So wait, what do we do then? I’m genuinely curious because they pulled someone off the road that wasI mean everyone knows that you can smoke or drink as much as you want and when you get caught all you have to do is say "I have a problem. Free pass!" SMH.
faced and they did exactly that.
Exactly what I thought. Where’s the can? Something is not right here. I would never have stood still for this railroading if I was innocent. Take any test you want, I would have demanded to be tested with as many supes present that you could fit in the
ing room!
Where’s Paul Harvey when you need him?Exactly what I thought. Where’s the can? Something is not right here. I would never have stood still for this railroading if I was innocent. Take any test you want, I would have demanded to be tested with as many supes present that you could fit in the
I am a lawyer as a side job if you need advice.Hi guys,
So my friend was recently terminated after an employee claimed to observe him drinking alcohol. The coworker also stated that he had said something about beers in the vehicle. The coworker of course reported what he claims he had seen to management. My buddy says that when management called him, they weren't having it. They stated that they *knew* he was drinking and that he would be fired. They called the police and told them he was "drunk" and "intoxicated". Now, here's where it gets interesting. When the police showed up, they put him through a field sobriety test. He passed (of course) because he wasn't drunk. They searched the PC to find beers. They searched his clothes and bag. No beers. No evidence of alcohol or drugs. When he called the Sup. back, the Sup said he would have to go to the hospital to get a blood alcohol test (I've never seen or heard of this before). He went to the hospital and, of course, came back negative. However, he did not take a drug test. Sup. wanted him to take a "drug and alcohol test". He, not knowing what he was doing, apparently took only the drug test. When I googled this, it says there are several urine tests that test for both blood and alcohol, but for some reason the hospital couldn't do this test and instead had two separate tests. One blood alcohol. One urine drug panel. He took the alcohol test and left. When he goes in the next day, he's fired. Pack your
At the local hearing, he told management multiple times that he was not drunk and wasn't drinking. He says he never used drugs and asked if they had reasonable cause to require the separate drug test. He decided to fight the case at the Panel. When he went to the Panel, his BA told him it was done. He can go to treatment and get his job back or that's it. No opportunity to fight it. No chance to have his word heard.
Is this legit? This seems super fishy and, I like my friend a lot but I don't know what to believe. If the test came back negative, how can they make him do this? Does my friend need a lawyer?
This definitely seems as you put it “fishy”.Hi guys,
So my friend was recently terminated after an employee claimed to observe him drinking alcohol. The coworker also stated that he had said something about beers in the vehicle. The coworker of course reported what he claims he had seen to management. My buddy says that when management called him, they weren't having it. They stated that they *knew* he was drinking and that he would be fired. They called the police and told them he was "drunk" and "intoxicated". Now, here's where it gets interesting. When the police showed up, they put him through a field sobriety test. He passed (of course) because he wasn't drunk. They searched the PC to find beers. They searched his clothes and bag. No beers. No evidence of alcohol or drugs. When he called the Sup. back, the Sup said he would have to go to the hospital to get a blood alcohol test (I've never seen or heard of this before). He went to the hospital and, of course, came back negative. However, he did not take a drug test. Sup. wanted him to take a "drug and alcohol test". He, not knowing what he was doing, apparently took only the drug test. When I googled this, it says there are several urine tests that test for both blood and alcohol, but for some reason the hospital couldn't do this test and instead had two separate tests. One blood alcohol. One urine drug panel. He took the alcohol test and left. When he goes in the next day, he's fired. Pack your
At the local hearing, he told management multiple times that he was not drunk and wasn't drinking. He says he never used drugs and asked if they had reasonable cause to require the separate drug test. He decided to fight the case at the Panel. When he went to the Panel, his BA told him it was done. He can go to treatment and get his job back or that's it. No opportunity to fight it. No chance to have his word heard.
Is this legit? This seems super fishy and, I like my friend a lot but I don't know what to believe. If the test came back negative, how can they make him do this? Does my friend need a lawyer?
Most people on here probably have no idea who the hell Paul Harvey even is.
Their loss
BINGO! Then fight it later
Exactly. Just never admit you have a problem. Simply agree to go to treatment on the guarantee that you get your job back. Go through the motions at rehab or whatever they have you do then once you get back to work file a grievance. I’d also drop anchor (follow orion to a T) and bury them in 9.5 grievances. They wanna play games, I can too.
Oh they would pay, drop and drag that anchor all day long.
He sounds pretty dumb
I don’t but I do know who Dr. Dre is.
Ok....
The can was disposed of. However, it appears on police dash cam video. It is shown to the police.
The hearing was delayed multiple times. Not really sitting around.
Good.
Yes Lawyer themHi guys,
So my friend was recently terminated after an employee claimed to observe him drinking alcohol. The coworker also stated that he had said something about beers in the vehicle. The coworker of course reported what he claims he had seen to management. My buddy says that when management called him, they weren't having it. They stated that they *knew* he was drinking and that he would be fired. They called the police and told them he was "drunk" and "intoxicated". Now, here's where it gets interesting. When the police showed up, they put him through a field sobriety test. He passed (of course) because he wasn't drunk. They searched the PC to find beers. They searched his clothes and bag. No beers. No evidence of alcohol or drugs. When he called the Sup. back, the Sup said he would have to go to the hospital to get a blood alcohol test (I've never seen or heard of this before). He went to the hospital and, of course, came back negative. However, he did not take a drug test. Sup. wanted him to take a "drug and alcohol test". He, not knowing what he was doing, apparently took only the drug test. When I googled this, it says there are several urine tests that test for both blood and alcohol, but for some reason the hospital couldn't do this test and instead had two separate tests. One blood alcohol. One urine drug panel. He took the alcohol test and left. When he goes in the next day, he's fired. Pack your
At the local hearing, he told management multiple times that he was not drunk and wasn't drinking. He says he never used drugs and asked if they had reasonable cause to require the separate drug test. He decided to fight the case at the Panel. When he went to the Panel, his BA told him it was done. He can go to treatment and get his job back or that's it. No opportunity to fight it. No chance to have his word heard.
Is this legit? This seems super fishy and, I like my friend a lot but I don't know what to believe. If the test came back negative, how can they make him do this? Does my friend need a lawyer?
