Conference 7.286::digital

"Ask not whether Personnel reads this file; ask whether you have read
Personnel's files".  (Snappy, eh?)

You should read the new USA alcohol policy.  (My management posted drafts
as it was being written, as well as the final copy, so that's how I
learned about it).  By now it should be in the Personnel Policies and
Procedures manual that you can borrow from any of your managers.
				/AHM
P. S.  Let us know if your management construes it as prohibiting stills
in the office, too.

I don't know whether you should laugh or be incredulous  that  anyone  can  even
conceive of anything so bizarre.

Even in Massachusetts, which has some of the most peculiar laws  (most  of  them
not  enforced)  that  I've ever seen, no jury or officer of the court would have
the audacity to issue a ruling in that direction ... it would open Pandora's Box
...  the  long-range  implications  of such a ruling would be that each of us is
legally liable for the actions of anyone we know.

Having "come of age" during the Sixties, I have  a  certain  concern  for  other
members  of  my  species  ...  especially those I know personally, but to try to
enforce that sort of feeling by law is unutterable nonsense.

Terry

    Laws vary from state to state.
    
    Generally, the states have begun to impose an obligation upon a
    "host" at a private party or a "bartender" at a bar or restaurant
    to see that no intoxicated person operates a motor vehicle after
    leaving the premises.
    
    This isn't funny or absurd.  It's public policy, public law and
    Digtal's policies reflect it.

RE: .1 
    
    I'm a Digital manager, and I've read the new alcohol policy, but
    it only addresses Digital's responsibility at Digital-sponsored
    functions.  That includes, for example, a group meeting I might hold
    for my people in my home.  It does _not_ cover, however, a Christmas
    party I might hold in my home for Digital and non-Digital friends.
    
    This all came up in a planning meeting for our New Year's Eve party,
    held every year on June 30 and known far and wide.  It starts right
    after work at our "happy hour" bar and moves throughout the evening as
    our fancy strikes, ending sometime shortly before the sun comes up.
    Heaven forbid that Digital should sponsor such an event -- it's totally
    private, and includes Digital employees, customers who are also
    friends, and friends of both who don't even know what Digital is. Each
    attendee picks up his own bar tab and dinner bill.  We were discussing
    renting a van and driver to get us all home, and one of the other
    managers _assured_ me with great certainty that if one of my people
    drank too much and got into trouble, I'd be personally liable. With the
    van I probably don't have too much to worry about, but I can't help
    wondering if there's any truth to what he said. 
    
RE: .2
    
    I too found it totally preposterous and hard to believe.  But I've
    seen the courts do worse.

    
    						Pat

Re .4:

(I assume that the policy thoughtfully posted by Peter Conklin in 62.26
is in the final, not draft, form.  That is what I just examined).

    Effective March 24, 1986. Memo from Geoff Sackman, Corporate Personnel.
    
    USE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES - U.S. ONLY
    --------------------------------------
. . .

    PRACTICE
    
    Company-Sponsored Employee Functions or Activities
    
    Digital managers will not serve, provide or pay for alcohol at
    Company-sponsored employee functions or activities except as otherwise
    provided for by this policy. Company-sponsored employee function
    or activity is meant to include events like:
. . .    
    o gatherings where employee attendance is ... encouraged by management
      (i.e., . . .  get-togethers which are scheduled by the managers),

I can't find the part where your Christmas party is exempted from the
policy.  One possible explanation for this is that it is an accidental
omission from the policy.  Another is that it is an unreasonable
extrapolation of the policy on my part.  Still another is that it
constitutes a deliberate attempt to prevent Digital managers from ever
being in the situation of holding parties where alcohol is consumed,
which might result in the manager and/or Digital being part of legal
action resulting from alcohol-related incidents.

As far as I can tell, my management has been taking this policy rather
seriously.  Both management and their secretaries have ceased to take any
part in arranging "going-away luncheons" or "birthday parties" at local
restaurants which serve alcohol.  I can't say whether it has impacted
the local cocktail party scene.

I think we would all benefit from other people's interpretations of this
policy, especially including those from managers, and members of the
Personnel and Legal departments.  As far as your legal liability goes, as
opposed to company policy, I am not a lawyer and this is an area of
law which is rather volatile these days.  If you want to feel safer,
you probably should consult a lawyer.  Maybe you can get a little free
advice from someone in the Legal department, or perhaps there are some
lawyers floating around in the LAWS conference (q.v.), though that is
allegedly for legal issues relating to computers (ha!).
				/AHM/THX

    
    
    	TORT LITIGATION IS COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTROL.
    
    	If it wasnt ... discussions like this would not need to take
    place!
    
    	-John

    I think the base topic rumor is exaggerated.  Here in Mass., the
    "classic" case (which probably triggered our policy) is believed
    to have occurred at the Wang Country Club (yep, they have one).
    The employee got into an accident while driving home and Wang took
    the rap.
    
    There are laws (in most states, dating back to Repeal of Prohibition)
    called "dram shop" laws; they establish that a person who serves
    a drink is liable for the actions of the drinker under the influence.
    Trial lawyers "discovered" them a few years ago and all hell has
    broken loose.
    
    However, just *being at* a party doesn't establish anything.  It's
    being involved in the serving of alcohol that lawyers look for.
    Owning the club or ordering the booze are enough, though.
    
    Party hardy.

        I have it on good authority that members of DEC's legal
        department believe that the alcohol policy explicitly DOES cover
        office parties such as the New Years party mentioned earlier.
        
        My understanding is that if the manager has anything at all to
        do with the party--planning it, publicizing it, inviting people
        to it, or even letting it be known that they will be attending
        it--this can be interpreted as exerting pressure on the
        employees to attend, and that this makes the party a "Company-
        sponsored employee function".
        
        Personally, I would not recommend to any manager that they throw
        such a party at which alcohol is available without first
        consulting Legal, and suspect seriously that Legal, if
        approached on-the-record would have no choice but to instruct
        you not to do it. If the party is good for morale, let the
        employees surprise you with it. 
        
        I think this is a completely unreasonable situation, but as the
        various cases have been explained to me, I don't feel that DEC
        has much choice. Please note that they can't order the employees
        not to drink at these parties--employees have rights. All they
        can do is forbid DEC managers, *as* *managers* from being
        involved in the serving, providing or paying for alcohol.
        Precisely how they can enforce this order is left as an exercise
        for the readers.
        
        JimB.

Just to add a little more information:  As Fred noted, the origin of some of
the recent alchohol suits are the dram shop laws - which I suspect are a lot
older than the prohibition, BTW.  "Those in the business" - any business -
are generally held to a higher standard with respect to that business than
are others.  It has for many years been the responsibility of bartenders not
to serve "intoxicated" people.  However, the laws were (obviously) pretty
widely ignored until recently.  There has been an upsurge of suits against
bartenders, and a couple of years ago someone sued a host at a private party
who had served alchohol to a guest who drove off drunk...and, in winning
created a whole new group of people to sue.

Several states - I think New Jersey is one - are already considering laws
that eliminate this particular bit of excess; I'm not sure if any have passed
yet.  However, this will almost certainly turn out to be a brief, if unfor-
tunate, little chapter in the history of tort law.

							-- Jerry

        Yesterday I noticed a difference between the current policy and
        the one that preceded it. If you will notice it says that
        managers will not "serve, provide or pay for alcohol". It used
        to say something about "permit".
        
        Again, I'm not a lawyer or reprsenting corporate policy, but I
        suspect that New Years parties are covered, but that as long as
        the manager made it clear that they would not supply (or perhaps
        encourage) alcohol, it is being complied with. If the employees
        bring their own, it would appear to be OK. Anyone else read
        it that way?
        
        Again, I wouldn't recommend anything but a very conservative
        policy without verifying the policy. 
        
        JimB. 

	It took 50,000 people rioting in the streets of Chicago to repeal
    prohibition.  I wonder what it will take to be able to party again.

						-DAV0

        Reread the notes. The policy lets you party--it just precludes
        your boss supplying you with booze. You can still BYOB, at least
        the way I read the policy. Of course, you want to make sure you
        use reasonable judgement regarding drinking and driving, and
        your boss may have some obligation to act like a responsible
        host, but one hopes that you'd both do that anyway.
        
        JimB.

    I don't know. When I was an instructor in CSST our management came down
    with some very strict mandates including a threat to our jobs. The
    claim was that we made the company liable if we drank with the
    students. We also were threatened about socializing with the students
    outside of class. This might have just been Sales Training managers
    overreacting but they claimed it was policy.
    
    Barry 

        Pat,

        Why don't you seek counsel from  your  friendly  Area  Legal
        department  on  this  matter?  Perhaps they can provide more
        definitive advice.

        I'd hate to see the New Year's Party  done  away  with  this
        month ...

        Steve

	I'll have the party.  I'm not a manager - they can't sue me...can they?

	Better yet, have everyone sign a waiver at the door relinquishing
    you (and DEC) of any mischief they might get themselves into.  It might
    not be much harder than having a bouncer check id's at a bar.

	Too bad we can't just plug our bodies into an electric outlet,
    turn on our "feel-good" machine, then unplug when your done and go
    home totally sober.  Either that, or have a personal robot go to the
    party for you complete with a TV camera and audio so you can socialize
    with other friends' robots while you sit at home and get as crocked as
    you want.  That's the only way we're ever going to be perfectly legal.

							-DAV0

RE: .15
    
   >I'll have the party.  I'm not a manager - they can't sue me...can they?
    
    Point is, in the case I was talking about no one has the party.  We
    just all go out together.  There is no host and everyone is a guest. 

   >Better yet, have everyone sign a waiver at the door relinquishing
   >you (and DEC) of any mischief they might get themselves into.  It might
   >not be much harder than having a bouncer check id's at a bar.
    
    I think you're kidding, but it might come to that...

   >Too bad we can't just plug our bodies into an electric outlet,
   >turn on our "feel-good" machine, then unplug when your done and go
   >home totally sober.  
    
    Have you ever had laughing gas at the dentist's office?  It's just
    like that -- you get totally drunk, happy, don't care if he extracts
    without novacaine -- then he finishes and cuts the stuff off and
    you're totally sober without a hangover in five minutes.  The stuff
    is WONDERFUL, and I don't know why it isn't sold commercially! 
    One New Year's Eve and the seller could retire comfortably!
    
							Pat

    re:.16
    
    I think laughing gas has a potential liability problem too...
    
    As with many nitrogen-based chemicals, it's a potential high explosive!
    Since it's possible to suffocate from an "overdose", a commercial
    version would need to have oxygen mixed in, which compounds the
    problem.  
    
    Besides, as FORUM has had a topic on recently, anything that's FUN
    is likely to be outlawed if it gets too popular, unless it tows
    the straight and narrow.

I originally posted this over in the old "Teetotaling" note, but there seems
to be more activity here (a lot of which I missed because of the "UNSEEN"
problem with this file!").

The policy doesn't seem all that awful, if you read it calmly.

The original draft policy was very restrictive; I, at first, didn't read
this one carefully enough to see the changes.  The draft required managers
to *ensure* that employees would not be consuming any alcoholic beverages.

Under the actual policy (assuming what is in the P&P manual corresponds
exactly to what was posted here), a group can meet at a restaurant, bar,
or other place where alcohol is served to the public; individuals may
drink as long as everyone is reasonable and takes reasonable steps to be
sure there is no abuse.  Managers are only prohibited from serving, providing,
or paying for alcohol.

If a *manager* were encouraging employees to attend a party at his home, he
would not be permitted to serve or provide alcohol, but a BYOB party seems
to be allowed.  And the type of party Pat is describing seems to be allowed
as well, as long as *noone but Pat* drinks anything she provides for herself.

Am I missing something?

/john

    RE. .16
    Nitrous has been implicated as a cause of a certain type of MS.
    Stay away from it!
    

Is the policy listed earlier the same one as listed in 62.26 in the 
teatotaling note?  It sounds like it might be an excerpt but if so, I can't
agree with the statement about being allowed to serve wine!  Let's face it,
there are a lot of people getting just as smashed on wine as beer or hard 
liquor!

At my 10 year dinner wine was served and I had several glasses.  If I wasn't 
careful I could just as easily have gotten loaded and done some serious
damage.

There's no difference!

-mark

Policy 6.34 is the policy recorded in 62.26.

What do you mean "you can't agree with the statement about wine?"  The policy
clearly specifies that wine with meals is allowed, but still requires both
managers and employees to be reasonable.
    
    The serving of wine in conjunction with a Company-sponsored meal
    or banquet is an allowable exception to the provisions above.
    
    Managers who elect to serve or permit the use of alcoholic beverages
    under these circumstances are expected to exercise discretion and
    to take reasonable measures to prevent abuse.
    
    Employees who choose to use alcoholic beverages are expected to
    act reasonably and to comply with the Company's policies and
    expectations regarding employee conduct and behavior at all times.

You said that people can get just as smashed on alcohol as on other
beverages.  This is true.  The policy requires you to not abuse alcohol,
no matter what you're drinking, but it doesn't prohibit anyone from
drinking anything, wine, beer, or hard liquor.  The wine section merely
says that the company may serve and pay for wine with meals.

/john

I guess what I'm trying to say is that why prohibit hard alcohol and beer
but permit wine?  If someone is capable of being responsible with wine why
can't they be responsible with other beverages.

-mark

I think the policy is defining wine to be an integral part of the meal.

So maybe the policy should permit beer if pizza were the main course.

/john

    interesting, since beer has a lower alcohol content then wine.
    
    Deb