This is a perfect example of your black/white thinking. You are assuming that with an alcoholic, a "bad" event will occur. My position is that the company needs to do, within reason, what it can to prevent a "bad" event from occurring, but handing out consequences for something that not only has not happened yet, but has not given any indication that it would happen (no DUI's on the driver's record, no reports of him driving drunk or working drunk), is not appropriate.You're putting the alcoholic's welfare, and your sense of justice, above the risk that the company faces and if a bad event occurs because of this driver and his history, then all of the people in the company will suffer.
There are levels to this. It is not black/white.Dying on the hill of principle doesn't make sense to me.
"Crap happens."What do you tell the company if a bad event should occur? They had the option to foreclose on this risk but people like you held their feet to the fire. What words or deeds of comfort do you offer them?
It is not possible to foretell every possibility. The driver indicated that he was an alcoholic. He should be told that he either receives treatment or is fired. He should be told that he must demonstrate proof that he completed treatment successfully or he is fired. He must adhere to all random checks or is fired; if he fails a random check, he is fired. With these kinds of policies in place, the company protects itself from liability.
He is an exception in the context of what we are discussing.You say that Hazelwood is the exception, I say that he represents a class of employees who employers hired and entrusted with responsibility and who failed to execute their jobs responsibly and thus their employers were held to account. There are, and have been, a number of civil actions against companies which are based on the claim that employers didn't exercise good judgment in hiring the people they hired. Hazelwood is not sitting alone regarding this issue.