Debate - Drinking at lunchtime

[Employment Law Clinic]

Anyone have any thoughts on Lloyds ban on drinking during the working day? Is it necessary, sensible, enforceable?


Personally, I can’t see the practical benefits, as anyone that can’t fulfil their duties – due to alcohol or otherwise – would face the very disciplinary/capability procedures that will now be applied if they break this policy. But in the City, there are plenty of places where you can get breakfast & a few pints, so staff could arrive at work well fed, and with lots of alcohol in their system too; the ban wouldn’t catch this out – it only applies from 9-5, apparently. Should or could lunch just move to a new time of day?


And what purpose can it achieve, given most people working in Lloyds are from other employers?


Karl Limpert

 

[profitxchange]

I feel it is a personal responsibility. I do not feel alcohol helps one work better. It should be avoided. When I managed a factory of over 1000 employees one can assume that at least 10% have an alcohol problem and we were right. Booze and machinery d not mix.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

I feel it is a personal responsibility.

A responsibility as an employer/manager? If so, would that work with the apparent policy Lloyds have introduced, where individual managers would determine any sanction for breaching this policy – applying the exact sort of responsibility they would have had before this new policy?

And would this responsibility only apply 9-5, with complete disregard for your staff outside of these hours?

I do not feel alcohol helps one work better. It should be avoided. When I managed a factory of over 1000 employees one can assume that at least 10% have an alcohol problem and we were right. Booze and machinery d not mix.

I can’t disagree that booze & machinery don’t mix, but the law permits us to operate many moving machinery with limited volumes of alcohol. Is it necessary for an employer to enforce a stricter policy in a workplace where machinery is not being used?


(One could assume many working in the City still have problems with other intoxicants, many which would be illegal in any volume. Should that be a priority? Or should an employer try to dictate a private life at all, where it doesn’t impair on the work, or the employee hasn’t sought help for their 1/3rd pint sampler of the latest guest ale at lunchtime?)



Karl Limpert

 

[cjd]

Stockbroker on the radio today saying that a normal city lunch back in the 60s started with a gin and tonic, 1/2 bottle of claret with the meal then 2 or 3 large Grand Marniers with coffee. Then back to the office for a productive afternoon.

What's wrong with that?

 

[Mr D]

Used to have a manager years ago that every Friday lunchtime would down multiple pints. We quickly learnt not to bother him with anything at all for the afternoon. Nothing stopping him doing it, no action ever taken.

Is it reasonable for an employer to expect staff to not ingest alcohol in particular during the working day? If it impairs judgement in other matters such as driving can an employer expect to have it impair judgement in other matters?

 

[profitxchange]

I am of the old school I feel management have a responsibility to ensure that staff have as clearer head as possible whilst working for them. I also feel that management have a responsibility to set an example both inside and outside the workplace. Booze, drugs etc are no no for me, one never knows when an employee may have to drive, deal with an emergency for a colleague or themselves. Diabetes, etc etc.

 

[Newchodge]

Stockbroker on the radio today saying that a normal city lunch back in the 60s started with a gin and tonic, 1/2 bottle of claret with the meal then 2 or 3 large Grand Marniers with coffee. Then back to the office for a productive afternoon.

What's wrong with that?

Just a HALF bottle of claret? That's got to be wrong.

 

[The Byre]

I used to work in publishing, which was at the time, completely alcohol soaked! Then it became drug-fuelled, mostly coke. Those two 'influences' caused many companies and titles to crash and burn, as drug and booze addled buffoons thought the party would never end.

You allow these things to get out of hand at your peril!

 

[Ian J]

I am of the old school I feel management have a responsibility to ensure that staff have as clearer head as possible whilst working for them.

That's not any old school that I recall

 

[BustersDogs]

When I was 16 I got my first job in an office (office junior obviously). Two of the staff would go to the pub every lunchtime. In the afternoons, when one of them was going through my afternoon's work with me, he stank of stale beer and cigarettes (which wouldn't be a problem now) and I really hated it. I would do everything to avoid having to deal with him in the afternoons, including never asking for help, or saying I'd finished. Maybe the impact on staff around them should be considered as well as the person doing the drinking, as obviously I spent a lot of afternoons not doing any work because of it!

Him and the guy he drank with never seemed pissed, but I was 16 and didn't go out on the piss myself at that age (yes really, I'd just left boarding school and didn't know anyone in the town!) so probably wouldn't have recognised it.

 

[Chris Ashdown]

In the navy we all used to enjoy the tot of grog and on a birthday you had sippers from all your mates tots. Otherwise if you did say some ones duty for them you might get gulpers or even half a tot. Half a tot meant you either saved their life of borrowed their girl for the night so really given

 

[STDFR33]

Coffee gets some people going in the morning. I prefer 8 pints of Guinness - hic!

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

The problem is the policy doesn't address employees being under the influence of alcohol (or anything else), it simply bans consumption during the lunch-break.

If an employer wants to deal with staff not presenting for work under the influence, a simple policy would be to have a policy to say "you must not present for work under the influence of...".

The policy as reported means the staff can avail of the many bars local to the trading markets, have a drink pre-9am - without falling foul of this new policy. But they can't pick up a glass (or a plastic cup) of wine with their sandwich at M&S while they take a few minutes to relax out in Finsbury Square, although the people working alongside them can get inebriated as usual.


If an employer wants to care for the staff, that's a reasonable ambition, but they should be capable of forming policies that achieve that, rather than this blunt, ineffective, policy, surely?


Karl Limpert

 

[ISL Recruitment]

Seriously speaking - and I've worked extensively in places like Spain, where once upon a time it was the norm - I have to say booze is an absolute No No when you're on my time...

 

[SteveHa]

Ahhh, I remember Friday afternoons in my Revenue days. There wasn't a sober body in the office.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

Seriously speaking - and I've worked extensively in places like Spain, where once upon a time it was the norm - I have to say booze is an absolute No No when you're on my time...

Lunchtime is a break from work, the employees own time - just the same as it's their own time before they start, and when they finish. Why do you think it would be different, something you can reasonably dictate how they spend it?

Ahhh, I remember Friday afternoons in my Revenue days. There wasn't a sober body in the office.

They were fun days, but in Highbury, Finsbury Sq, it didn't normally matter what day of the week it was - the DI would often be the first to the London General, when they would open the upstairs bar before hours to accommodate him.


Karl Limpert

 

[SteveHa]

I remember once when I was a young and lowly CA, and after a couple of hours Friday lunch in the pub, the clerical staff on one side, and the inspectors on the other, everyone started to prepare to return to work, myself included, when the DI called out to me in his plum in mouth public school voice to ask where I was going.

I told him I was going back to work, to which he replied "No you aren't, you are staying here and having a drink with me". He got me hammered on Whisky.

Pretty sure it was because of my involvement in the union, but very out of character for him.

 

[The Byre]

I worked in publishing for 12 years and there were many there that drank heavily at lunch time. Every single one of them either gave up that habit or found themselves out of the door in the long run.

If you habitually drink at lunch time, you are fooling no one.

 

[Chris Ashdown]

Hic Hic O sod it the sun is nearly over the yardarm, who fancies a quick one, life is to short for this PC nonsense

 

[STDFR33]

This question would provoke very different responses if it was posted on a forum for neurosurgeons. Or maybe it wouldn't?

 

[Ian J]

I'm an oldie and in the seventies and early eighties it was the norm for deals to be finalised in the pub or over a liquid lunch.

I often used to tell people that after then second pint I would probably agree to almost anything but I would also happily renege on it in the morning

 

[techygirlD]

I definitely see the move as sensible. I can imagine that they've discovered or realized that there is a lack of productivity linked to the drinking and thus, removing it does two things 1) allows people to be more productive in its absence or 2) gets rid of people who can't/won't abide by the rule. They are on company time, so it is well within reason to want to cut that out. If a person cannot control their urge to drink until after business hours, then that's an even bigger issue it seems.

 

[Chris Ashdown]

There is a massive difference between having a pub lunch and a couple of pints and going to the pub and drinking a lot, most people can handle the first and continue to work well but the other will be drowsey to say the least
In the old days you went out for lunch and the pubs were plentiful so easy to get served in the hour break, from stories the news hounds of the day took it to extreams

 

[Newchodge]

I definitely see the move as sensible. I can imagine that they've discovered or realized that there is a lack of productivity linked to the drinking and thus, removing it does two things 1) allows people to be more productive in its absence or 2) gets rid of people who can't/won't abide by the rule. They are on company time, so it is well within reason to want to cut that out. If a person cannot control their urge to drink until after business hours, then that's an even bigger issue it seems.

Why do you think they are on company time when they are on an unpaid lunch beak?

 

[paulears]

In entertainment, where I work, it's a historical problem as well as a practical one. Often just in one work area. Musicians. Some are incapable of performing well without a drink. Others have serious problems. Many venues, especially council run ones are dry - no drinking during working hours - BUT - their union BECTU usually for the non-musicians - have lots of odd working that means they may well be in the building for extended periods, so the local pub is out of bounds when working, but might be the local social centre before and after. It means that I cannot officially buy the guys thank you presents - which are always wet ones. The musicians, however drink like fish. So while they cannot drink while working of course, at the interval, they will generally be in the next door bar for twenty minutes, making it back to the pit just in time. Their version of a line manager is the Musical Director, and many MDs will be in the bar too, or often on their own in the one next door but one! Being drunk during the show is a firing offence - and a common cause of severance/cancelled contracts. Even worse are the musicians on cruise ships. Not uncommon for some of them to spend more than their pay in the bar. Cruise ships are also incredibly rule bound. Many have a VERY strict no drinking policy, and then have a crew mess where drinks are cheap? Work that one out! Being fired for drinking is very common.

Back on land - it's a bit more civilised. In my role as the person in charge, I'm often approached in the dry theatres by a jobsworth. Sadly these people get put in charge, are often totally out of their depth. One came up to me and told me the trumpet player was seen going into the next door pub between shows. This is a dry house and this is totally against the rules and I have to stop it. I point out that the musician does not work for the theatre, he works for me, his contract contains nothing about not drinking, and anyway, between shows is his own time, and he is free to do whatever he wishes. I will of course monitor him to ensure he is not drunk, but if he wishes to have a drink or two in his own time, that is fine with me. We usually fall out, as they assume everyone in the building will follow their rules.

I have had to get rid of people over the years because of the consequence of alcohol, not the alcohol itself.

Secretly, many of the musicians play better when lubricated, and I'm often thankful people do not bring this to my attention. When I do discover issues, it's likely the MD noticed first and has already sorted it out without needing to advance the issue to me. We are a very strange industry - problems are often managed privately, in their working groups, and rarely follow the usual pyramid upwards.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

I’m really intrigued by how this thread has developed. A few contributions that lunchtime – the employee’s legal break from work – is “an employer’s time”, and otherwise that it’s an old practice, something that was from a bygone age, and due to performance is no longer acceptable.


But all of this fails to consider the fact that the introduction of the policy met with a lot of negative reaction; I would expect any employer already has policies in place to deal with poor performance - due to the influence of alcohol, or otherwise – and in the Square Mile, it’s perfectly feasible to take a drink with breakfast. But this policy – and none of the comments – actually recognises any of that.


It appears that it’s fine to have a drink before work , but not during lunch . And the only way that some people think it’s practical to control performance is to rule out drinking at lunch as a new policy, that general performance policies (including a few pints before work) wouldn’t cover the issues of an under-performing employee.


Interesting & informative views.


Edit: the views in this thread seem to suggest that people like @Newchodge & me (or anyone that drafts employment contracts) could include a specific policy on lunchtime drinking, Despite Lloyds adopting such a condition, it seems entirely unnecessary to me, but would inform http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/t...harge-for-writing-employees-contracts.370533/ as an extra (regardless of necessity) clause could only add to the fees.


Karl Limpert

 

[cjd]

I’m really intrigued by how this thread has developed. A few contributions that lunchtime – the employee’s legal break from work – is “an employer’s time”, and otherwise that it’s an old practice, something that was from a bygone age, and due to performance is no longer acceptable.


But all of this fails to consider the fact that the introduction of the policy met with a lot of negative reaction; I would expect any employer already has policies in place to deal with poor performance - due to the influence of alcohol, or otherwise – and in the Square Mile, it’s perfectly feasible to take a drink with breakfast. But this policy – and none of the comments – actually recognises any of that.


It appears that it’s fine to have a drink before work , but not during lunch . And the only way that some people think it’s practical to control performance is to rule out drinking at lunch as a new policy, that general performance policies (including a few pints before work) wouldn’t cover the issues of an under-performing employee.


Interesting & informative views.



Karl Limpert

Hi Karl, I think you're bringing your own view to your interpretation of what's being said and it's an employment law view rather than a cultural view.

Not drinking at lunchtime is a change in culture - a bit like not driving drunk. Just not done now by nice people except very occasionally with a blush. Not employment policy, not really performance, more cultural acceptance that it's not really the thing to do.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

But all of this fails to consider the fact that the introduction of the policy met with a lot of negative reaction; I would expect any employer already has policies in place to deal with poor performance - due to the influence of alcohol, or otherwise – and in the Square Mile, it’s perfectly feasible to take a drink with breakfast. But this policy – and none of the comments – actually recognises any of that.

It appears that it’s fine to have a drink before work , but not during lunch . And the only way that some people think it’s practical to control performance is to rule out drinking at lunch as a new policy, that general performance policies (including a few pints before work) wouldn’t cover the issues of an under-performing employee.

I think Lloyd's just wants to tighten the screw incrementally until the occurrence of the problem declines to an acceptable level.

They seem to be basing it on objective outcomes of the drinking culture, i.e.:

In an internal memo to staff, Lloyd's said an examination of grievance and disciplinary cases over the last two years found that about half were related to alcohol.

Maybe all of the cases happened in the afternoon? Who knows.

I suspect that they'll apply the ban, and if alcohol-related problems continue (due to pre-work drinks or any other reason), they'll take the ban up another notch.

It's a bit of a haphazard approach, but it wouldn't be the first time a business has went down that route.

But maybe there's a method behind the madness. Lloyd's knows that it can't enforce a ban unless employees are caught, and if they have a drink or two away from work, it's going to be virtually impossible to know otherwise unless they appear inebriated.

It may just be a way to keep employees on their toes so they don't get as intoxicated as they used to, and Lloyd's may be quite content with that behind the scenes.

I also see that they've left the punishment open-ended. Some managers might just give their staff a light slap on the wrist. It's one thing to have the rule, and another thing to enforce it.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

Hi Karl, I think you're bringing your own view to your interpretation of what's being said and it's an employment law view rather than a cultural view.

I take your point, Colin, but I hope not – it’s certainly not intentional, as I was curious about all views.


I entirely understand the cultural view, but while I haven’t spent time there in many years, the reported reaction to the policy seemed to be negative among those that it would apply to, and I can understand that – if your colleagues, from the various brokers, can still go to the bar, why can’t the staff directly employed by Lloyds who work alongside them.


In your own business, with only remote staff, there wouldn’t be any need to disguise a vodka in a water bottle, but I expect you have effective policies in place to nonetheless ensure the capability of your staff at all times. I honestly don’t get why similar policies couldn’t work for Lloyds, that they would introduce a specific policy that antagonised staff so much – it got a lot of media coverage, and it came across as a blunt tool to deal with a minor issue.


Karl Limpert

 

[sirearl]

Stockbroker on the radio today saying that a normal city lunch back in the 60s started with a gin and tonic, 1/2 bottle of claret with the meal then 2 or 3 large Grand Marniers with coffee. Then back to the office for a productive afternoon.

What's wrong with that?

I have never found sleeping to be very productive.

 

[SteveHa]

I have never found sleeping to be very productive.

Unless you're a bed tester or subject for a dream analyst.

 

[Ashley_Price]

It is a very controversial subject.

My immediate thought is as long as workers can still get the job done well (and safely, without breaking any laws - so taxi driving is out) then who is to say they shouldn't drink?

But, it very much depends on how you want to be perceived by others. I am often amazed when I go to networking events held in venues that serve alcohol, the number of people who are promoting their business with a pint in their hand.

I was at one lunchtime event where a woman was so intoxicated that she couldn't walk straight and would bump into the furniture. She also openly told anyone who would listen that she had had a lot to drink. She was asking people to give her details of their customers or clients (not as referrals, literally just send her a list of names and addresses) so she could promote her services to them. Not the behaviour you expect from an accountant.

Of course, if you work for yourself it's all to easy to excuse it and not see it as a problem. Have I ever had drinks at lunchtime? Of course! One lunch, about six years ago, I had four large glasses (so, equal to more than a bottle) of wine. I got back to the office and had a lot of phone calls to make on behalf of a client. I think the alcohol helped with the pronunciation of a lot of the east-European names.

 

[ISL Recruitment]

Come on, are we really being serious???
I think the lunchtime drinking lobby is out in full effect.

I simply reject that you can be as effective after a drink or two as you can without.
Where exactly do you work? 1967?

 

[Chris Ashdown]

As with all things MODERATION is the key word, BUT the PC crowd will never accept that word and only want complete bans made by law to be the solution

 

[Newchodge]

Come on, are we really being serious???
I think the lunchtime drinking lobby is out in full effect.

I simply reject that you can be as effective after a drink or two as you can without.
Where exactly do you work? 1967?

While I agree in principle, surely management should deal with issues at work - poor performance, rather than set rules for what an employee can do in their own time. So being at work intoxicated is a misconduct, or gross misconduct matter, whether the intoxication was caused by a lunchtime bottle of wine or 3 bottles of wine the night before. Banning lunchtime drinking is a management cop out for dealing with the real issues. Someone who has half a pint of shandy at lunchtime is likely to be far less impaired than someone who comes into work with a massive hangover.

 

[Ashley_Price]

I simply reject that you can be as effective after a drink or two as you can without

I do agree with this, depending on the job you are in. Admittedly, I wouldn't want to think the surgeon, who is about to perform a life-saving operation on me, had a couple of pints at lunch time, to calm his nerves.

It reminds me of the Foster Brooks sketch with Dean Martin, set in a bar...

 

[Ashley_Price]

There is a website/marketing firm on the floor above me (they have taken over the whole floor), despite being small in size they have worked for clients including Google, Castrol, Fujitsu, Ryder Cup...

They have a huge TV, games consoles, etc in their offices, oh, and a cocktail bar. But then they do work long hours, sometimes seven days a week.

 

[paulears]

What do Barristers and Judges do for lunch? Bottle or two of claret?

 

[ISL Recruitment]

It's great to see this one rolling on and on.
No sign of last orders yet on the drinking at work debate,

 

[Ashley_Price]

It's great to see this one rolling on and on.
No sign of last orders yet on the drinking at work debate,

Did you shay shhomething? Hic. Sorry, didn't mean to do that.

But, you know, at least they're waiting until lunch time, most of them.

I was reading a sales book the other day and it had about in the 1950s when Smirnoff were trying to break into the US market with vodka, but were having real trouble because not only was the drink a foreign drink, it was a Russian drink and it was in the time of the cold war, etc.

Apparently, in the end, Smirnoff got American drinkers' attentions by pointing out that you cannot smell vodka on your breath! You could have a few drinks at lunch time, go back to work in the afternoon and no one would know!

How times have changed.