Do Employers Have to Be Certified to Give a Breathalyzer Test?

[cobber]

Remember, PBT (portable breath test) results are not admissible in court.

In a trial. In a probation revocation hearing they can be. Also the judge can toss your keester in jail if you show up in court and test positive.

 

[Benny]

Might be a good time to remind your very good friend that drinking on the job is generally frowned upon.

It is? Dang it!



On a serious note, it might also be a good time to suggest to your friend that if he can't wait to get home to enjoy an alcoholic beverage, he might want to consider getting some help.

 

[mcolford]

I wouldnt care if it was my best friend or my mother, I wouldn't work with a drunk person. They made a bad decision by coming to work intoxicated, man up to the mistake, and get your act together. Not only can this person put their coworkers at risk by being intoxicated, but opens the company up for lawsuits from other employees in the event someone got hurt because of said intoxicated person. Then there is the whole OSHA thing (instant pucker factor goes into effect)...

 

[IfUDare01]

Just under suspicion that the person was not fit for work the could send the employee home. If this happens often enough he could be reprimanded and fired. Usually the employer will also require the employee get a ride home rather than just letting them leave. You would have to see the HR policies to know for sure what your company says it is supposed to do in each situation.

 

[steve666]

Remember, this is Indiana, and the employers, can do just about anything, they want to..... Without violating the law..... Hire at will, fire at will.....

As stated above. However, unless the testing was performed by an accredited facitlity and met certain standards, he would be eligible for unemployment.

 

[88GT]

To All,

I don't mean to but...

NOT TRUE, NOT TRUE, NOT TRUE!

While Indiana does not protect in many cases ALL FEDERAL LAWS still apply.

Give us some credit. Most of us are aware of federal laws and it is assumed in the course of conversation that they still apply.

That being said, excepting federal or other state protections, an employee can be let got at the employer's discretion.

Now, since you want to be a stickler for details, let me just add that EVERY employee is a "protected" class. It is not the membership in a particular race, age bracket, marital status, etc that protects someone. It is the use of the seven protected characteristics as grounds for termination that means someone is protected.

You can't fire a white guy because he's white.

You can't fire a 26y/o for being young any more than you can fire a 60y/o for being old.

You can't fire a father for having kids anymore than you can fire a mother for having kids.

You can't fire an atheist for not having a religion any more than you can fire a Christian/Muslim/Jew/Rastafarian for being Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Rastafarian.

You can't fire a male for being male any more than you can fire a female for being female.

"Protected class" is a misnomer because everybody is protected by the same laws. You can't base the choice to terminate (or refuse to hire) on any one of those seven characteristics. Everything else is fair game.

 

[BuddieReigns]

I don't drink almost ever, but I feel that as long as it isn't interfering with your work, drinking on the job is fine. I work with plenty of sober turds that suck at their job. Anyway, up until recently drinking was fine at the job, but then the industrial revolution came and ruined that. It also probably didn't help that most of the rich owners of factories and whatnot probably frowned upon drinking, at least in public, since it was seen as a more lower class thing during the late 1800's/early 1900's. They also probably wanted to get some from the ladies in their social circles, who were likely to be into temperance movement like all good WASPs should be.

 

[Libertarian01]

To 88GT (et alia),

You bring up some good points that I would like to answer.

" Give us some credit. Most of us are aware of federal laws and it is assumed in the course of conversation that they still apply.

That being said, excepting federal or other state protections, an employee can be let got at the employer's discretion."

I do give credit to many folks. My concern is that when people make the blanket statement of "hire at will, fire at will" it creates an echo chamber that distorts the reality of the facts, especially the perception of that reality. In very few (if any) other situations do we seem to totally ignore Federal Laws just because Indiana doesn't protect it. We wouldn't say, "Indiana doesn't have a law against printing money, so it is legal in Indiana." Yet "at will" is used so much as to imply there are no protections for employees in Indiana.

My goal is to NOT allow an echo chamber. I want another voice heard that says EVEN IN Indiana an employer cannot fire you for no reason irregardless of a lack of State law regarding this issue.

"Now, since you want to be a stickler for details, let me just add that EVERY employee is a "protected" class. It is not the membership in a particular race, age bracket, marital status, etc that protects someone. It is the use of the seven protected characteristics as grounds for termination that means someone is protected.

You can't fire a white guy because he's white."

I do want to be a stickler for details!

I disagree that everyone is a "protected" class. While everyone can sue against wrongful termination (yes, even in Indiana) some have much more solid ground to stand on than others.

"You can't fire a 26y/o for being young any more than you can fire a 60y/o for being old."

This is where I have the strongest disagreement with your post. The 60 year old is specifically protected by codified law under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 because he/she is over 40 years of age.

See: The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA)

The 26 year old has no such codified legal protection. While anyone can sue and win or loose for anything, the 60 year old is on far firmer ground than the 26 year old, ceteris paribus.

"You can't fire a father for having kids anymore than you can fire a mother for having kids.

You can't fire an atheist for not having a religion any more than you can fire a Christian/Muslim/Jew/Rastafarian for being Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Rastafarian.

You can't fire a male for being male any more than you can fire a female for being female.

Protected class" is a misnomer because everybody is protected by the same laws. You can't base the choice to terminate (or refuse to hire) on any one of those seven characteristics. Everything else is fair game."

I also disagree slightly here. While what you are saying is true that we are all protected by the same laws it is not true that some folks are not "more protected" than others. This does not come from the law, where you are 100% correct, but rather from court precedents. It is easier (right or wrong) for a minority to claim protection under the Civil Rights Act of 1991 than for a non-minority. That said, the Beckman Lawson Labor brochure does support your statement that employers should have an objective reason for terminating an employee irregardless of who that employee is.

In Griggs v. Duke Power Co. 1971, Duke Power put in a new rule that everyone to be hired or promoted needed a high school diploma or to pass a test in order to be hired or promoted. On the face this is a neutral requirement. However, at that time 34% of white males had a HSD while only 12% of black males had a HSD. At the time 58% of white males could pass the test while only 6% of black males.

SCOTUS ruled against Duke Power Co. The company was unable to prove any sort of relationship between having a HSD or passing their test along with job performance.

My point is that the decision was based on Mr. Griggs being black. Not the fact that 66% of white males did not have a HSD or 42% of white males could not pass the test. There is, in some cases, firmer ground for some than for others. (I am not advocating that this is good or bad, only that it is the terrain in which we operate.)

In the end my goal is to help the OP and others realize that they have rights they may not be aware of. Just as we, on these boards, often remind folks to say "I do not consent to being search" or "Are you detaining me or am I free to go?" I want people to realize that while Indiana is an "at will" State this is almost irrelivent and not worth saying.

Employers should be able to fire crappy employees. Employers should get rid of dead weight. Employers should be able to run their businesses to the best of their ability - within the law.

For the OP and others we only heard one (1) side of the story:

#1) Employee was given a breathalyzer;
#2) Employee was sent home.

How do we know the test was accurate?
How do we know if others have shown up drunk before and nothing was done?
How do we know how the employee was "targeted" for testing?
How do we know if being drunk is against the rules? (it should be, but is it?)
How do we know if the test was legal?
How do we know if the employee has a medical condition that could simulate being drunk AND the test was inaccurate?

Perhaps all was done according to the law and the company policy, but just because it is company policy doesn't make it legal.

Have a great weekend!

Regards,

Doug

 

[BE Mike]

Give us some credit. Most of us are aware of federal laws and it is assumed in the course of conversation that they still apply.

That being said, excepting federal or other state protections, an employee can be let got at the employer's discretion.

Now, since you want to be a stickler for details, let me just add that EVERY employee is a "protected" class. It is not the membership in a particular race, age bracket, marital status, etc that protects someone. It is the use of the seven protected characteristics as grounds for termination that means someone is protected.

You can't fire a white guy because he's white.

You can't fire a 26y/o for being young any more than you can fire a 60y/o for being old.

You can't fire a father for having kids anymore than you can fire a mother for having kids.

You can't fire an atheist for not having a religion any more than you can fire a Christian/Muslim/Jew/Rastafarian for being Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Rastafarian.

You can't fire a male for being male any more than you can fire a female for being female.

"Protected class" is a misnomer because everybody is protected by the same laws. You can't base the choice to terminate (or refuse to hire) on any one of those seven characteristics. Everything else is fair game.

Actually, this is fine in theory, but in general practice, an employer can either make things so such an employee wants to quit or find other "reasons" to terminate.

 

[BE Mike]

I wouldnt care if it was my best friend or my mother, I wouldn't work with a drunk person. They made a bad decision by coming to work intoxicated, man up to the mistake, and get your act together. Not only can this person put their coworkers at risk by being intoxicated, but opens the company up for lawsuits from other employees in the event someone got hurt because of said intoxicated person. Then there is the whole OSHA thing (instant pucker factor goes into effect)...

I've worked with alcoholics. Things don't start getting better until they (1) admit that they have a problem and (2) seek help. Until then things keep going downhill for them and the organization. On a positive note, I've seen them completely turn their lives around when they did steps 1 & 2. It usually takes something major to get their attention. Some drink because they have problems. Usually after they quit, they realize that the drinking was THE problem. Don't be an enabler by taking up for him. Hope your co-worker gets the message.

 

[Giddaltti]

If you show up to work drunk off your ass, get fired, and sue because you were "discriminated against," you've got issues.

Of course its a desease and can be covered under most medical plans. Companies will provide intervention as well.