Jatz Crackers link said:
[quote author=Matabele link=topic=177662.msg187226#msg187226 date=1213781824]
FFS Dan, use your brain. Do you REALLY think a pub would stand a bouncer out the front of their establishment who is evidently as pissed as a newt?
On one of the busiest nights of the year?Â
FFS, the bouncer doesnt work for the pub, he works for the security company contracted to provide manpower to the pub, and works the shift he is delegated by his employer.
It is not standard practice for security personnel to turn up to do a shift & be checked to see if he is inebriated, drugged or stupid.
[/quote]
If they were checked for being stupid I am sure that they would all pass the test.Â
I don't see any problem with them being ramdomly checked for drugs and alcohol though and this should happen now.Â
A bouncer works on pub premises and carries out duties for the licencee/publican. There is a contractual agreement between the security company and the pub and therefore the bouncer would be deemed to be a de facto employee.Â
As such both the pub and bouncer would potentially face court action for actions carried out by the bouncer. Â
A publican has a responsibility to ensure that the security company that he contracts is of a high standard and that its employees are properly trained.Â
If it was well known that a certain pub regularly employed bouncers who were drunk or under the influence of drugs and a patron was injured by a bouncer then I think that this would form the basis of a court action against the pub no matter who actually employed the bouncer.
I am a contractor with my employer and the employer insists that I have millions of dollars of professional indemnity insurance in case I create fraud etc.Â
The reason for this is because if I didn't have the insurance then my employer would be sued for my actions even though I am a contractor.