abbeynormal

Uh, to some of us, food is a drug. Right now I'm jonesing for some inordinately large portions of indifferently prepared food. But I have to wait for Fresh Direct to get here so I can make it. I've only been to CF a couple of times (the one in Chestnut Hill, MA) and found that the food was okay, not great, but never had to wait three hours. I've only been there for lunch though.

That was a tiny joke. Obviously not visable to the naked eye.

Similar to (actually pretty much the same as) the FG method in the other Lobel thread is this one from Good Eats. To follow Alton all the way through this process, check out the show transcript here Good Eats: Steak Your Claim It seems deceptively simple. I'd like to know if it works before I try it.

Nor can I, but the only time I saw real activity around the place was when the show was in production. I'll look again today when I leave the office.

Last Friday at dinner time the sign in the window read "closed." I never see anyone in this place.

I walk by it everyday on my way home from the office. Maybe you'll see me walking by, I'm the one with the WTF is going on here look on his face. It's where Commune was. Between B'way and Park Avenue South. Big yellow awning that says Rocco's and a banner that says "the cameras have left the restaurant". I'll have to check and see if anyone's in there eating since the opportunity to see Tony having a crisis of conscience over Mama's Meatballs has passed. Commune did always seem to be full of people, so I don't know why it went out.

Unless you're going to invite your guests into the kitchen to watch you open cans (i.e. hey everybody, dig my wicked cool can opener), save a few bucks and go over to Food Emporium and buy one of the openers they have hanging above the shelves. They sell the side cutting kind. We bought one in 97 or 98 and it's still working fine. Of course it took us a few hours to figure out how to work the damn thing since it attached over the top of the can, instead of the side as top cutting can openers do. One caveat though, these new fangled can openers leave you with a top that makes it difficult to strain/drain a can using the top.

I, too, am fat & glad to be favorably compared (or derided) with Steven. Wha?, Yes & I dunno.

Glad you qualified that! I work in a job that I'm expected to throw a party for all that enter into bar and yes that does entail drinking on the job. *hiccup*

I'd remember that too since 95 doesn't go through Hartford. Now you might have taken the Pike to 84 to 91 to 95. However, in bypassing 84 you miss out on stopping at Rein's deli in Vernon, CT. Been stopping there for over 20 years. Good for celebrity sightings too. Last time I saw Pete Wolf (from J.Geils Band, not the egulleter) in the men's room. (Fill in your own joke here) I'm a big fan of the Cross Sound Ferry too. It's great for going from Boston to eastern Long Island (which is what I used to use it for). I didn't mind the extra time since it made a nice break in the middle of the trip. Just don't eat while on it. If you're hungry there's a choke and puke right at the CT/RI state line on 95. If you're hungry.

I can't believe no one picked up on this. Diner is the first thing I thought of when I saw this thread.

Standard employment contract? I think you'll find that most people do not have employment contracts. At least in the good old US of A. I take it from your liberal use of the letter "u" that you're not from these parts. Contracts may be more ubiquitous over there than here. No, this falls under that ancient legal theory - don't get drunk at work. Oh, and whenever someone tells you that the contract they've given you is "standard" bend over and prepare to be boarded. If they don't want you to consult a lawyer, at least request some lubricant. np: Keep It Greasy - Frank Zappa

I'd want to research that one (but I won't). I think if someone is actually drinking on the job, the employer is entitled to shoot them out of a cannon. But I'm not sure. Of course, I'm limiting this to the facts you present. In this situation - someone boozing while at a client's - I think you've got a slam dunk for dismissal whether job performance is impaired by the drinking or not. That's not to say that you shouldn't offer treatment. We're not animals, after all. Well, most of us, anyway.

What logic?

While I'm not aware of any affirmative duty of an employer to get their workers to get it together (whether before or after the problem affects the work), I think it's in the best interest of the employer keep their employees healthy and performing well. That's the capitalist side. The paternalistic/humanist side might say (I would say) that if you care about the people working for you you want to help them if they have a problem. And it's better to offer help before the problem leaves private life and enters the workplace. many employers now offer confidential treatment and counseling to their employees. I don't know if the food biz has adopted this benefit, though. The real problem is not getting someone to offer to help, it's getting someone to accept the help offered. "I got it under control, I don't have a problem." Ever heard those words before? What rights does an employer have? Assuming you mean to fire someone with a drug problem that isn't affecting their work. That may depend on whether someone with a drug problem is considered to be in a protected class. I don't know, but I'm sure some bright boy might try and argue that drug abuse is either a disease or disability, possibly putting the abuser in a protected class. Okay FG, let's see if you got your $300 worth. What say you? Is they or is they ain't protected?

Oooo....really? Consider me rudely awakened. Should I add that show to my must see list? Are there lawyers on it. I try not to watch shows with lawyers. Mention of DNA and fingerprints are the kind of misdirection I'd expect of someone in your profession. Does anyone know how long tests like this take in Ol' Blighty? I'm trying to figure how the McDonald's coffee-crotch case is germane to this discussion. Was the McDonald's case couched as product liability or negligence? I've seen the pictures of the woman's injuries, it looked like she poured magma on herself, not coffee. I can't make the connection between an employee suing an employer because the employee was allowed to continue working even though the employer was aware of the employee's drug problem and the employee injured themselves on the job due to that drug problem. Is this the line of thinking? I won't claim to know anything about UK Tort law, but I think you'd have a tough time passing the laugh test in a US Court. Correction, I can imagine someone making the claim, but I don't know how far they'd get. Maybe they could sue the employer for creating an unsafe work environment. If anyone thinks you don't need a vivid imagination to practice law, take a look at some of the claims out there.

Apparently that's the date that the Coroner's Inquest will reconvene (pending the results of the toxicology tests). Seems like an awful long time to get a report back.

I'd like to agree with you and Balzac (whoever the fuck he is), but I have no idea what you're on about. Being parasitic by nature, I prefer to live off the fruits of other's labors. To sum up my two putatively substantive contributions to this thread (which I thought were clear enough to begin with), I don't think you should have to piss in a cup to get a job or keep a job - gettage and keepage of a job should be based on one's performance, deportment and personal hygiene. Also, where the employee involved is not either operating heavy equipment or some sort of transport, the government, by way of enforcing the ability of employers to test, should piss off (if you'll forgive the expression). And get yourself a television machine. Perhaps next we can discuss the origins of the Sons of the Pioneers. Happy Trails.

Okay this is the last time I'm going to mention this...or not. See "Treehouse of Horror VII" original US airdate 10/27/96. Nick, You can watch the show weekdays on either WCKD-30 Bangor at 6pm or WPXT-51 Portland at 5 pm (I don't know which station you're closer to Down East). Can't say when the episode will air again. Check it out, it's good for your head and won't show up in your urine. And yes, I am almost completely full of shit. Good call. As far as CLE goes, I've found it a lot easier to pay attention now that I'm the one paying for it. Funny how that works. Since I no longer do Employment/Labor Lit (thank you Jeebus), I tend to stick with topics which actually interest me. You ain't lived until you've gone to KC to take depositions in an ADEA case and the client takes you to Houston's when you request REAL, AUTHENTIC BBQ. How'd I let that food reference slip in? B., right back at ya. Okay, for those of you reading this thread because you're interested in the topic (which apparently excepts those who initially responded to my last post): I really think drug testing, in most circumstances, is an erosion of personal liberty and condoning it sets us on a slippery slope to Stalinification of free will (or something). If that don't sound like a bad bumper sticker, I don't know what does.

Hmmm...I believe that Route 140 and I-195 intersect. But I can't tell you which direction to go in on 140 to get to 195.

The country boy just has to disagree with both you and "Dr. Julius Hibbert" (whoever the fuck he is.) Farmers are the sons of the soil. A few may be hillbillies and some might be rednecks. Get some shit on your boots before you define "sons of the soil." You're kidding, right? Tell me you're kidding. And don't presume to know the state of my boots. I'm a shitkicker from way back.

Kate: You live in New Behfah, not New Bedford. Since it's a tad difficult to give you directions when I don't know where you live I suggest you try this to get to Sid Wainer. Take I-195 (that's the road you took when you came from Providence) to either the Ashley Blvd or Acushnet Ave (Route 18) North exit. Proceed North on one of these streets to Bullard St. Hang a left on Bullard and follow it to Purchase St. The store is at 2301 Purchase St. which should be near the intersection. I know nothing about the store except where it is and I haven't been near Buzzards Bay since Christ was a child, so good luck. As for what you should put in your pantry, what do you like to make?

Drug tests don't distinguish between use and abuse. Nor can they distingush between one's ability to either do one's job or not do one's job (whether fucked up or not). That is, IMHO, the question here. And I'm not limiting this to the type of work you do or what industry you're in. Drug tests, whether you approve of them or not, are not the issue. The issue, as I see it from both reading this threadzilla and 20 years in all sorts of work environments, is "is this person doing their job?" Do they show up on time and get the work done? I've worked many places, both high and low, and the only people with whom management had a problem over substance abuse were those folks who let whatever it was they were doing affect their work (BTW-Does "everything but the..." ice cream qualify as a substance? I've been abusing the hell out of it lately). That's not to say we weren't concerned that someone who was either a co-worker, friend or employee was getting fucked up every night. If you care about someone, you probably want them to clean up. Not that that would make a difference. That being said, if someone is screwing up at work, the employer has three choices, do nothing, confront the employee and give them a chance to redeem themselves, or fire them. I don't think the reason someone is screwing up is an issue unless you want to help them. And I don't think subjecting your employees to a wiz quiz is going to help them. It's not going to tell you who your problem employees are (managing them will do that) and it sure as hell isn't going to do anything for esprit d'workplace. The right of your employer to make you "pee in a cup" extends only so far as your willingness to work for them. Would you want to work someone who would make you do that? Okay, no new ideas here, but I've been away from these fora for a long time. Steven: Very impressed that you not only remained awake during a CLE course, but actually absorbed some information. Mr. Bourdain: I only disagree with you on one point. I believe that according to Dr. Julius Hibbert it is Hillbillies, not Rednecks, who prefer to be called "sons of the soil." But it ain't gonna happen. - You, as far as I can tell, are neither. End communication.

agreed

And a Zappa reference while you're at it: "God, that was a tasty little sucker!" Has no one had the bagels at Kossar's (on Grand Street)? Those were the absolute best when I had them, but that was a year ago. They freeze well, too. Guess I'll have to get there on the weekend; it will give me an excuse to get down there to get my lens cap (but that's a different story). Thanks for picking up on the frank reference frank. I have a vision of what Steven will post on Kossar's: Well'>http://www.egullet.com/cgi-bin/topic.cgi?f...topic=62 Well , not really a vision, more like extraordinary recall of what's been posted on this board.Keep it greasey so it'll go down easy, Adam