Employer Banning Out Of Hours Socialising!

DVardysShadow

alwaysonthego wrote: »

We have had it drummed into us and had serious talks about social workers struck off for being at the same night club as a service user. Due to the power difference it is unappropriate for professionals working with vulnerable adults to socialise, there needs to be boundaries in place to protect both parties. You only need to look on the community care forum to see anedotal evidence of social workers stuck off.

That is out of order and an infringement of the Social Worker's rights. In the long run, this nonsense will stop sane people doing social work [if there were not enough restrictions already] - this will be to the long term detriment of social work.

Emmzi

DVardysShadow wrote: »

That is out of order and an infringement of the Social Worker's rights. In the long run, this nonsense will stop sane people doing social work [if there were not enough restrictions already] - this will be to the long term detriment of social work.

See, I think of it as a reasonable restriction that goes with the job. Like bankers not being seen running up huge debts in the casino or publicans not being drunk on the premises. Isn't there an ethics section in SW courses that covers this?

Surely most sane social workers would not WANT to socilaise with their clients? They need a break from work!

DVardysShadow

Emmzi wrote: »

See, I think of it as a reasonable restriction that goes with the job.

One aspect of it is that clients can force social workers out of the nightclub they normally go to. Nightclubs are public places. Where do you draw the line? WH Smith?

This kind of thinking leads to adults buying ice cream needing CRB checks.

Emmzi

Last time I went to WH Smith there was no risk of alcohol leading to inappropriate behaviour by the stationary rack.. but yours may be a bit more racey!

DVardysShadow

Emmzi wrote: »

Last time I went to WH Smith there was no risk of alcohol leading to inappropriate behaviour by the stationary rack.. but yours may be a bit more racey!

Inappropriate behaviour is about what people do. Not about where they are. It is as daft [and offensive] to ban social workers from public places such as night clubs because their clients might be there as it would be daft [and offensive] to ban clients from those same places because their social workers might be there.

The line on inappropriate behaviour should be drawn at an appropriate place [buying drinks?] - not on rights to attend certain public places. Or are we saying people should be sacked because they are at risk of a false allegation?

alwaysonthego_2

We are expected to leave a nightclub if a service user is there or to go somewhere else where service users don't frequent. There is the BASW social work code of ethics, GSCC code of practice and the National Occupational Standards. The BASW is more detailed.

C_Mababejive

Many employers apply such restrictions of peoples' private lives.

For example,I know of a major employer which has a written drugs/alcohol policy.

Should you be tested during work time and there are any traces,then it could be classed as gross misconduct>disciplinary and potential dismissal.

The residue which may show up on the test could well be from the night/day/week before since the test limits stipulated in the procedure and much lower than the limits set out in law for driving.

Thus,the employer is severely restricting what you do in your own private time.

catfish50

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Many employers apply such restrictions of peoples' private lives.

For example,I know of a major employer which has a written drugs/alcohol policy.

Should you be tested during work time and there are any traces,then it could be classed as gross misconduct>disciplinary and potential dismissal.

The residue which may show up on the test could well be from the night/day/week before since the test limits stipulated in the procedure and much lower than the limits set out in law for driving.

Thus,the employer is severely restricting what you do in your own private time.

I can think of some jobs where a policy like that would be very sensible. Airline pilots, for instance, or doctors/nurses/paramedicals, or teachers, or government ministers, or legislators, or any job where it's necessary to drive. Sometimes you have to trade in a little personal freedom in the interests of the society as a whole. Of course, any such restrictions should be made clear to the job applicant at the time s/he is offered the job.

DVardysShadow

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Many employers apply such restrictions of peoples' private lives.

For example,I know of a major employer which has a written drugs/alcohol policy.

Should you be tested during work time and there are any traces,then it could be classed as gross misconduct>disciplinary and potential dismissal.

The residue which may show up on the test could well be from the night/day/week before since the test limits stipulated in the procedure and much lower than the limits set out in law for driving.

Thus,the employer is severely restricting what you do in your own private time.

But is it right? Drugs are illegal, so OK. But Alcohol should only be restricted out of hours where it affects competence in work hours.

DCFC79

This still going, wonder if the OP hasnt returned because the answers werent what he was expecting.