Little Tipsy at work

[leo9498]

Hi: I'm in CA and work at a Native American Casino.
I went to work on Christmas Eve after a holiday party.
Said I didn't feel well, taken off my game and suspended for being under the influence.
Have a meeting with HR in the morning.

Do I make a written statement and take it to the meeting or just through myself on the sword?

 

[Eekamouse]

Hi: I'm in CA and work at a Native American Casino.
I went to work on Christmas Eve after a holiday party.
Said I didn't feel well, taken off my game and suspended for being under the influence.
Have a meeting with HR in the morning.

Do I make a written statement and take it to the meeting or just through myself on the sword?

You went to work a little drunk and they could tell you were. They will likely fire you but maybe not. Hard to say. Don't know if you're a valuable employee or not.

 

[xylene]

Do you have an alcohol problem or was this really like a one time thing?

If they offer you an alcohol treatment plan take it.

This was a company holiday party?

 

[Chyvan]

Do I make a written statement and take it to the meeting or just through myself on the sword?

Protect your rights to unemployment benefits. Do NOT admit to anything. If you employer wants to fire you because they "think" you were drunk at work, that's one thing, but if you admit to being drunk at work, it's over.

 

[cbg]

Do I make a written statement and take it to the meeting or just through myself on the sword?

Has anyone yet asked you to do either?

 

[LeeHarveyBlotto]

Protect your rights to unemployment benefits. Do NOT admit to anything. If you employer wants to fire you because they "think" you were drunk at work, that's one thing, but if you admit to being drunk at work, it's over.

When asked directly whether OP was under the influence, what would you suggest?

 

[Chyvan]

When asked directly whether OP was under the influence, what would you suggest?

I personally, would say nothing.

If Leo says yes, it's almost certain he'll be fired and there will be an admission.

if Leo says no, there's a chance they'll fire him anyway, but then has to live with his conscience.

If he says nothing, he'll still probably get fired, but the employer will have a proof problem with UI, and Leo has a much better shot.

 

[eerelations]

I personally, would say nothing.

If Leo says yes, it's almost certain he'll be fired and there will be an admission.

if Leo says no, there's a chance they'll fire him anyway, but then has to live with his conscience.

If he says nothing, he'll still probably get fired, but the employer will have a proof problem with UI, and Leo has a much better shot.

So if UI asks OP is he was drunk at work, you think OP will have a better chance of getting UI benefits if OP refuses to answer the question?

 

[Proserpina]

Out of pure curiosity, does Tribal law come into play here at all?

 

[Zigner]

I wonder how the meeting with HR this morning went...

 

[Chyvan]

So if UI asks OP is he was drunk at work, you think OP will have a better chance of getting UI benefits if OP refuses to answer the question?

Understand that a claimant doesn't have to answer the phone when EDD calls, and that's what I tell the guilty to do in a discharge. Let the employer do their job at establishing misconduct. The claimant doesn't have to help. Not all employers bother, some don't do it right, and there is nothing a claimant can do about the employers that do know what they are doing, but in the first two situations, an admission from the claimant means they get denied because of what came out of their own mouth rather than the employer doing a bang up job at fighting a UI claim.

 

[Zigner]

Understand that a claimant doesn't have to answer the phone when EDD calls, and that's what I tell the guilty to do in a discharge. Let the employer do their job at establishing misconduct. The claimant doesn't have to help. Not all employers bother, some don't do it right, and there is nothing a claimant can do about the employers that do know what they are doing, but in the first two situations, an admission from the claimant means they get denied because of what came out of their own mouth rather than the employer doing a bang up job at fighting a UI claim.

Employer will allege that the claimant came to work intoxicated and admitted as much. Then, the hearing officer will ask the employee for his/her side...oops, there is no employee to speak with. I wonder how the hearing officer will rule...

 

[Proserpina]

Employer will allege that the claimant came to work intoxicated and admitted as much. Then, the hearing officer will ask the employee for his/her side...oops, there is no employee to speak with. I wonder how the hearing officer will rule...

Consider the source, Z.

I'd eye-roll but I gave it up years ago and SP holds the key to the cupboard where the unused emoticons live

 

[Chyvan]

admitted as much.

As of yet, this person may not have admitted any such thing to the employer, and he's admitted no such thing to EDD.

Then, the hearing officer will ask the employee for his/her side...oops, there is no employee to speak with. I wonder how the hearing officer will rule...

You're out of sequence. The first call is from an EDD worker in a phone interview. It's perfectly ok to skip that step. I'd never tell any claimant to skip an actual hearing, and in CA, it's about 50/50 whether it's by phone or in-person. I find that at in-person hearings, that employer no-shows happen quite a bit.

 

[cbg]

Actually, chyvan, you're the one who is out of sequence. The OP hasn't even been fired yet; he had a meeting with HR this morning. Discussing unemployment is a wee bit premature.