March 6, 2010 at 11:32 am
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Too Tipsy To Work
March 6, 2010 at 11:58 am
Heh... I thought drinking was mandatory! 😛
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 6, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Two drink minimum.
March 6, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Heh... I thought drinking was mandatory!
--Jeff Moden
Only when it is NOT the server that has payroll data for the entire staff.
March 6, 2010 at 1:26 pm
My wife and I recently had this same conversation. If I were the Boss, would I allow somebody to work for me while impaired. The answer was no. Would they be permitted to do what they wished during downtime - yes.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
March 6, 2010 at 1:46 pm
If California didn't already reserved those terms, I would use CUI (coding under influence) and CWI (coding while intoxicated).
If either one would be allowed at the place I work, I probably would create three separate logins:
me_CUI: deny of DROP and ALTER statements and
me_CWI: deny of everything but SELECT and CREATE VIEW
me_sober: login denied
😀
March 6, 2010 at 3:12 pm
bitbucket-25253 (3/6/2010)
Heh... I thought drinking was mandatory!
--Jeff Moden
Only when it is NOT the server that has payroll data for the entire staff.
Heh.... the staff works just as hard... so.... drinks and an extra decimal place for everyone! 😛
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 8, 2010 at 2:26 am
I must admit, I've done hours of coding (on personal stuff) whilst intoxicated, and come up with solutions to problems I'd never have thought of trying whilst sober.
So although mistakes are plentiful, it can sometimes help!
Now that we're on the subject I would LOVE to have a pint of guinness next to me right now!
March 8, 2010 at 4:10 am
From a truly serious viewpoint (sorry to spoil the party - hic), I believe that IT practitioners should be regulated like the legal and medical professions. In the UK if you do REALLY badly as a medical practitioner the GMC (General Medical Council) can strike you off and you no longer can work in the UK. It provides rules and guidelines that stipulate what is and is not acceptable.
This may seem a little harsh if you are writing a website for the local wedding photographer to display their contact details and a few shots but lets face it IT runs most HR departments, hospitals, military, nuclear power stations, the global financial system etc. I am sure we can supply enough doctor or lawyer horror stories to show that it isn't as strict as it could be but I have had to sift through hundreds of CVs on behalf of clients for urgent contract roles that are highly paid due to the requirements for an expert where most of the applicants are weekend coders.
BTW, there is nothing wrong with being a weekend coder but PLEASE do not tell me that they can perform the same duties as someone with a decade of experience in industry (feel free to read the FizzBuzz thread to join me in feeling like a T-SQL inferior - obviously that doesn't necessarily mean I don't have expertise elsewhere - does it?)
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
March 8, 2010 at 6:16 am
Gary Varga (3/8/2010)
From a truly serious viewpoint (sorry to spoil the party - hic), I believe that IT practitioners should be regulated like the legal and medical professions.
I have to say that I disagree with that... Microsoft, Oracle, and a whole bunch of companies would go out of business because they can't write error free code. It would also drive prices of everything (even basics like food and clothes) sky high. It would be like requiring all secretaries and receptionist to have a PHD in mathematics. Further, regulation still allows bad practitioners in.
There are some places where I believe regulation does some real good... I don't believe that IT is one of them. It's "self-regulating" and should probably stay that way.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 8, 2010 at 6:37 am
What is the amount of alcohol that makes one too tipsy to work? It's likely different for each person.
March 8, 2010 at 6:44 am
Well you are right. A person under the influence (of what? fill in the blank) should be able to refuse work. I contend that it is your responsibility to refuse. Now comes the question of if you are so under the influence you can't tell.
Alcohol has the effect of inflating ones sense of confidence. Wriness guys approaching gals not only out of their league but out of the game. "Of course I can drive home like this! Don't be daft."
One could make the lock on the data center not take a pass code but make you solve a puzzle.
ATBCharles Kincaid
March 8, 2010 at 6:45 am
Drinking and work is so tied to culture. I worked in a shop where the entire company had a rule that there was no drinking, at all, within 24 hours of showing up to work. That meant that one could have a beer or a glass of wine on Friday nights and Saturdays only.
This was not an industry that required zero tolerance for health and safety reasons by any means at all (it was retail). The organization was located in a smallish town, so you couldn't sneak a glass at dinner in a restaurant, even if you were guaranteed to be sober by 8AM the next day.
It was an insane policy.
Here in Canada no one would think twice about having a beer with lunch. 3 beers would be a problem, but a pint with lunch is really no difference than having a soda. Most of Europe is the same way.
Of course, there's a difference between having a drink and being drunk or too far gone to be working.
March 8, 2010 at 6:53 am
I think the reality is, some of us are still better after several beers than many of our coworkers are sober - so as long as you can safely get to work in one manner or another, what is the difference?
However, if oncall was paid, then I could see not having any drinks, but when its done gratus as I believe it is with most companies, there should be no requirement.
Is anyone in the US allowed to have a beer with lunch anymore?
Cheers
http://twitter.com/widba
http://widba.blogspot.com/
March 8, 2010 at 6:54 am
Jeff Moden (3/8/2010)
Gary Varga (3/8/2010)
From a truly serious viewpoint (sorry to spoil the party - hic), I believe that IT practitioners should be regulated like the legal and medical professions.I have to say that I disagree with that... Microsoft, Oracle, and a whole bunch of companies would go out of business because they can't write error free code. It would also drive prices of everything (even basics like food and clothes) sky high. It would be like requiring all secretaries and receptionist to have a PHD in mathematics. Further, regulation still allows bad practitioners in.
There are some places where I believe regulation does some real good... I don't believe that IT is one of them. It's "self-regulating" and should probably stay that way.
I have to disagree simply because we DO NOT self-regulate. There is no regulation at all. In the UK the Law Society and the General Medical Council are self-regulartory bodies. What about IT? Do you know of one? You cannot regulate without regulations.
I am not saying regulate those that use IT like the secretaries and receptionists in your example. That would be like the GMC regulating me because occasionally I take medication.
I am talking about programmers, DBAs, system architects and network engineers etc. The number of people who seriously do not know what they are doing is scary. Sometimes it is because they are told to JFDI even though they and their superior know they are not knowledgable in that field. Without regulation there is no protection for the practitioners either.
Also claims of "Senior XYZ" after twelve months is ridiculous. I see that the monkeys run the zoo...
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 58 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply