View Poll Results: Is alcohol abuse a disability; do you agree or disagree with the EEOC?

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • I agree alcohol abuse is a disability, I agree with the EEOC position

    4 9.09%
  • I agree alcohol abuse is a disability, I disagree with the EEOC position

    3 6.82%
  • I disagree that alcohol abuse is a disability, I agree with the EEOC position

    2 4.55%
  • I disagree that alcohol abuse is a disability, I disagree with the EEOC position

    25 56.82%
  • Rutabega

    3 6.82%
  • Other (Explain please)

    7 15.91%
Page 17 of 37 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 368

Thread: Is alcohol abuse a "disability"?

  1. #161
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,626

    Re: Is alcohol abuse a "disability"?

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    You're thinking in terms which are too black and white here.
    Not at all. YOU are the one doing that.

    You're putting the alcoholic's welfare, and your sense of justice, above the risk that the company faces and if a bad event occurs because of this driver and his history, then all of the people in the company will suffer.
    This is a perfect example of your black/white thinking. You are assuming that with an alcoholic, a "bad" event will occur. My position is that the company needs to do, within reason, what it can to prevent a "bad" event from occurring, but handing out consequences for something that not only has not happened yet, but has not given any indication that it would happen (no DUI's on the driver's record, no reports of him driving drunk or working drunk), is not appropriate.

    Dying on the hill of principle doesn't make sense to me.
    There are levels to this. It is not black/white.

    What do you tell the company if a bad event should occur? They had the option to foreclose on this risk but people like you held their feet to the fire. What words or deeds of comfort do you offer them?
    "Crap happens."

    It is not possible to foretell every possibility. The driver indicated that he was an alcoholic. He should be told that he either receives treatment or is fired. He should be told that he must demonstrate proof that he completed treatment successfully or he is fired. He must adhere to all random checks or is fired; if he fails a random check, he is fired. With these kinds of policies in place, the company protects itself from liability.

    You say that Hazelwood is the exception, I say that he represents a class of employees who employers hired and entrusted with responsibility and who failed to execute their jobs responsibly and thus their employers were held to account. There are, and have been, a number of civil actions against companies which are based on the claim that employers didn't exercise good judgment in hiring the people they hired. Hazelwood is not sitting alone regarding this issue.
    He is an exception in the context of what we are discussing.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  2. #162
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,626

    Re: Is alcohol abuse a "disability"?

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    WHY are they not similar?
    Your second scenario has nothing to do with a disability. It, therefore, has zero to do with what we are discussing.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  3. #163
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,626

    Re: Is alcohol abuse a "disability"?

    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    I'm curious, CC, why wouldn't you support that? It's the EEOC that wants to force the company, not only to rehire the guy, but hire him as a driver. If the EEOC is so confident that the guy won't screw up and kill someone, let them bear the risk. In either case, I do think someone would have a good claim against the EEOC if this guy is reinstated and ended up hurting someone (presuming the EEOC doesn't have immunity, which it may well have).
    For the same reason I would not support the company being liable for something bad happening as long as the company took reasonable precautions.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  4. #164
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Is alcohol abuse a "disability"?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Not at all. YOU are the one doing that.
    Dude, you're so far into the Land of Principle that you can't see the borders. I've gone through examples which weigh the two sides of the issue and come down on one side and given reasons for it. That's nuanced thinking. You're just sticking to your guns on a matter of principle without acknowledging the risks that face the company.

    You are assuming that with an alcoholic, a "bad" event will occur.
    No, it's an acknowledgement of the very real world phenomenon of relapse and the probabilities associated with relapse. It's an acknowledgment that if something bad happens that their decision to put him back on the road will be second guessed by a judge/jury who is very sympathetic to the victims of the accident he caused.

    My position is that the company needs to do, within reason, what it can to prevent a "bad" event from occurring, but handing out consequences for something that not only has not happened yet, but has not given any indication that it would happen (no DUI's on the driver's record, no reports of him driving drunk or working drunk), is not appropriate.
    If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears the sound of it falling, does that mean that the tree did not fall? There certainly exist responsible drinkers who manage to keep their drinking activities off the job and then there are those who can't. We don't know which type he was and the fact that he wasn't caught doesn't tell us anything. What we do know is that he is an admitted alcoholic, one who needs treatment, which implies some degree of severity and lack of will power.

    There are levels to this. It is not black/white.
    You just need a helping hand here. You can't see how black and white your thinking is.

    It is not possible to foretell every possibility. The driver indicated that he was an alcoholic. He should be told that he either receives treatment or is fired. He should be told that he must demonstrate proof that he completed treatment successfully or he is fired. He must adhere to all random checks or is fired; if he fails a random check, he is fired. With these kinds of policies in place, the company protects itself from liability.
    Prove the bolded and I'll concede the point, otherwise your argument is no more than wishful thinking being used to justify a rigid philosophical position not moderated by real world factors.

    Of secondary note, who will be paying for all of the random checks and tests and employee time needed to monitor this driver? The driver?

  5. #165
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Is alcohol abuse a "disability"?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Your second scenario has nothing to do with a disability. It, therefore, has zero to do with what we are discussing.
    That is no consolation to the displaced worker. Your argument rests on an arbitrary metric - job protection due to disability is to be protected, job protection not characterized by disability is not protected. This amounts to no more than an argument that "the law is always right" and if the law ever changes then your position is automatically invalidated. That's not a valid form of argument. If you claim that my comparison is invalid, then make a solid case for it. I recognize that the scenario is difficult for you to address and that's why you're gaming your response so as to dismiss it as being out of bounds.

    Why does the alcoholic driver deserve a job more than the warehouse worker he may displace?

  6. #166
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,626

    Re: Is alcohol abuse a "disability"?

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    Dude, you're so far into the Land of Principle that you can't see the borders. I've gone through examples which weigh the two sides of the issue and come down on one side and given reasons for it. That's nuanced thinking. You're just sticking to your guns on a matter of principle without acknowledging the risks that face the company.
    Your examples are inconsistent with the scenario mentioned. I have pointed this out, consistently You are so stuck on your position that you cannot see that.

    Also, I have acknowledged the risks facing the company and indicated ways to mitigate those risks. You are looking at this in only an either/or situation.

    No, it's an acknowledgement of the very real world phenomenon of relapse and the probabilities associated with relapse. It's an acknowledgment that if something bad happens that their decision to put him back on the road will be second guessed by a judge/jury who is very sympathetic to the victims of the accident he caused.
    All possibilities not probabilities.


    If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears the sound of it falling, does that mean that the tree did not fall? There certainly exist responsible drinkers who manage to keep their drinking activities off the job and then there are those who can't. We don't know which type he was and the fact that he wasn't caught doesn't tell us anything. What we do know is that he is an admitted alcoholic, one who needs treatment, which implies some degree of severity and lack of will power.
    And your option is to protect the company and say screw the worker, assuming that as an alcoholic, he WILL mess up. My options are balanced so the company gets some protection, as does the worker.

    You just need a helping hand here. You can't see how black and white your thinking is.
    As I have pointed out. My thinking is balanced and notes shades of gray. Yours is not and does not.

    Prove the bolded and I'll concede the point, otherwise your argument is no more than wishful thinking being used to justify a rigid philosophical position not moderated by real world factors.
    Again, there is no black/white... as much as you wish there was. The position here that is rigid, is yours, not mine. You have thrown plenty of red herrings here, trying to prove your position, but cannot. By following what I have suggested, the company does plenty to protect itself from liability. Is it a guarantee? We know that there are only two guarantees in life.

    Of secondary note, who will be paying for all of the random checks and tests and employee time needed to monitor this driver? The driver?
    I already stated that the EEOC should do that.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  7. #167
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,626

    Re: Is alcohol abuse a "disability"?

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    That is no consolation to the displaced worker. Your argument rests on an arbitrary metric - job protection due to disability is to be protected, job protection not characterized by disability is not protected. This amounts to no more than an argument that "the law is always right" and if the law ever changes then your position is automatically invalidated. That's not a valid form of argument. If you claim that my comparison is invalid, then make a solid case for it. I recognize that the scenario is difficult for you to address and that's why you're gaming your response so as to dismiss it as being out of bounds.

    Why does the alcoholic driver deserve a job more than the warehouse worker he may displace?
    You can throw out all the red herrings you want. The basis for this discussion is that a worker is being demoted on the basis of a disability. Your scenario does not match that, so it is irrelevant to the discussion. I will not entertain you changing the goalposts.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  8. #168
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Is alcohol abuse a "disability"?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    And your option is to protect the company and say screw the worker, assuming that as an alcoholic, he WILL mess up. My options are balanced so the company gets some protection, as does the worker.
    I'm not assuming that the worker will screw up. I'm saying that now that a risk factor has been identified we can assign some values to it and we can also assign some values to a variety of future outcomes, and one such outcome is a serious accident on the road, where the company exposes itself to greater liability with this employee than they would face from an employee who didn't enter rehab for alcoholism. You can't just erase knowledge that drops into your lap and which is useful.

    As I have pointed out. My thinking is balanced and notes shades of gray. Yours is not and does not.
    Willful blindness and delusion are so funny to read.

    The position here that is rigid, is yours, not mine. You have thrown plenty of red herrings here, trying to prove your position, but cannot. By following what I have suggested, the company does plenty to protect itself from liability. Is it a guarantee? We know that there are only two guarantees in life.
    Speaking of red herrings, your continued clinging to your unreasonable, and thus far unproven, assertion that these actions protect the company from liability is a classic example of a red herring being deployed in an argument. You've assumed that your position is true, you've provided no evidence in support of your position that these actions indemnify the company, you've dismissed examples which I've provided which invalidate your fantasy, and your tunnel vision can't see the folly of the hole that you're digging.

    I'll reiterate my point - you provide proof that your scheme indemnifies the company from liability and I'll concede this point to you. That's fair. Your entire argument rests on this point, so provide evidence for it that has more substance than being mere wishful thinking.

    I already stated that the EEOC should do that.
    OK, but we're not talking about some ideal world that you're creating where all laws and regulations must conform to your wish so that your principals can be upheld. We're talking about the real world. Will the EEOC actually pay for the staff time and the tests necessary to insure this alcoholic remains on the straight and narrow? I've never heard of anything like this before. So again, if the EEOC doesn't pay for the staff time and the cost of the tests, should that be born by the driver or the company and why?

  9. #169
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,626

    Re: Is alcohol abuse a "disability"?

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    I'm not assuming that the worker will screw up. I'm saying that now that a risk factor has been identified we can assign some values to it and we can also assign some values to a variety of future outcomes, and one such outcome is a serious accident on the road, where the company exposes itself to greater liability with this employee than they would face from an employee who didn't enter rehab for alcoholism. You can't just erase knowledge that drops into your lap and which is useful.
    And I am not erasing knowledge. I am assigning responsibility for the worker and responsibility for the company, minimizing potential damage, and, at the same time, not punishing for things that have not occurred. There are certainly a variety of outcomes that are possible.

    Willful blindness and delusion are so funny to read.
    I've been thinking that as I've been reading your posts in this thread.

    Speaking of red herrings, your continued clinging to your unreasonable, and thus far unproven, assertion that these actions protect the company from liability is a classic example of a red herring being deployed in an argument. You've assumed that your position is true, you've provided no evidence in support of your position that these actions indemnify the company, you've dismissed examples which I've provided which invalidate your fantasy, and your tunnel vision can't see the folly of the hole that you're digging.
    Your examples are all exceptions or non-comparable situations. You have the tendency to do this or to change the goalposts in debate. I will not play that game and will dismiss any argument that does not fall inside the scope of what we are discussing. I know you don't like that. Too bad.

    Also, you cherry-picked my comments that you quoted... quite the dishonest debate tactic. I have suggested that following through with what I have stated will do plenty to protect the company from liability. I have also stated that it is not a guarantee, but of course there are no guarantees.

    I'll reiterate my point - you provide proof that your scheme indemnifies the company from liability and I'll concede this point to you. That's fair. Your entire argument rests on this point, so provide evidence for it that has more substance than being mere wishful thinking.
    No, my entire argument does NOT rest on this point. I have been clear that it will do plenty to protect the company from liability. I clearly stated that it was no guarantee. You REALLY need to stop the black/white thinking. Absolutism is easy to refute, as I have done.

    Now, YOUR entire position is based on giving consequences to someone who has not violated any rules, yet. You identify as a libertarian. Tell us all how that fits in the libertarian credo.

    OK, but we're not talking about some ideal world that you're creating where all laws and regulations must conform to your wish so that your principals can be upheld. We're talking about the real world. Will the EEOC actually pay for the staff time and the tests necessary to insure this alcoholic remains on the straight and narrow? I've never heard of anything like this before. So again, if the EEOC doesn't pay for the staff time and the cost of the tests, should that be born by the driver or the company and why?
    Again, you are changing the goalposts. X Factor asked me if the EEOC should absolve the company from liability. I said no and offered this as an alternate solution. We ARE talking about we believe should occur. You have your opinion. I have mine.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  10. #170
    Wrinkly member
    Manc Skipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Southern England
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    23,148

    Re: Is alcohol abuse a "disability"?

    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    I'm curious, CC, why wouldn't you support that? It's the EEOC that wants to force the company, not only to rehire the guy, but hire him as a driver. If the EEOC is so confident that the guy won't screw up and kill someone, let them bear the risk. In either case, I do think someone would have a good claim against the EEOC if this guy is reinstated and ended up hurting someone (presuming the EEOC doesn't have immunity, which it may well have).
    The man has a disability as defined by the ADA. The company broke the law by demoting him, not because of his actions, but because of his disability. He didn't do anything wrong, in fact he is effectively being punished for doing the right thing. Way to encourage openness! The simplest way to restore his losses is to reinstate him to the position he held before their illegal act.
    The company might then negotiate with him to find an accommodation acceptable to all, such as redeployment at the same rate of pay to a different role, with the man's agreement.
    Don't work out, work in.

    Never eat anything that's served in a bucket.

Page 17 of 37 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •