How much should a Drunk Driving Offense affect one's career?

[LSN80]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/06/justice/virginia-faa-administrator-arrest/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I'll touch real briefly on Roger Babbitt, now former head of the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA). Three days after being arrested on a Drunk Driving charge near his home, the sixty-five year old Babbitt resigned as head of the FAA. Babbitt had initially asked for a Leave of Absence from his position, but resigned today, stating the following:

"Serving as FAA administrator has been the highlight of my professional career, but I am unwilling to let anything cast a shadow on the outstanding work done 24 hours a day, 7 days a week by my colleagues at the FAA."

The speculation here is that Babbitt resigned under pressure that a full investigation would be launched, and if found guilty, he would be terminated. He touches on as much in his short statement, specifically in his statement that he wouldn't let anything "cast a shadow" on the work done by his colleagues. Obviously, an investigation would do just that. It should be noted that Babbitt worked his way up from being an airline pilot, has no criminal record, and this is a first time offense.

We live in a world where certain jobs and positions have morality clauses written into to ensure the behavior of their employees is equal to the stature the position holds. Before going into private practice, I worked at two mental health agencies where the Morality Clauses were extremely strict. If one obtained a criminal record while working for either agency, they were terminated immediately. Also, one had to have a spotless criminal record to work there. I recall being told by my supervisor that I couldn't hire the most qualified man I had ever met, because he had a DUI offense from 10 years prior. Personally, I felt and found the blanket policy to be nauseating, as I believe people should be examined on a case by case basis.

Nowhere are cases where people are given second chances on a day to day basis more publicized then in the athletic world. If we look at professional wrestling, Kurt Angle was arrested twice this year for DUI, with no (known) consequences from his employer, TNA. Matt Hardy underwent three very public arrests for DUI's before he was relieved of his duties from the same company. In professional sports, we see hundreds of cases of DUI's occur each year. The most prominent that springs to mind to me is the case of Donte' Stallworth, current WR for the Washington Redskins. Stallworth hit and killed a pedestrian while driving 50 through a 40 mph zone, although it was later determined the man who was killed was partially at fault as well. You can read the initial report on the incident from 2009 here.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/03/19/stallworth.ap/index.html

Stallworth was eventually charged and found guilty of DUI and second-degree manslaughter, and received 30 days in jail and a one-year suspension by the National Football League. It's in these situations where I find the penalties for some unfair- Babbitt had no criminal record for 65 years of life and essentially lost his job for a DUI, where Stallworth was allowed to return to his company after just one year away. Take into account the man I was told I couldn't hire due to a very distant DUI, and something doesn't add up. I'm not suggesting one decision was fair and the others were not. I'm simply saying that in comparison to one another, I don't like the outcome of any. Don't get me wrong- I think drunk driving is a dumb, selfish act, and there should be consequences for it. But I wonder about the consequences that should and do arise from one's work, and the profession/career they make their living in.

Should all workplaces have punishment/morality clauses in place for employees who drive drunk? Why or why not?

Is it more "important" in some careers then others for these rules to be in place? For example, should the severity of the punishment be higher in some then others?

Does where you work have a defined policy around handling of employees who drive drunk, and if so, what is it? Do you agree with it?

Any other thoughts on the story or the trickle-down discussion that comes with it are more then welcome here.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

I don't think you're going to find a person here who's going to disagree that drunk driving shouldn't affect your professional life. When you get into the driver's seat hammered out of your mind, you run the risk of not only hurting yourself, but also others who share a car or the road with you.

I think the question you should really pose is this: how long should a DUI affect your professional life? For me, I'd say it should be three years maximum. As long as you're not chronically failing breathalyzers, then I don't see how a lapse in judgment three years ago that you were properly punished for is anyone's damn business but your own.

 

[hatehabsforever]

I think a drunk driving offense should have a significant and obviously negative impact upon anyone's career, for the simple fact that it is a life threatening action of the person involved, which is total 100% avoidable. There is no justification for drunk driving, and there is no circumstance where it is more acceptable than another. The rules are well laid out. Everyone is aware of them and understands them. If you break them, justice should be swift and harsh in my opinion. I don't care if you are a doctor, an air traffic controller, a fast food worker, or a professional wrestler who ironically advertises for car insurance, there should be zero tolerance.

I don't think all workplaces should have punishment/morality clauses. For the most part, this should enforced by law enforcement agencies. Once someone is convicted of an offense, they should be punished severely, but once the punishment has been served, their slate should be wiped clean. Granted for me, that punishment would be severe and it would be some time before that slate was fully clean. Some areas , involving public safety, should probably have such clauses: doctors, pilots, air traffic controllers,etc., However most professions should be policed by the legal system alone.

With regards to severity of punishment, it should be very high regardless of the profession. It is a conscious choice for the person to drink and drive, and there are so many alternatives out there to render it unnecessary. So when someone callously and irresponsibly breaks this law, punishment should be swift and severe, regardless of for whom. If this was the case, maybe people would think twice before getting behind the wheel.

We do not have a policy at my office to deal with drunk driving, for the most part doesn't apply to our area. However, one thing we have been doing for years is providing complimentary transportation for all of our employees at functions such as our Christmas party (which is Saturday ) so that there is absolutely no reason or justification for anyone on our staff to drink and drive. If they do, there will be no excuse and if they are stupid enough to do it and get caught, I hope they are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

 

[Mustang Sally]

The point is that despite all efforts by society to stop people from driving drunk, they still do it. Nothing that's been done so far has gotten people to totally stop, but hitting them where they work is a necessary and logical step. After all, if you threaten to take away their right to watch TV or play basketball on weekends, you won't get results as definitive as threatening to take away their livelihood.

If driving drunk affected only the person who drinks, society might do nothing about it. The problem is the propensity for destruction of the lives and property of others is unlimited.....and I don't want to spend the rest of my life mourning a person close to me just because some moron had to get behind the wheel while intoxicated.

Will the threat of losing their job stop everyone from driving drunk? Of course not; nothing on Earth will do that because people just don't believe that what has happened to millions of others could ever happen to them. They can't envision being in an accident until it happens. Denial is an integral element of the human condition.

But if the penalties are so severe that it gives a person pause to think before getting behind the wheel, the policy is working. Surely, this has succeeded on many occasions; it's just that there's no way to measure statistics of an accident that didn't happen.

So, there's no way to determine in numbers how successful the "lose your job" initiative is......but the way I see it; every person who didn't drive drunk because he realized he might lose his job is one potential life-threatening disaster that's been avoided.

 

[Davi323]

Should all workplaces have punishment/morality clauses in place for employees who drive drunk? Why or why not?

Not all workplaces, but definitely some. This will be addressed in the answer to second question...

Is it more "important" in some careers then others for these rules to be in place? For example, should the severity of the punishment be higher in some then others?

Absolutely. Some jobs, like mine, don't carry any responsibility in regards to other's lives. I am currently little more than a cubicle monkey, nothing terribly important in the grand scheme of things. Being an FAA controller puts you at least one some level, responsible for lives. What does that have to do with driving drunk? It doesn't take a huge leap of logic to reason out that if you are willing to drive drunk, you may also be willing to show up to work drunk. If an FAA controller shows up to work drunk, and a terrible accident happens because he or she wasn't capable of doing their job properly, in addition to the potential tragedy, which would be horrible enough on its own, the airline/airport will also be looking at a huge multi-million dollar negligence lawsuit. These types of clauses are specifically to cover their asses from litigation...and when the job puts you in nominal charge over other people's lives, you kind of need to do that.

I would also say that Police officers, whose job it is to uphold the law and enforce the law be held to a higher standard. If you can't follow the law yourself, you have no right to enforce that same law on others. Same with doctors/nurses, who have people's lives directly in their hands sometimes. Now, again, that is based on the assumption that if an individual is willing to break the law by driving drunk, they could also attempt to work drunk too. It does require a leap to get from one to the other, but not a very large one, in my opinion.

Does where you work have a defined policy around handling of employees who drive drunk, and if so, what is it? Do you agree with it?

There is no policy where I work, because it's completely irrelevant to what we do. The only thing would be is that an employee could lose their job because they spent time in jail and missed work, something that would be considered an unexcused absence. The driving drunk wouldn't get them fired, the missed work time would.

 

[Alex]

I think it all depends on the job.

A guy like Roger Babbitt seems to have a job that generally affects many people (working for an organisation that develops and researches stuff for the American Government) so anything like a DUI would affect him more than Donte' Stallworth who just plays sports.

Yes Stallworth's DUI was worse (seeing as he ended up killing someone) but his job doesn't effect other people's lives in the same way that a guy like Babbitt's does.

 

[Dagger Dias]

On a lighter note before I begin my response.... I had to re-read LSN's first paragraph because at first glance I thought I saw it mentioning Roger Rabbit, not Roger Babbitt. So first I need to ask.... Who framed Roger Babbitt? lol.

Anyways, onto my actual response to this topic.

I don't think that all workplaces should have punishment or morality clauses in place for all employees who drive drunk. I personally have never been drunk and never plan to drive under the influence, but I do know that people make mistakes. If there is someone by far more qualified for a job who made a mistake many years ago, he deserves the job more than someone with less experience who just happens to have a spotless record. It's not fair for a mistake to follow someone for life. A few years might make sense, but the longer ago the incident was, the less relevant it should be.

Some careers should place a higher priority on rules regarding hiring people with past offenses such as drunk driving. Jobs that involve driving in particular, or anything that could potentially place others in danger. I stand by my statement in the previous paragraph though. The longer ago an incident was, the less relevant it should be in determining whether someone should have a job or not. What if someone made a mistake over a decade ago but has since then turned their entire life around to become a better person and thus be more qualified for a job? The employers should hire that person, rather than some judgmental "spotless record" individual who may have less experience or knowledge. They do not place a high importance on those types of issues at my job that I know of, they do a background check but I have never driven drunk or had any huge incidents with the law that could cost me a job, so I'm not entirely sure.

 

[klunderbunker]

I have very, very little tolerance for drunk drivers. There's an old service called taxicabs. If you can afford enough liquor to get wasted on, you can afford a cab ride to your home or hotel, period.

As for the questions:

Not all places need something like this, no. I mean, I can't imagine that McDonalds is needing to take the time to set up a clause like this for a high school kid who makes fries.

Absolutely some jobs should be treated more severely. If you're a public figure or someone who people depend on, such as a doctor or lawyer, you're not just representing yourself. You have clients and others that you represent and it can hurt more people than just you.

 

[poppycock]

If you mean drunk driving as in the driver is wasted or drank enough to put them in a state in which they are not in full control of his/her senses then it should have a huge effect on a career and be approached with zero tolerance. I have no empathy for anybody who drinks then drives whilst drunk. I like to drink and do drugs and therefore have never even taken up driving. That may be a bit extreme because everybody has the right to learn to drive but I just mean me personally, I never want to be in a situation where I may be at the wheel of a car and not in control. Also I live in London with lots of public transport (overpriced fuckers) and also I like walking. A car is pretty much a murder weapon if handled in the wrong way and nobody has the right to take sombody elses lives away from them and their families just because they acted irresponsibily for that moment and drove whilst pissed.

 

[agentmichaelscarn]

First off let me say that I don't condone drunk driving but with that said I don't think it should have any effect on your personal life unless you're going to hold every driving offense against somebody. The reason being is DD is obviously dangerous and irrensponsible but so if running a red light, speeding, texting/talking and eating while driving too, so if you're going to punish somebody for what they do in their car then you need to punish people for those things as well since all those things are dangerous and cause accidents. So basically what I'm getting at is if you're going to hold a DUI against somebody than you need to hold every traffic offense against people since basically all traffic offenses put lives in danger.

For example what do you think is worse somebody that drives after a few beers(which is enough to fail a breathalizer) or somebody that goes 80-100 down side streets or 35mph zones? I would say the latter is but the law doesn't see it that way.

 

[Sparky]

It all depends on your job I guess. If you're a police officer paramedic, doctor or something like that whose job is to prevent drink driving (or have to clean the mess up after an accident) then you should be fired and cope a harsher penalty, everybody knows the rules don't drink drive but people who enforce the law should know that it's deffenetly not on.

If your job don't need a license and you don't drive a work vehicle I believe it shouldn't affect your career at all unless you fit into the category listed above. It has nothing to do with work at all and will not affect you working.