Gordon Ramsay demands drugs tests

[malachi]

Good point.

The case in question is probably much less about drugs than about life.

Even more of a reason to say WTF in response to the mandatory drug test nonsense.

[Chef/Writer Spencer]

Hate to say it--because Ramsay's one of my heroes--but after seeing what happened in the press after the vegetarian affair, it wouldn't be a stretch to attribute some of his reaction to damage control.

[malachi]

Regardless of the vegetarian issue...

You have a high-profile celebrity employer and one of his senior people dies under suspicious circumstances that seem to be related to drugs.

Combine this with what we've learned today vis a vis the paternal employment system and policies in the UK.

And throw in a heaping handful of grief, loss, guilt and other strong emotions...

I feel bad for the guy. It can't be a good situation.

Edited June 15, 2003 by malachi (log)

[Tonyfinch]

Bourdain. I was not talking about unionised and corporate kitchens in the UK. I was talking about other fields. I have no idea about working in a kitchen (although before you all jump I have now said twice that I know it must be a high stress job).

Dempsey died outside the kitchen, and obviously what people do in their own time is up to them. But during the enquiries into his death Ramsey will be asked if he knew about Dempsey's "problems" (whatever they were). Part of the tone of that questioning will be that IF he knew had he, (as an employer, not a friend) "done anything" about it.

Now the tone I've picked up from some of the above(and I may be wrong) is that that is a question that somehow shouldn't be asked ("hey its, not my business.....yeah but what could I do?........it was up to him.....I tried to raise it but he didn't want to know..........it was his responsibility to raise it not mine..........dude's gotta do what a dudes gotta do..............as long as he was cutting it in the kitchen............etc. etc.)

My point is that in the UK it is well established and accepted that an employer's "duty of care" to an employee goes beyond these answers. There may well be nothing whatsoever Ramsey could have done to have helped prevent what Dempsey did. But the PRINCIPLE that employers should have a responsibility towards their employees, in some cases regardless of whether the latter asks for it, is well established and has been fought for for years by unions and othere workers organizations as an ongoing development away from slave labour and is now well accepted by all.

The idea that this is "paternalistic" is only held by backwoods Tories and deep reactionaries who would take us back to the dark ages of industrial relations if they could, all the while under the guise of so-called "freedom". Its no accident that some of the most right wing organizations in Europe call themselves "The Freedom Party", or "The Association for Freedom", or some such. Its the argument they always put up and always have any time there is any advance in the rights of employees and duties of employers (and I speak as one of the latter).

Kitchens may still well be a last bastion of that dark old world but I would hazard a guess that whatever else Ramsey is thinking/feeling about Dempsey's death, one thing he won't be is "well, its a shame but its got nothing to do with me", indeed he made that clear in the Observer article last week, and he was speaking as an employer as well as a friend.

Edited June 15, 2003 by Tonyfinch (log)

[bourdain]

Great. Just what the world needs. More lawsuits More "cover your ass" policies from employers.

So. GR, potentially, hypothetically could face a lawsuit for "allowing" a friend and employee to go off the rails? The apartment owners who incurred damages could, theoretically, sue the Savoy Group? Grieving relatives might sue for the loss of a loved one? Sounds like it . (not saying they'll win--but it sounds like they have grounds under the law)

What kind of "cover your ass" hiring and employment policies does that kind of potential outcome breed? Corporations and companies worried about liability generally become more intrusive, restrictive, and standardized--and generally "dumber" . Have you ever looked into the eyes of a Dept of Human Resources Officer? The word "vapid" comes to mind. Drug testing prior to hiring--and more careful screening and reference checks creates an environment where whole segments of society will have trouble finding work in a business that has been traditionally a refuge for outcasts, misfits, immigrants, and eccentrics. That's fine for the military--not for the restaurant business which was once particularly welcoming to "alternative lifestyles" . I can think of a lot of chefs and cooks who would not have made it through the door, would never have been given a chance given that kind of ethos. Myself for one. Stabilized on methadone and crawling back up from years as a crackhead and junkie, I needed WORK. I needed a CHANCE. Do you think I could have gotten work if my employer saw the metabolites in my piss? When I kicked meth--on my own--do you think I could have held that job, if the chef--who'd see me shaking and freezing in front of the oven a few minutes a day- -had referred me to head office? I think not.

" The lawyers say we have to" is rarely a precursor to humanistic or good practice.

And while I have no doubt that you have the same kind of right wing "libertarian" nut-cases that we do--who want to remove any and all laws, taxes or guidelines under the guise of "freedom", I don't want my employer in my shit cause he's scared of a lawsuit. I don't want to worry about informers. I don't want mandatory drug testing (surely in the cards with this kind of mindset--as employers rush to avoid liability. I don't want a legal obligation to "snitch" on my coworkers and employees . Which is what it comes down to.

It is most terrifying to me that both right and left now move in unison. The right wants to know everything about us because we might be terrorists or illegal immigrants. The left wants to know everything about us because they think we're too dumb and potentially litigious to make sensible decisions for ourselves. In the end, we give up freedoms to crackpots and functionaries on the fringes of both ideologies. "Paternalistic" is, unfortunately, not too bad a word--whatever butt-ugly bunch is misusing it. "Freedom"--also a criminally misused word, did once mean something kinda nice. Governments are (and should be) notoriously awful at modifying human behavior. Let us hope they never get good at it. (see Singapore)

Edited June 15, 2003 by bourdain (log)

[fresco]

"Governments are (and should be) notoriously awful at modifying human behavior."

The frightening thing is, governments can be extremely effective at modifying human behaviour (see China and its rigorously enforced one-child policy, for instance). But they are notoriously bad at modifying human instincts and desires (many Chinese abandon or murder unwanted girls so they can try again for a boy.)

[inventolux]

"Freedom"--also a criminally misused word, did once mean something kinda nice. - abourdain.

Ok, this statement is very left or right, im not sure which. Having the right to say, write a book and place virtually any opinion or view in it based on real experience or not is a beautiful thing. What we have in this country and will continue to be for many more years the most free thinking society on this planet (now im not saying its perfect).

Just because most drugs are illegal doesnt mean we are headed down the mussolini trail wearing swastikas (two regimes that were heavily into drugs and the occult) . Were talking about DRUGS. Now I believe all drugs should be leagalized but I also believe the government should have strict laws governing those drugs. The proposed leagalization of marijuana in Nevada is a good step forward. But on the flipside I dont want to wake up to the redlight light district in downtown Chicago either.

I also believe if some guy walks into a kitchen he should have respect for the the laws in that environment. I think if certain companies have a policy to always report illegal activity, if you work there, you should report it. That comes with accepting a job. If you dont want to be a part of that system then dont accept the position and change it in your own restaurant. (thats real freedom) No im not a believer in gestappo management. Just good old fashion non politically based you get the job because youre the best chef for it.

Edited June 15, 2003 by inventolux (log)

[Nick]

What we have in this country and will continue to be for many more years the most free thinking society on this planet (now im not saying its perfect).

......I think if certain companies have a policy to always report illegal activity, if you work there, you should report it. That comes with accepting a job.

Aren't these statements somewhat at odds?

[Chef/Writer Spencer]

All of this is making me want to get my shovel sized razor blade out and snort right on the line.

[inventolux]

What we have in this country and will continue to be for many more years the most free thinking society on this planet (now im not saying its perfect).

I think if certain companies have a policy to always report illegal activity, if you work there, you should report it. That comes with accepting a job. If you dont want to be a part of that system then dont accept the position and change it in your own restaurant. (thats real freedom)

Aren't these statements somewhat at odds? - nickn

We need to examine the opinion in its entirety.

Good morning spencer........as always a delicious pictorial.

Edited June 15, 2003 by inventolux (log)

[Tonyfinch]

edit: see below.

Edited June 15, 2003 by Tonyfinch (log)

[fresco]

"All of this is making me want to get my shovel sized razor blade out and snort right on the line. "

Spencer snorts in disgust.

[Tonyfinch]

Well I didn't say I agreed with mandatory drug testing. That was Ramsey's apparent suggestion. My point is that both employees and employers have both rights and responsibilities. This is what industrial relations negotiations are all about-finding the 'right' level of balance between the two, and that is an ongoing process. The truth is that "freedom" for many employers means the freedom to treat their employees like shit, work them like slaves, fire them on the spot for the smallest misdemeanour or protest.

Yes, employees now have "rights". Those rights protect them, at least up to a point. And every single one of them has been damned hard fought for. What some seem to find hard to grasp is that these rights actually PROTECT the Dempsey's and the (former ) Bourdains and the other misfits and eccentics from arbitrary firings and other forms of mistreatment from employers.

An employer must offer help and support to an employee who s/he knows has addiction problems. What is WRONG with that, exactly? What about that causes some of you to sneer (and in Spencer's case snort )? Are you so hung up on your kitchen machismo that you think its preferable to stand there watching going "hey-dude, whatever you wanna do, you know? if you're gonna kill yourself, kill yourself?"

Its not about employers getting sued. Its about employers taking their duty of care seriously and DOING WHAT THEY CAN. If they've done that they won't get sued. It's not about snitching. We're not in the fucking playground for Christ's sake. This is not a game. Dempsey is DEAD and Ramsey's interview made it clear that the question he's asking himself is "could I have done more, should I have done more?" Only he knows the answer to that question, but the fact that he's asking it shows that he's taking his responsibilities seriously. The more employers who do that, the better. And even if they do so only because of a fear of getting sued, then that's STILL better than them not doing so at all.

Edited June 15, 2003 by Tonyfinch (log)

[inventolux]

Its not about employers getting sued. Its about employers taking their duty of care seriously and DOING WHAT THEY CAN.

Hospitality, service, professionalism, responsibilty, a call to duty......all things we strive toward everyone in this game of gastronomy, not just for the guest.......well stated tony.

Edited June 15, 2003 by inventolux (log)

[Nick]

All of this is making me want to get my shovel sized razor blade out and snort right on the line.

I hope it's good, clean, drugstore quality crystal.

[Nick]

If you dont want to be a part of that system then dont accept the position and change it in your own restaurant. (thats real freedom)

Right. You're going to march down to the bank and say I want to open a restaurant. I want to change the system. Lux, have you ever been down to the street?

[beans]

My point is that both employees and employers have both rights and responsibilities. This is what industrial relations negotiations are all about-finding the 'right' level of balance between the two, and that is an ongoing process.

*  *  *  *  *

Yes, employees now have "rights". Those rights protect them, at least up to a point. And every single one of them has been damned hard fought for.

*  *  *  *  *

Its not about employers getting sued. Its about employers taking their duty of care seriously and DOING WHAT THEY CAN.

Damn. This thread has gone so many places and I was totally DIGGING Anthony Bourdain and Spencer's tête à tête but now it has evovled to the employer's and employee's rights treatise. Bleh.

Here's a few random, somewhat disjointed thoughts -- I spend more time than I intended reading through this thread (shame on me for not keeping apprised in an otherwise timely manner) but I have a Dad worth doting upon this afternoon.

Personal choice. If there, for whatever reason, is an imbalance to your activities, choices and job performance, then it's time for that perfect "I'm in your shit." quiet but stern talk al a Bourdain.

Maybe it was the former wanabe lawyer in me, employers being sued for a perceived "duty of care" toward an employee is rubbish and frivolous litigation when that individual voluntarily made the personal choice to use their poison of choice to excess.

Ciao. Will reinvest this evening's time to jump right back into this...

[inventolux]

If you dont want to be a part of that system then dont accept the position and change it in your own restaurant. (thats real freedom)

Right. You're going to march down to the bank and say I want to open a restaurant. I want to change the system. Lux, have you ever been down to the street?

Keep your eye on the ball. Anything is possible.

Edited June 15, 2003 by inventolux (log)

[Tonyfinch]

Maybe it was the former wanabe lawyer in me, employers being sued for a perceived "duty of care" toward an employee is rubbish and  frivolous litigation when that individual voluntarily made the personal choice to use their poison of choice to excess.

A lawsuit can happen when it can be shown that an employer has been "negligent" in respect of his/her duty of care towards employees.

In the case of an employee drinking/drugging voluntarily at work the duty of care resides in the employer speaking to the employee and explaining that what he is doing is unnacceptable, and in the case of drugs probably illegal. He will ask the employee to stop and then offer to direct the employee in the direction of support/counselling services so that he may IF HE WISHES avail him/herself of them. He may "strongly advise" the employee to do so and also inform him that future incidents COULD result in disciplinary action being taken against the employee which could, in turn, lead to him losing his job.

The employee is at liberty to respond exactly as he/she pleases but the employer has exercised his duty of care by offering support and explaining the position. The employer also has to consider the health, safety and welfare of other employees (how unpredictable is a smashed cook in a dangerous kitchen?) and of any other parties who may be affected by the employees condition (customers).

So the burden on the employer to get things right is quite heavy but he has protected himself by his actions and offered a measurable degree of support to the employee. The ball is now in the employee's court.

Can anyone point out to me how "freedom" or whose freedom is contravened in any of that?

[NeroW]

and...a nice Scooby bong sitting behind the apples on my fridge.

Why is it behind the apples?

Wait . . . why is it in the fridge?

[Wendy DeBord]

I feel right at home here. Get together a group of people that enjoy their drugs and you'll get some of the most long winded freedom loving never ending discusion that justifies just about anything so long as we can keep our favorite medicine. Yet I never see you all doing anything to make a real difference in the laws that no one but hardline idiots think are working.

pretty soon you'll all get into a huge fight so you can unwind with another hit, come on guys

and nothing is worse then a sob story about a hard life that's an excuse for a drug spree life.

it's probably ON the fridge and behind the apples because no kid can reach it or wants to there.

Edited June 15, 2003 by Sinclair (log)

[inventolux]

Its nice to know sinclair has personally investigated everyones past, present and future to now become the worlds only single individual that has complete and concise working knowledge on everyones minute to minute activities reguarding actual activities relating to supporting or not supporting a drug stance.

NOW THATS IMPRESSIVE

Edited June 15, 2003 by inventolux (log)

[leonr]

Heroin is just fine for work. At first. Until you don't have any one day--and you find yourself, aching, cold, shitting like a mink and too sore to move.

A junkie chef’s 3 star menu:

The Clear Camel Piss Soup with boiled Earth Worms

The Filet of Sun-Ripened Sting Ray basted with Eau de Cologne and garnished with nettles

The After-Birth Supreme de Boeuf, cooked in drained crank case oil, served with a piquant sauce of rotten egg yolks and crushed bed bugs

The Limburger Cheese sugar cured in diabetic urine doused in Canned Heat Flamboyant....

Created by everyone’s favorite and soon to be second most prolific (ex) junkie author,

William Burroughs.

[Tonyfinch]

Damn.  This thread has gone so many places and I was totally DIGGING Anthony Bourdain and Spencer's tête à tête but now it has evovled to the employer's and employee's rights treatise.  Bleh.

BTW, pardon me for spoiling your entertainent Beans by trying to take some of the issues around Dempsey's death and Ramsey's response, seriously.

You ole boys go right on back to your stoned blather now, y'all hear?

Edited June 15, 2003 by Tonyfinch (log)

[beans]

Tonyfinch

Don't attempt to insult me with such a shallow snipe. It's unimaginative, unoriginal and unattractive.

I was not in any way diminishing the merits of Spencer or Anthony Bourdain's "entertainment". That was what I felt was the crux of all the hoopla. The age old legal debate of what an employer should or shouldn't do with respect to employee rights was with regard to litigous action what I found waning. If you don't like it, I don't care.

Spare me.

Edited June 15, 2003 by beans (log)