rail people in an environment I would call work:

In the evening of a training course attended by 15 directors and senior managers from TOC's and the RSSB.
In the evening after a briefing to a board meeting with a senior manager from a TOC.
At a company management conference that went on into the evening, we had drinks with our dinner.
'Escorting' a foreign visitor around our businesses, we would have a meal and a drink in the evening between trips to depots.

You see a trend developing? In the evening, work doesnt stop for senior managers and directors (or sales reps), none of those roles were safety critical or directly connected with the operation of the railway, our drinking wasnt in the office or the business premises, was often with dinner. However it remains work, decisions are made, agreements are reached, work activities are discussed and objectives are set.

....and in my view it is entirely reasonable. If you would like further information then please feel free to PM me.

NEE' ONIONS MATE you are right, but let me comment on the items put by Corfield. Firstly the case of attending a training course with 15 directors and senior managers from TOCs and RSSB; there is often socialising at such events but the drinking is done in the evening and is far from the workplace environment. Secondly there are times when briefing board meetings in the evening when having a drink relaxes one and builds confidence to speak to senior managers in a non work environment and is often after the busines of the meeting has been discussed. In the third case having a drink relaxes you and makes the conversation easier but is far from the workplace environment. Lastly I hope you are not saying you had a drink before taking someone onto an operational piece of the railway such as line side or in a depot repair facility where the D&A ban is properly applied.

At events held away from the railway environment and activities that don't impact on the operation of the railway in a way that could impair individual judgement do happen, I have been in several myself over the 44 years service I did but it was controlled and away from the day job. The fact remains that alcohol and drugs don't make good bed fellows with the operation of any industry.

I think he was me old china:

I suspect we a violently agreeing - all this does is confirm that we have different views of what constitutes 'work' - both in terms of physical location, and time.

No one is suggesting that drinking at the work location, or coming into the office/workshop under the influence of booze is a good idea, particularly at a rail undertaking where this is banned and rightfully so.

Under the proposition that senior managers, directors, and sales reps, are at a hotel or conference, and would like to have a meal with wine or a couple of drinks with a client or colleague.

So I ask the questions; Is it work - yes or no?
Should they be allowed to drink - yes or no?

To me the answer to both is yes.

As some responders including myself have already pointed out, the answer to the thread title question can be a 'yes' if the work involved is not dependent on full and constant alertness, etc.

Also, bear in mind that other things like fatigue, boredom, illicit drugs, transient ill-health conditions such as influenza, and legal drugs (whether prescribed by a doctor or bought over the counter) can also significantly impair alertness. Tablets for hayfever comprise a good example of a drug which anyone can buy from a pharmacy. Though the packets of almost all such tablets claim that they are "non-drowsy", both of the two brands I tried last month certainly made me feel dopey (dopier than usual according to my missus!), so I changed to using a nasal spray which didn't seem to make me drowsy.

p.s. Corfield - In response to your opening comment at #95, it might be best to avoid inciting "violent agreement" just in case it somehow breaches a forum rule! :-)

The 'Clare your right' bit should not have been added... dam!

WEll G..says it all. Bloody fakes

There are two ways to go with regard to setting limits on Alcohol if personnel are returning to the workplace after entertaining, either, zero tolerance which some companies do or, as a number of companies that I have worked or consulted for, abide by the limits set by the road traffic act. In the UK, the alcohol limit for drivers is 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood, 35mg per 100ml of breath or 107mg per 100ml of urine.

Can I just say that the post above was in no way condescending about anything or one posting. It was merely tongue in cheek.

I do believe that there are occasions when you will drink whilst in work, a few years ago I worked for an LA and the head of our department used to call it 'un rostered hours when you were not in work, in that case you were always in work. A lot of us will have contracts and it will state that your behaviour whilst out of work must not do anything that can bring the companies name into distribute.

Are works parties classed as being in work, I have known people disiplined for saying or doing something during works parties or events. I think the line is finer than some of us think.

I have a company drug and alcohol policy, if employees go to the pub for lunch and have a drink would I know about it NO, therefore if I suspect someone to be under the influence of alcohol, then I would breathalyse the employee, having one drink with a meal I don't have a problem with that,

Th problem with Alcohol and Drugs as we see by the responses in this forum is they are very emotive subjects.

The Human Body is designed to deal with alcohol in small quantities. After all many fruit juices and indeed ripe fruits contain Alcohol.

The alcohol has not been added to the juice, but is produced by fermentation which occurs when yeasts or bacteria convert sugars into carbon dioxide and alcohol. There are many naturally-occurring yeasts on the orange peel, and some of them get into the juice when the orange is handled or squeezed.

Alcohol (ethanol) is a normal by-product of human and animal cell chemistry/metabolism. Cell processes result in normal physiological levels of 0.01 to 0.03 mg of alcohol/100 ml of blood. By contrast, a blood alcohol limit for driving of 0.05 per cent is equivalent to 50 mg of alcohol/100 ml of blood.

So before anyone goes rushing around saying they have a zero level for blood alcohol they need to be very careful what they mean.

There is also a tremendous difference in the capabilities of people for breaking down they alcohol.

As an aside i used to extract enzymes from naturally occurring sources and one of the highest concentration for the enzyme Alcohol dehydrogenase was in Horse Liver................Never did discover why!!

Ah someone speaking sense :) - ref: #76 Posted : 18 May 2012 12:41:37

I agree that the issue here is actively enforcing some of this - someone suggested... easy just breathalise. What happens when using a cheap detector that's not calibrated and we hit a false positive!
Our diabetic is sent home and disciplined for doing nothing more than failing to fully manage their condition. A discrimination claim follows - and uhoh.

IF On the other hand we use ability to work safely as a bench mark and have a sensible balanced policy we can address the rest.

When we start to look at monitoring staff for drugs - it's a whole new can of worms (where's canopener when you need him :) )

Well done Graham on letting this go. It seems more of a personal attack than to accuse you of waffling.
Somebody said this was an emotive subject. it would appear some are much more emotive than others.

Yes it is. But, if you think it is a contentious issue in the UK, try asking it in most of mainland Europe. Even suggesting that workers cannot have a coffee with brandy in it on the way to work or a glass or two of wine at lunchtime would cause a national strike. European unity anyone?