Gordon Ramsay demands drugs tests

[malachi]

If I, as an employer, suspect that an employee might be doing drugs--either in the workplace--or in off hours (to the detriment of work performance), should I  be permitted to demand a drug test?

If they're f*cking up at work and not pulling their weight -- does it matter what the cause is? One warning and then out the back door I'd say.

[Kim WB]

I feel that those of you who have claimed that the drug use is ok " as long as it does not affect their job performance"  are looking at the small picture...the guy who parties too hard after every  shift is sleeping until 1/2 hour before his  next shift begins, not spending any time with his wife or his kid or his mother or his hobby or his bills or his gym or his dog....the ramifications extend into his personal life, which will then loop back around to affect his professional life.

We had a thread on what determines a chef from a cook..CWS declared it was passion and paying your dues. I said a component was leadership..and this thread illustrates my position pretty well,  I think.

So... what you're saying is that the opinion that drug use is OK if you don't let it affect your work is silly because drug use will affect your work?

Perhaps it's just the flu, but I see some logic weakness in this.

what I'm saying is that drug abuse is difficult to compartmentalize, and that if you are not seeing the ramifications of abuse in their professional life, they are feeling it in their personal lives..and that it is only a matter of time before the worlds colide.

My initial response in this thread topic was a reaction to the inferrence that "Gordon made him do it", which to me negates personal accountability.

I'd like to see drugs legalized, too. I'm not all set on having everyone pee in a cup. But I don't like to see drug use glamorized and excuses made for its use..and while CWS's marriage might have fallen apart due to "passion for the industry", a lot of other marriages fell apart because of the lifestyles so eloquently described on this thread. .

And to me, personally, is that part of the glamoritization ( is that a word?) is that in this industry, you can be a functioning abuser... and that's cool and ok. But all too often, the definition of functioning is that "my wife and kids left, I'm hung over every day, I have'nt seen the sun in two years, but hey, I can still turn out a good meal..."

[Fat Guy]

what I'm saying is that drug abuse is difficult  to compartmentalize, and that  if you are not seeing the ramifications of abuse in their professional  life, they are feeling it in their personal lives..and that it is only a matter of time before the worlds colide.

Except at each step of that chain of causation, you're only talking about probability: not all drug use leads to drug abuse, which doesn't always lead to personal-life disasters, which doesn't always cause a worlds-colliding situation that impacts on workplace performance. If the evidence was that drug use would inevitably cause problems in the work place, that would at least tend to justify preemption. As it is, when that is only true in a percentage of cases -- and when that percentage is heavily debated and may not even be significant, especailly as compared to alcohol -- preemption is unjustified because a percentage of the people punished are currently and will always be innocent of any wrongdoing within the reasonable scope of the employment relationship.

[MatthewB]

what I'm saying is that drug abuse is difficult  to compartmentalize, and that  if you are not seeing the ramifications of abuse in their professional  life, they are feeling it in their personal lives..and that it is only a matter of time before the worlds colide.

Except at each step of that chain of causation, you're only talking about probability: not all drug use leads to drug abuse, which doesn't always lead to personal-life disasters, which doesn't always cause a worlds-colliding situation that impacts on workplace performance. If the evidence was that drug use would inevitably cause problems in the work place, that would at least tend to justify preemption. As it is, when that is only true in a percentage of cases -- and when that percentage is heavily debated and may not even be significant, especailly as compared to alcohol -- preemption is unjustified because a percentage of the people punished are currently and will always be innocent of any wrongdoing within the reasonable scope of the employment relationship.

FG, sometimes you're so clear & your logic is so pristine that you completely dissipate the haze caused by Spence's pot smoke.

[Nick]

My initial response in this thread topic was a reaction to the inferrence that "Gordon made  him do it", which to me negates personal accountability.

Yeah. It's a cop-out to blame the boss, the working conditions, or anything but yourself when you lose it like Dempsey did. Like Harry Truman said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." Hard words, but true.

[inventolux]

Dont expect those below you to tolerate it constantly when you wouldnt.

[Kim WB]

[

Except at each step of that chain of causation, you're only talking about probability: not all drug use leads to drug abuse, which doesn't always lead to personal-life disasters, which doesn't always cause a worlds-colliding situation that impacts on workplace performance.

I've tried to be specific and refer to drug abuse, which in my mind is different than drug use. Certainly, not all drug use leads to drug abuse.

Regarding probability, I don't know what the stats are that a drug user will become a drug abuser...I was always making out when "Marijuana Madness" clips ran at the drive in...

However, I'm guessing the the probability that drug ABUSE leading to personal life problems is, well...I'd put my money on the cocaine. C'mon...ther are not a lot of 40 year old guys out there talking about how helpful and wonderful drug abuse was for their careers and their relationships...

Edited June 16, 2003 by Kim WB (log)

[A Scottish Chef]

And to me, personally,  is that part of the glamoritization ( is that a word?)  is that in this industry, you can be a functioning abuser... and that's cool and ok.

Well, it's a word now. Neology suits you

I can think of many things that substance use/abuse brings to the life of a functioning abuser.

Glamour isn't one of them.

[MatthewB]

I was always making out when  "Marijuana Madness" clips ran at the drive in...

Obviously. The film is "Reefer Madness."

[Chef/Writer Spencer]

Horseshit, I'm the poster boy for productive functioning abusers....

[A Scottish Chef]

Ok: is that you or Lenny Henry 'being' you in the mini-me/avatar?

Glamour is as glamour does.

[MatthewB]

As noted in the NY Post . . .

Bad boy British artist Damien Hirst claims he's been clean and sober for six months. "A lot of people think they make better art when they're drunk, but they don't - everything is better when you are sober," he told the London Evening Standard. As an example of bad, drunken art, Hirst said, "I was going to have a pig in a freezer covered in vibrators so it looked like a hedgehog. And it was going to be called Pork-U-Pine. And I was thinking there was some great idea there - I never made it, thank God." His new work - crucified cows and a Last Supper made of ping-pong balls - will be as controversial as ever, he promises.

Some people should not attempt to create menus whilst drinking.

[Chef/Writer Spencer]

Ok: is that you or Lenny Henry 'being' you in the mini-me/avatar? 

Glamour is as glamour does.

My Darth Vader avatar was out of focus. I chose the next best thing.

[Kim WB]

I can think of many things that substance use/abuse brings to the life of a functioning abuser.

Glamour isn't one of them.

Quite. But I"m concerned that it is so readily accepted by so many chefs, and even bragged about..especially by the "testosterone" chefs on the current badboy circuit..both in the media and at e-gullet. And for every one or two functioning abusers, there are a hundred messed up, broken abusers. Yes, okay, totally made up statistic. But hopefully you know what i mean.

[Kim WB]

I was always making out when  "Marijuana Madness" clips ran at the drive in...

Obviously. The film is "Reefer Madness."

Yeah, I had some pretty dreamy boyfriends!

[Nick]

As noted in the NY Post . . .

... Damien Hirst claims he's been clean and sober for six months. "A lot of people think they make better art when they're drunk, but they don't - everything is better when you are sober," he told the London Evening Standard.....

Yep. That's the truth. Somebody that can't play guitar worth a shit gets a good buzz on and they think they're Clapton or Hendrix.

I used to play pretty good and there were times I'd be recording stuff just messing around drunk, stoned, or most likely both, and think I was cooking. Sure felt like it. Listen back the next day and go, "Oh man, you gotta get your shit together."

[Pan]

Should there be mandatory drug testing for everyone--or is it just okay with you guys for cooks and workers in heavy industry?

For what it's worth, I disapprove of random drug testing or drug testing for the purpose of determining eligibility for employment or promotion - except where there's an urgent safety issue (i.e., the safety of people other than just the user can be threatened) that trumps the right to privacy. For example, I believe in random drug testing for pilots but not 3rd-basemen; surgeons but not teachers; and subway conductors but not office workers. I honestly don't know where someone using a knife and handling hot and potentially injurious foodstuffs fits into this continuum. But I think that where there's no urgent safety issue, random drug testing should be forbidden and the employer should be expected to use his/her own judgment to determine whether the employee shows signs of being impaired. If so, s/he could ask the employee to submit to a test for cause or, better yet, not ask for a test at all, but simply have a talk with that employee. If the employee shows no signs of impairment and his/her work is excellent, it's none of the employer's business if the employee is using drugs, as far as I'm concerned.

Tim Raines, a great baseball player who probably should be inducted into the Hall of Fame someday but probably won't be, had a terrific season with the Montreal Expos while he was addicted to cocaine. In 1986, he batted .334, with an on-base percentage of .413 (both #1 in the National League), 35 doubles, 10 triples, and 70 stolen bases. At least, I think that was the year he was talking about when he said he was so high all the time that he could barely see, or something. Imagine that! Anyway, I'm glad he's clean, for his sake, but he cheated nobody of anything with fantastic play like that, regardless of what he was taking.

[Fat Guy]

I've tried to be specific and refer to drug abuse, which in my mind is different than drug use.

Drug tests don't distinguish between use and abuse.

[Kim WB]

I've tried to be specific and refer to drug abuse, which in my mind is different than drug use.

Drug tests don't distinguish between use and abuse.

Agreed/ That's why I said this a few posts back:

"I'd like to see drugs legalized, too. I'm not all set on having everyone pee in a cup. But I don't like to see drug use glamorized and excuses made for its use..and while CWS's marriage might have fallen apart due to "passion for the industry", a lot of other marriages fell apart because of the lifestyles so eloquently described on this thread. . "

My responses have never been to the part of the thread that meandered towards the legality of the issue..I have always been commenting and responding to the portion of this thread that has discussed the accountability of the drug abuser, and the ramifications of the abuse.

It's been an interesting conversation, btw, and I thank everyone for helping to create an interesting thread, and Craig for introducing the topic.

edited to add that's its also been nice to visit the UK, if only in cyberspace!

Edited June 17, 2003 by Kim WB (log)

[abbeynormal]

I've tried to be specific and refer to drug abuse, which in my mind is different than drug use.

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.

Edited June 17, 2003 by abbeynormal (log)

[Nick]

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.

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."

[inventolux]

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.

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."

The sons of the soil?

[Nick]

The sons of the soil?

They're actually a little known branch of the KKK. Or maybe they're the FFA (Future Farmers of America.) Or maybe it has something to do with de Balzac..... Or maybe they're farmers as farming used to be practiced.

[abbeynormal]

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.

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.

[Nick]

And don't presume to know the state of my boots. I'm a shitkicker from way back.