March 8, 2010 at 8:46 am
Which came first, the drinking or the job?
March 8, 2010 at 8:46 am
Steve Jones - Editor (3/8/2010)
I find it surprisingly hard to get fired from so many places.
What are you doing???
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
March 8, 2010 at 8:51 am
Nuclear Reactor - bad example.
I have seen people attempt coding (very badly) in many industries that we rely on. Pharmaceutical trials software for one.
Are you confident that the medicines you are taking are trialled with processes that you are confident of? Is this not serious enough? I have seen who got through the vetting and it makes me wonder.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
March 8, 2010 at 8:56 am
LOL, not me, though I might not be the easiest person to work with all the times. It's stories I hear, or things I've seen at it is work. It is hard to get fired. Laid off/RIF'd is another story, but those don't happen as often as it seems in the media.
In terms of bad code. That's not a part of this either. Bad code, bad medicine, bad tests/trials, etc occur all the time. What I am worried about, and where I could see regulation as being acceptable, is something like coding/working/driving while impaired.
March 8, 2010 at 9:02 am
Not nuclear reactors, but nuclear medicine. One of the worst cases of physical harm (slow, painful, horrific deaths) to people due to poor interface design, then a management attempt to cover it up/apply band aid instead of fixing it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25
http://users.csc.calpoly.edu/~jdalbey/SWE/Papers/THERAC25.html
Horrific reading about these types of failures.
AECL is the same organization that designs nuclear reactors, BTW. Here in Canada, the engineering profession has correctly lobbied that a P.Eng must approve software. Incorrectly so, they also want to require that every software engineer have a degree in traditional engineering, not software engineering.
A staggering proposition (and I own an engineering company, too).
March 8, 2010 at 9:11 am
Gary Varga (3/8/2010)
jay holovacs (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. 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.What we DO NOT NEED is another level of government bureaucracy attempting to define a one size fits none solution. Being sober and responsible is essential, but that's a matter for workplace policies and NOT capricious interference from government.
I agree. Not a government agency. I still think that a framework should exist. Are people seriously advocating the need for a licence to drive a car but not to program a nuclear reactor etc?
There are massive layers of regulation in place for all nuclear power plants.
A friend worked as a salesman for a company that was a certified vendor for nuclear power plants. They sold notebook computers at a huge profit by just going to a retail store to buy them and doubling the price before selling them to a power plant. The same plant would not be allowed to go to the same retail store and buy the same computer, because the retail store was not certified. I doubt the notebook computer was better or safer because it came from a certified vendor.
As for the medical and legal professions, their regulators are notorious for ignoring even the most irresponsible, incompetent, and downright criminal behavior. The main focus of the regulation of these professions seems to be maintaining legal monopolies on membership for the benefit of their members, not protecting the public.
March 8, 2010 at 9:37 am
Michael Valentine Jones (3/8/2010)
...
A friend worked as a salesman for a company that was a certified vendor for nuclear power plants. They sold notebook computers at a huge profit by just going to a retail store to buy them and doubling the price before selling them to a power plant. The same plant would not be allowed to go to the same retail store and buy the same computer, because the retail store was not certified. I doubt the notebook computer was better or safer because it came from a certified vendor.
As for the medical and legal professions, their regulators are notorious for ignoring even the most irresponsible, incompetent, and downright criminal behavior. The main focus of the regulation of these professions seems to be maintaining legal monopolies on membership for the benefit of their members, not protecting the public.
I worked for a company producing some nuclear power system components. Regularly they would send components back to us for tedious refurb, because they could get money for repair but not for new.
On a more general note, however, there are several bad characteristics of regulating agencies.
1) They often serve more to protect the established players by making it difficult for new competition to arise. One extreme example of this was the Louisiana state required licence required for FLOWER ARRANGING. Potential applicants were tested for all sorts of minutia including what temperature different species needed to be stored at. The existing 'licensed' florists, of course, were all for keeping this nonesense in place.
Despite superficial grumbling, companies in highly regulated industries lobby to keep their 'club' exclusive.
2) Bureaucratic organizations subconsciously tend to arrange themselves to protect their own processes. Almost never does such an organization willingly shed unneeded processes, usually more and more are taken on over time until the organization is so entrenched as to be unassailable.
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
March 8, 2010 at 9:55 am
All fair comments as far as regulators go, however, before the Royal College of Surgeons demanded certain qualifications, mere barbers would drill into peoples heads. This barbaric period was originally necessary for such a fledgling vocation, however, the medical profession matured.
Shouldn't we?
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
March 8, 2010 at 10:36 am
Gary Varga (3/8/2010)
All fair comments as far as regulators go, however, before the Royal College of Surgeons demanded certain qualifications, mere barbers would drill into peoples heads. This barbaric period was originally necessary for such a fledgling vocation, however, the medical profession matured.Shouldn't we?
Wait - we've matured?????
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
March 8, 2010 at 10:51 am
For the record, I don't drink. 😎
To answer Steve's question, I think anyone, if unable to drive and not on call, should be allowed to not come in. It's not safe or fair to expect someone to come to work when they are not on call and unable to safely do so. This applies to drinking, being overly tired, burned out, on medication, etc. It's just not safe.
In some ways, it's similar to being forced to drive through a blizzard. Your vision is impaired and it's not safe to drive.
To answer the regulation question that has arisen from the comments, I think it could help, but only if used lightly. Too much regulation and the innovation and change that make up the IT industry would be destroyed.
March 8, 2010 at 11:12 am
Jack Corbett (3/8/2010)
WI-DBA (3/8/2010)
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?
I would disagree that on-call is gratis. When you are hired the responsibilities are outlined and the salary includes on-call responsibilities. If those responsibilities change and your salary doesn't then it's time to renegotiate.
I'm sure that there must be a company somewhere in the US that allows a drink or two at lunch.
I agree with the on-call v. salary. Though many of us would like to have more for doing it, it is a part of the salary and job duties.
As for companies that allow drinks, I know of a few. Doesn't matter for me, I don't drink.
As for the comment about being terminated for being too drunk, I know of several states in the US (regardless of economy) that disallow terminating an employee for being inebriated - even if they were drinking during work hours. I'm just pointing out that it is a lot more difficult to terminate somebody than one would think.
If it were my team, and somebody could not fill the work duties when called - I would certainly hope they would tell me up-front. I would not want them showing up on premise or at a client while intoxicated. If I know the situation, I can arrange for somebody else to handle the duties.
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 8, 2010 at 11:28 am
Steve Jones - Editor (3/8/2010)
I'm noting that if you feel you are impaired, you ought to be responsible enough to tell your boss you can't work.
I think a key here is that you are with it enough to feel you are impaired in the first place. Some lose all responsibility when impaired. Judgement, reasoning, perception are all reduced whilst one is impaired.
I have a friend who thinks he is invincible when he is impaired. So invincible he nearly lost his ear due to racing luggage carts down stairs in a hotel/casino (he got it sewed back on).
Impairment comes at different drinks for everybody. Maybe it would be better if one were to be responsible before drinking. And if you're on-call, know your impairment limit or don't drink at all.
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 8, 2010 at 11:49 am
KevinC. (3/8/2010)
For the record, I don't drink. 😎To answer Steve's question, I think anyone, if unable to drive and not on call, should be allowed to not come in. It's not safe or fair to expect someone to come to work when they are not on call and unable to safely do so. This applies to drinking, being overly tired, burned out, on medication, etc. It's just not safe.
In some ways, it's similar to being forced to drive through a blizzard. Your vision is impaired and it's not safe to drive.
I completely agree. That said - I don't have enough fingers and toes to keep track of how many times that rule has been broken in the last several years. There always seems to be that little "exception" popping up in the description for on-call: person is too junior to fully know the system, so can you help you/the server hard drive just seized up and caught fire, etc.... and then all of a sudden - it just doesn't matter what the "rules were".
I've actually received calls from previous employers demanding I drive into work WHILE the state has a state of emergency in place...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
March 8, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Since I am on call 24 * 7 * 365 with really know one to cover me, I guess my drinking days are over or I can just tell my boss, sorry the web site is down. I'll get to it tomorrow:-D. I don't drink that often and when I do, not too much, but I can relate to people who are in the same position I am.
March 8, 2010 at 3:01 pm
bpportman (3/8/2010)
Since I am on call 24 * 7 * 365 with really know one to cover me, I guess my drinking days are over or I can just tell my boss, sorry the web site is down. I'll get to it tomorrow.
Or, just be really responsible and only drink one or two drinks with dinner. Just no boozing it up. Don't see how people do that on a regular basis any how. I got seriously drunk, once. Never did that again. Oh, I was 22 when I did that.
Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 58 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply