City employee allegedly drinks on the job, quits

One reading indicated he had a 0.084 percent blood-alcohol content. Another read he had a 0.087 percent bloodalcohol content, according to a police report.
Andy Ouriel
May 16, 2014


Facing termination, a longtime Sandusky employee quit after supervisors learned he consumed alcohol while working and wasn’t initially forthright about it.

John Post Jr., a 16-year sewer department employee, resigned after he violated several city workplace rules in late April, according to his personnel file the Register viewed after making a public records request.

Post, earning $23.58 an hour, went on paid leave for about two weeks before quitting. City officials never discussed the allegations or resulting actions in public.

An investigation started when someone informed Post he needed to take a random drug test at a Firelands Regional Medical Center facility.

At around 8 a.m., shortly after Post ended his 12-hour shift, two different readings showed him blowing over the legal limit. One reading indicated he had a 0.084 percent blood-alcohol content. Another read he had a 0.087 percent bloodalcohol content, according to a police report.

Post initially told a nurse at the Milan Road facility near Applebee’s he “stopped elsewhere after his shift and had a drink” after leaving the plant on Harrison Street.

But when questioned, Post shifted his story, according to Sandusky police Sgt. Ron Snyder’s findings.

“In investigating this allegation, factoring in time elements and research, it was apparent to me Mr. John Post Jr. had to have consumed intoxicating beverages while working and on city time,” Snyder wrote. “There was no way he could have obtained the results of his test in the short amount of time from leaving his work place and arriving at the testing site”

Snyder added a person would need to consume five or more drinks in an hour to reach a 0.080 percent bloodalcohol content.

In an interview with Snyder, Post reportedly admitted to drinking two 16-ounce Busch Light beers.

Post, a Huron resident, violated the following city rules according to the file:

•Reporting to duty or remaining on duty while having an alcohol concentration greater than 0.02 percent blood-alcohol content.

•Reporting to duty or remaining on duty while under the influence of alcohol and/or a controlled substance.

•Possession of alcohol or illegal drugs while on duty.

•Using alcohol or a controlled substance while on duty.

Post also was dishonest before telling Snyder what happened, another frowned-upon action in the city’s bylaws, according to Snyder’s report.

“I panicked, and I was scared, and I didn’t know what to do” Post told Snyder. “I just want to get help and get through this and get back to work”

Drinking while working, and being dishonest about it, is intolerable behavior, interim city law director Don Icsman said.

“There was no other alternative,” Icsman said. “There was not going to be any other solution that would have been acceptable to the city”



Maybe he'll get a $25K settlement as well.


He'll get his job back... with pay!


john is a good guy and a hard worker that obviously made a mistake. I hope and pray he does get his job back. He deserves it , more than most.. you all can bash him and talk s%&t , but unless you know him and the type of man he is, its irrelevant.

A Young Adult's...

He does NOT deserve his job. Drinking alcohol ON the job? No excuses, not a mistake. A dumb move. Someone else deserves this $24/hour job much more than him. I don't care if he is a "good guy." He does not deserve to keep the job, period.

A Young Adult's...

and if he is a "good guy," what's with all of the dishonesty?


16 years of loyality should mean something. I vote to give him his job back even if it means giving him a 1 strike your done in his contract.


Whether or not he's a good guy is irrelevant, I think - as a "good guy" he would know enough than to have been drinking while working. I understand that he's been there for a long time and that he should be given a break because after all we all make mistakes, but in this kind of mistake, he could have seriously injured himself or someone else. Would you be saying the same thing if because he only made one mistake and was allowed back on the job and was back and was drinking again and maybe this was the first time and (I will admit I don't know what they do in the sewer dept.) someone falls into the sewer drain and drowns? Or if he's in there and comes into contact with something he shouldn't because he's intoxicated but it causes a major problem within the department - will it be ok because it was just his first time? You can't just write things off and say, well it was just his first time, he'll get help and it'll be ok. I'm betting this was NOT the first time it happened, just the first time he was caught. I'm sorry, he may be a nice guy and all, but this is one time when it shouldn't matter how many years someone has been in a position, they've got to go by the rules.


I dont know him but dont we have enough people in Sandusky that choose " Not To Work" and we pay for. Not sure if this is a habit or not for him. Dont know the story at all. 16 years has to mean something.


"16 years has to mean something".....yeah it means this time he got caught.


I'm not saying he is "choosing NOT to work". I don't think I implied that at all. If I did it wasn't my intention in the least. What I meant was that this guy has been on the job for 16 years and should have known better than to do what he did. And yeah there aren't that many jobs out there and there are a lot of people out there looking for work so I'm sure he knows that when he's gone, someone else - someone that probably WON'T make the same mistake he made - ready to step into his place. It's a shame that it has to happen but I'm sorry I feel it should. We all held the police officer to the same guidelines when she showed up to work drunk, and if I remember correctly there was a corrections officer? (I could be wrong on that one, she could have been charged with something else but I thought it was drinking or coming to work drunk) So why should we change how we feel now, those others had long work histories as well and it was the first offence in the correction officer's case - don't remember about the Perkins PD officer so I can't say but then again I don't remember about the correction officer either so who knows - but the thing is when you're trying to set a precedent for one you have to hold it true for all and you can't do that. To me all that it means is he just decided that those 2 beers meant more to him than 16 years on the job.


where can I get one of those beer mugs?

From the Grave

They could make a ton of money on those!


A nice guy and a loyal employee are great qualities and I think he was probably both. Then the issue of a worker drinking a grown man drinking on the job well he deserves to be fired and not be a city employee. No matter how many great attributes, you can't drink and work let alone the issue of how did the man get home ? He drove. He needs help, most shifts are just 8 hours. Then drink all you want at home.


He was forced to drink on the job, he didn't have a choice.

From the Grave

When you drive drunk, it's way harder to LOOK TWICE, SAVE A LIFE.


I appreciate that John might be a great guy. He might have even been a good employee! I understand that everybody makes mistakes, too. But there are certain rules that are simply inflexible, and being under the influence on the job is one of them.

What if he drove somewhere in a City truck? The liability issues are serious, not to mention the potential for real injuries/damages! What if he was mixing treatment chemicals? "Oops!" doesn't adequately cover a problem with that kind of thing! What if he missed an important warning on something he was to be monitoring? What if he BROKE something that had serious repercussions down the line?

I don't know exactly what Mr. Post did on the job, but no matter what you do -- even if you've got a desk job and are just driving home after work -- drinking represents a threat, and everybody has seen enough public service campaign ads (not to mention employee contracts) to know it.

Again, mistakes are something we ALL make. But mistakes have consequences, and the consequences here happen to be serious -- a direct reflection on the seriousness of the mistake, IMO.

From the Grave

For someone his age, drinking on the job is not a mistake, either. It's a sign of a serious drinking problem.


The reasons behind drinking on the job don't matter. It's the drinking on the job part that's the issue here. Once again, some things are inexcusable. And both morally and contractually, this is one of those.


Agreed. Not sure that it changes the story but I agree that alcoholism is probably at play here. I hope he gets help.

mom of five

Trust me, I'd drink if I had to work at that place too. Maybe do him a favor, and the rest of us too, and replace a few of those ding- bat commissioners and he can avoid rehab.


I used to hang out with a guy who worked at that plant for years. All we ever did there was drink & smoke pot. Nobody ever seemed to care.

looking around

It say's no where here that he was observed drinking on the job, was it truly a random check or did someone anonymously or otherwise report him? It seems if he was in Applebees shortly after 8 AM that someone would know exactly what he drank there, I can't imagine a lot of patrons drinking in that place at eight in the morning? Are they even open? The register slip they give you lists the drinks you purchased. However it simply says that the health center is located near Applebees, so is this where he claims to have stopped? Maybe he understated what he drank and chased the beer down with a few jeagers? I wonder how they will conclusively prove he drank on the job? There are a lot of unknown and unproven elements here to determine this medically in terms of alcohol absorption. What type of test was administered. I'm sure someone here will explain how medically this is calculated, but it seems there are factors missing in the equation. Just say'in ......but then again who in their right mind stops for a drink before they know they will be tested!

It kind of reminds of another local who's strategy if in a car accident or other encounter where police may be summoned is to run into a bar and down as many shots as he can and expect the barmaid to validate his story that he was stone sober before she served him a drink "to calm his nerves" in the event questions arise. That's only if he is to far away from home to hide in his house and refuse to speak with police until morning. It seems to work for him....

From the Grave


A Young Adult's...

Who doesn't do that?


Also, interesting to note that the other "local" who's strategy you are referring to, was also a city employee who (has a drinking problem) was fired by the city.

He actually used this strategy at Old Dutch, and the cops gave him a ride home!

looking around

Sure hope a guy like that isn't doing a job like driving a school bus full of kids......


Blaaahahahaha! That job is only "temporary" is what he told everyone six years ago!

He also tells everyone that Icsman is begging him to come back to work at the city!

Yep, he's a legend in his own mind! "You want some of this?" (points to biceps) Hahahahahahaha!


Applebee's isn't even open at 8am. And does it matter if someone reported him or if it was random. If you want to keep your job, don't drink while doing it.


First things first, I would bet a years worth of pay that this guy knows he messed up and feels really bad about the whole situation. Furthermore, being a healthcare professional, if he had just drank before getting tested, of course his BAC will be high. 5 drinks in hour is a very absurd number that they made up on the spot to make him look bad. Even if he did drink on the job, he is still as good as he would be if he was hungover. And we all know that we have gone into work hungover. It's articles like this one that makes the register become what I call the "ragister". They always find a good way to make a city employee look worse than they are. And then when they put the stuff online so very ignorant people that know absolutely nothing about the situation can comment on the story while they should be sitting at work doing their job, but they're too busy worrying about other people's business. Personally, if I was a city employee, I would be disgusted. Not at John, but the fact that something like this is headline news. It's just something that should have been let go. Yes, it was very wrong to drink on the job, but now it makes the entire city look bad for employing a drunk for 16 years. I do appreciate the individual who stood up for him. He obviously knows John personally. If that individual is telling the truth, everything else anyone has said, especially "From the Grave" and "A Young Adults" is irrelevant All those two are spring is hate. We have enough of that in today's society. This guy's family is probably going through enough and without a doubt, they all have read what everyone has to say on here. So how about we be logical and just let it go

A Young Adult's...

Why was his BAC so high? Trust me, I know the "ragister" is not very reliable. It seems like there are irrefutable facts presented concerning the time of his testing and his BAC. Based on these FACTS, I am permitted to believe that he is taking a quality job (pay-wise) away from someone more deserving. So, please calm down and stop acting like I have an agenda against this man, which I do not.


Oh and while I have it fresh in my mind, why are you people acting like you've never drank before or been around that drink alcohol? You are making this guy out to be an awful human being because he enjoys alcohol. Grow up


Tar Heel, you are absolutely right...especially with what you said about The Rag.

he said she said

I don't know the man but I will say this: from this statement, “I just want to get help and get through this and get back to work” maybe he realizes he has a problem and needs help to solve it. Most people that are alcoholics are hide the fact that they drink so as not to lose their job, marriage, and family.


The problem is people always "want" help AFTER they get caught. I do not know this man, he may be a great guy. However, this has probably been going on for a very long time. I also personally don't see a gray area here, he was legally drunk while on the job. I am against someone losing their job for hitting a joint on a Saturday night 3 weeks prior while off duty, and still testing positive for a drug screen. But in order to register a .084 or .087 BAC he had to have been consuming alcohol while ON duty. There's a big difference between the two. Should he be terminated? Of course he should, I would be, why shouldn't he?

indolent indiff...

isn't he a coach at Huron? hope he looses that too. Maybe he was drunk at track meets too. How many people would want that job and he drinks it away. I say no sympathy, if he is an alcoholic than he shouldn't be in that position


The guy truly messed about getting the guy into the EAP (employee assistance program) for some treatment and subject him to random, unannounced testing. That is what EAP or what Sandusky calls it. But I know they have to have it. Kicking the guy out the door is not helping anyone. He has an issue that needs to be addressed. Not sure what his prior record but if it is good, get the man some help.

A Young Adult's...

You must be a Democrat. It isn't the city's job to help this man, it's the city's job to find a more reliable and deserving employee.


Huh. It took longer than I thought for somebody to pull the "it's not his fault, he's sick, he needs help!" card, but here it is!

It's not his fault. He's sick.

It's not his fault. His Mommy didn't love him.

It's not his fault. He wasn't popular.

It's not his fault. He was bullied.

It's not his fault. He's not as smart/athletic as some others are.

Whatever. If you're sick, get treatment. It's not up to the rest of us to force you to get treatment, or to facilitate that treatment. If your Mommy doesn't love you, stay away from her and stick with people who DO. If you weren't popular, consider WHY you weren't popular (and whether or not those who made that designation really matter all that much anymore). If you were bullied, grow a pair. If you're not that smart/athletic, do something you love and ARE good at.

The difference, of course, is that the burden here is on YOU (or in this case, on John). It doesn't belong on me, and it doesn't belong on the City

indolent indiff...

kicking this guy out the door helps the family of the person that replaces him. Someone that deserves the position.


Seriously Tarheel? If you are a healthcare professional you would know that the 5 drinks an hour is not just a made up number. Its based on body weight, alcohol content in a standard 12oz beer(so a 16 oz beer would have 1.5oz of alcohol), and time because it has been proven (those scientist guys in labs you see) and well published that the body can burn approximately 1 oz of alcohol per hour. At .087 he was legally drunk. Let someone hit you or your family member while driving a vehicle with that blood alcohol content and then you can say 'let him off, he was as good as he would be hungover'. Legally drunk is legally drunk. Applebee's is not open between 7 and 8 am. And please let us know where you are a health care professional, because if you think going to work drunk or hungover is OK, I want to make sure you are NOT making decisions about my medical care or the care of anyone I care about.
It is shameful however that the Register felt the need to publish this story. Sad for city employees that their personnel records don't have the same level of privacy that people in the private sector have and rely on. Losing a good job is hard enough (and was a deserved and known consequence for the behavior). No one deserves to be drug through the mud in the court of public opinion as well for making a poor choice likely fueled by the false security that alcoholic thinking gives. Hopefully he gets help and people allow him to move forward in life.


Listen tools, if any of you bothered to read the article, I assume you can. Assumptions are not always right though. It said he went to the facility near Applebee's , not Applebee's . No one is going to Applebee's for drinks anyway or food for that matter . Just get your facts right before you choose to hammer some guy.


As bad is this sounds it is an everyday thing in the workplace. I would bet that this man has been drinking "a couple" of beers during his tenure at the facility. Not saying that as a fact but I know of him and it would fit the profile. Now for the guy keeping his job or even getting it back? Well my answer to that is thank goodness that someone did not get injured because of his selfish act.He was an employee of the city and a public servant accordingly to law. He should be treated no different than anyone else in this situation.