Functioning Alcoholic

Grandad43 Can I give you a bit of advice ? (probably unwanted but here goes anyway).

The longer the post, the fewer people actually read it.
The more it sounds as though it is an exerpt from regulation 73, paragraphs 15 through 41, with footnotes and references, bureaucrats for the use of, the fewer people read it.
The fewer scraps of humour and light touches, the fewer people read it.
The more boring it is to plough through, the more people will not only fail to read it, but will also give up thinking about and discussing the subject under consideration.

The upshot is that a doubtless thorough and detailed post has had the opposite effect from what was intended - it has put the discussion back a good deal, instead of taking it forward. A social networking forum like this is not a government report.

Not this time- GrannyGravy I believe.
Touchy, aren’t you?

Mawbroon, i seem to recall that you opened a thread on this forum in regard to Grenfell and it's causes as sympathy for all who died in that disaster.

Now, you refer to the legislation that may have prevented that disaster as "elf & safety". That I believe demonstrates your complete lack of sincerity in starting that thread.

Couldn’t resist this!

Yawn

GrannyGravy13, since the introduction of the Health & Safety at Work Act in 1974 workplace accidents have been reduced by 86% with that being on the back of an ever-growing workforce.

The foregoing means that each day many thousands return home from their workplaces in good health that would not have done so without the efforts of shop floor safety reps and professionals over those many years.

Of course, the main function of any business is to produce a profit for its investors, and in that anyone in the first stages of learning workplace safety will be instructed that safety in any business should be highly visual but unobtrusive to the everyday working of the business. The above successful figures have always been based on that perogative for there can be no other way if that success is to be maintained.

Sadly Britain and many other developed nations has entered the era of the "claims culture", and that has brought demands from employers for better protection from safety professionals against workplace safety claims.

The above has brought a huge increase in the last few years in regard to the efforts required to obtain the maximum safety in workplaces. By example, the average paperwork required for a risk assessment in the road haulage industry has increased from six to eight pages to ten or twelve pages, and there can be many hundreds of such assessments required in a large distribution centre. Insurance companies now often demand that safety audits are carried out where accidents have occurred involving a high cost to the employer and industry involved.

The above is in no way the fault of the shop floor safety reps or the professionals above them, as the basic legislation they work to has not changed since 1974. It is in fact solicitors who have built a whole new industry around the claims culture, and that multi-million pound industry is still growing.

Governments since 1998 have attempted to reduce health and safety obligations in all sectors with David Cameron advising that he wished to see the repeal of the HSAWA in favour of self assessment of safety by manufacturers of their products.

In the above, from what can be witnessed by way of the Grenfell enquiry, the initial changes that were carried out to the legislation clearly failed resulting in that terrible disaster.

So, to many Health and Safety can be rhetoric", but as Hillsborough and Grenfell amongst other incidents have demonstrated, when that rhetoric fails to take place, high claims or even worse high injury or loss of life takes place.

A disgusting statement in the light of that happening

Come off it - an irrelevant over reaction.
Nobody is questioning health and safety procedures per se just the pompous rhetoric applied to a very different human tragedy.

Annibach “jobsworth” I need not say anything else x

Purpledaffodil it’s a fine line, which is so difficult to define. Alcohol is the UK’s acceptable drug of choice. One persons problem is the next persons normal.

granddad1943, with respect you are in no position to speak to GrannyGravy in that manner, you described the Aberfan disaster as an ‘event’ and you also said the best tribute to those 128 children was the health and safety act when I who was there and was at the enquiry said what we needed in the village was justice . You also said the unions were right to keep Lord Robens in his job because it was important to avoid strikes , no matter Robens was found to be economical with the truth , he could have saved those children so please don’t use Grenfell .

Nannymags it might be worth trying Al Anon which supports families of alcoholics. I didn’t find them very helpful, but some do.
My personal functioning alcoholic denied having a problem until he had a massive stroke and was told he would die if he continued to drink. He stopped and hasn’t had alcohol for 11 years. Interestingly he still denies he was an alcoholic but just “ a heavy drinker” . to you.

Grandad, your posts remind me of the dreadful union meetings I attended in the 70s, loads of woffle and little substance

Grandad you have reverted to “type”.
Elf and Safety Obviously has a place, but it is not the be all and end all. If you were actually in business you would have more understanding other than “cut and paste and stating H & E protocol”

GrannyGravy13, as you should have learned, when people did get away from, "elf & safety rhetoric" to use your words of your above post, the result was GRENFELL

A disgusting statement in the light of that happening.

Careful GrannyGravy I was accused of being a Sun reader when I referred to Elf n Safety. ???

Well said Maw

Grandad!!! I own and run a business in the real world - maybe if you got away from elf & safety rhetoric you might learn something.

Nannymags, May I ask? does your husband get drunk most days/nights ? Have you found empty bottles where you wouldn’t expect to find them ?

Izabella, in regard to your post @ 18:37 our ambition in workplace safety regarding substance abuse is to keep people from getting to the stage of needing the expertise of persons such as yourself.

It is not only professional expertise Izabella can bring to the issue Grandad but if you have read her posts, personal experience and empathy - too often in short supply in other areas.

Sorry grandad1943 if someone turns up for work under the influence of drugs or drink how do you know they are not completely dependant but feel they are substantially reliant to maintain their everyday functioning ? Let me guess

Q. Are you completely dependent on alcohol ?

A. No just substantially reliant

Oh deary me, Izabella knows far more about substance abuse than you., let me share a secret, alcoholics lie , shhhh

Izabella, in regard to your post @ 18:37 our ambition in workplace safety regarding substance abuse is to keep people from getting to the stage of needing the expertise of persons such as yourself.

Employees reporting for duty still being under the influence of drink or drugs are persons who in the main are not completely dependent of substances but feel they are "substantially reliant" on alcohol or drugs to maintain their everyday functioning. These persons I have often referred to as functioning dependents, but not being yet at the stage of needing full professional health care.

In that others in my company and myself have found that such persons are (with assistance in their working lives) capable of restoring their full capabilities of their own volition without then the need of substances or alcohol.
The threat to someone of losing their employment can be a very big stimulant to self-help being that all is dependent on a regular income in almost all cases.

I feel that by the time you come into contact with such persons Izabella they have passed our stage and having lost everything full health care professional treatment is the only answer.

I can imagine how difficult it is to pick someone up from that stage as when you have lost everything; you have nothing to lose.

Grandad1943.... Should anyone feel that they have a functioning addict in their family, then one of the best ways of helping them is to report the matter to their employer.

You're all heart....

Grandad1943...congratulations, but the original post was from a lady who didn't know what to do about her "functioning alcoholic" husband.

Did you used to be a shop steward?

Lynne59, have spent the last thirty five years in industrial safety and therefore have no need to "cut and paste anything as I am aware of the surrounding legislation by heart following all that time in the industry

Grandad your knowledge of Health and Safety and employment legislation is vastly superior to my own. I acknowledge this.

Your knowledge of the alcoholic, functioning or otherwise, appears to be zero.

Your example of an employee reforming smoking habits due to shift changes and consideration by employers is of no consequence to this particular debate. Nicotine and alcohol are not the same issue. Neither is your statement that the fear of losing a job likely to have a profound effect on an alcoholic.

I have first hand knowledge of working with substance abuse and dependency and over 40 years as a front line worker in the NHS. The issue is never clear cut and there are moral dilemmas faced with nearly every case for the workers involved. Whilst health and safety legislation has a part to play, I feel your outlook is far too simplistic.

My first husband was an alcoholic who eventually drank himself to death as did his uncle and brother.

With respect to yourself, I feel I have a little more insight and understanding of the problem from a human, rather than legislative perspective.

The OP came to this forum for advice and support for an extremely distressing and traumatic time in her life, and if I post again on here it will be to do just that.