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 21 of 37 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 368

Thread: Is alcohol abuse a "disability"?

  1. #201
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Is alcohol abuse a "disability"?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Not a cop out at all. Different scenarios. One was demoted for a disability, one for other reasons. Come up with something relevant and perhaps we can discuss it.
    There is no one of this and one of that. There is only one scenario. This one. They offered him another job. The EEOC said "not good enough". We are talking about this case and this case only. Sorry, I have to spell this out for you over and over in simple terms but it would seem that I have to. One more time.

    We are discussing the case in the article. No other situations. They offered him another job. It was a demotion. The EEOC said "Not good enough".

    Now, if it's the only other job they have available and it pays less, is it your position that the company should have to still give him the lower paying job BUT still pay him at the higher rate?

  2. #202
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,604

    Re: Is alcohol abuse a "disability"?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    There is no one of this and one of that. There is only one scenario. This one. They offered him another job. The EEOC said "not good enough". We are talking about this case and this case only. Sorry, I have to spell this out for you over and over in simple terms but it would seem that I have to. One more time.

    We are discussing the case in the article. No other situations. They offered him another job. It was a demotion. The EEOC said "Not good enough".

    Now, if it's the only other job they have available and it pays less, is it your position that the company should have to still give him the lower paying job BUT still pay him at the higher rate?
    Perhaps you should follow along with the discussion. RiverDad presented a different scenario as a comparison. I indicated that it did not compare. YOU then quote my post around that demonstration that there is no comparison. THIS is what we have been discussing due to you quote-posting my debunking of the red herring. It's all there in post #172.

    As far as what YOU now are discussing, I have already stated my position on this matter. The company gave consequences to an employee who had not, as far as I know, violated any policies nor had he gotten into any alcohol related accidents. It is my position that the company was incorrect in demoting him and the EEOC agrees. The company can put lots of safeguards and parameters in place to minimize their liability. Those are my positions and have been from the beginning.

    And I will ask you the same thing that I asked RiverDad... and he did not answer. You identify as a libertarian. Tell me how giving consequences to an individual because he MIGHT violate a rule or do something wrong is consistent with libertarian philosophy.
    "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. #203
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Is alcohol abuse a "disability"?

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Addiction is self inflicted the vast majority of the time. This is not a disability. Addiction gives someone a craving or withdrawal symptoms, but it never forces someone to drink alcohol. The root of it is choice, not some disability that you are smitten with against your will.



    That doesn't make it a disability. The "cure" lies in personal responsibility and actions, not in medications. There are medications to help with alcohol withdrawal symptoms, but they don't cure a behavioral problem.
    You are using an odd definition of disability. Many disabilities are the result of personal choices and behavior. Type II diabetes, heart conditions, loss of limbs and even many diseases can be the result of a personal choice or pattern of behavior

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    I'm arguing that even reassigning the dude to a job that has a lower pay grade is a bad idea.
    In a perfect world, I would agree. IMO, if there is an equal paying position that the alcoholic can perform, then they should be re-assigned to that. However, if there isn't, then what is the employer to do? Create a new make-work position and pay them the same amount?

    Quote Originally Posted by evanescence View Post
    And yet I still support this company's decision. Why take the chance at a loss of life? I have nightmares about my family dying in a horrific accident. And nightmares of what I would do to those responsible.
    I don't know all the details of the case, so I can't say for sure. If there is an equal paying position that this employee can do without endangering the public, then I think they should be given that position. However, of there isn't one, and this is the closest job the employer has to offer, then I support it
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  4. #204
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Is alcohol abuse a "disability"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    What if they're not qualified to do another job? What if the only thing they are capable of doing is the job for which they are no longer qualified?
    Under the ADA, then they are fired. Employers are only required to make "reasonable accomodations", not "do anything and everything they can to keep the person employed"

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    And what do you do with them between the time you find out they are drinking and the time they seek treatment and complete it? Can you fire them if they have not kicked it at the time of their termination?
    Under the ADA, they can be suspended w/o pay while undergoing treatment. You seem to be operating under the misonception that you are the only one who can think of these problems. The ADA was written with input from many people, including business owners. The ADA addresses their concerns

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Treatment is not an immediate thing, it's not like buying a cream at the pharmacy. It takes time, often years to be successful. So I ask again, what do you do between the time they SEEK treatment and the time they are "CURED"?
    It doesn't take years. In-patient addiction programs take weeks, not years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    The ADAA changes were done in 2009 per the EEOC link, as were the notice of changes on Sept 23, 2009. That I believe constitutes the current administration.

    Fact Sheet on the EEOC’s Final Regulations Implementing the ADAAA


    It's unfortunate that the EEOC do not see the interpretation of the ADA changes the same way.



    See my prior posts on the subject in this thread.
    Changes to ADA regs take years to implement, so the majority of this was probably done while bush* was president.

    As Dion noted, the desire to blame Obama for this is nothing more than hyper-partisanship

    on edit: I see the Dion pwned you on your false claim that this changed occurred under Obama and since then, you have just dropped it

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    I should let it go but let's break your arguement down. The guy is making $60,000 as a driver. He's offered continued employement but the only other jobs are warehouse jobs that pay $45,000. Your solution is that they should be forced to give him the warehouse job but still pay him the $60,000.

    That is a recipe for failure. On top of that, if it was a union shop, the employer would likely not be able to do this based upon their contract.
    In an earlier post you spoke about others posting fantasy. The only fantasy I see is coming from those who oppose the ADA. In your case, your #'s are nothing more than fantasy that you just made up out of thin air.
    Last edited by sangha; 09-06-11 at 12:56 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  5. #205
    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 I will ask you the same thing that I asked RiverDad... and he did not answer. You identify as a libertarian. Tell me how giving consequences to an individual because he MIGHT violate a rule or do something wrong is consistent with libertarian philosophy.
    Your position is one that fits in nicely with your dogmatic liberalism - you're making up conditions (EEOC paying for testing, Company protected from liability) which justify your dogmatic position of rooting for the underdog.

    My libertarianism is not dogmatic - I look at the facts of the situation, all of the facts, I try to apply as much of my philosophy as I can to the entire situation and I BEND where I must in order to conclude with the best solution for all of the parties and all of society.

    You making declarations until you're blue in the face in a thread on a bulletin board doesn't mean jack squat in the real world where companies are held accountable for the employees that they hire and the actions of the employee. The fact that this company could have kept a driver off the road BUT DIDN'T and instead only instituted spot checks on him is no consolation to a family destroyed by an act of drunken driving which could have been avoided if the driver was not given the chance to drive. The company is spared the risk of a bad outcome by taking this man off the road. Society is spared the bad outcome. The statistics on relapse are available to the decision makers here. This is a decision based on probability. This driver is alone in a truck for long periods of time during which he is unsupervised.

    I acknowledge that the decision is unfair to the driver but I base my argument on real world concerns not dogmatic liberal make-believe concerns where logical arguments with the firmity of fairy dust are used to justify a dogmatic liberal big-heartedness and sympathy for the victim.

    As for the libertarians slant, here it is - associations must always be voluntary. This company doesn't want to enter into a voluntary association with this driver and they are being forced to maintain an involuntary association. That is a direct assault on the freedom of association. The driver has no right to force his presence onto the company and the EEOC is violating libertarian interpretations of human rights. I recognize that the EEOC has the power to run roughshod over human rights because the power of government simply overwhelms the power of individuals who stand up for their rights and I don't like it, but there is little I can do to remedy that abuse of power.

    In this case the libertarian position, the non-dogmatic one, trumps the liberal dogmatic pie-in-the-sky position because the libertarian position is based on the real world concerns, cites precedence, and addresses the safety of innocent people and it maintains the freedom of companies to associate with whomever they choose. The libertarian position never rests on forcing other people to be fair to you. Forcing others to be fair to you is the liberal position.
    Last edited by RiverDad; 09-06-11 at 05:28 PM.

  6. #206
    ˇSelah!
    Alyssa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    southern and midwestern United States where Protestant fundamentalism is dominant
    Last Seen
    05-07-14 @ 09:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,648
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Is alcohol abuse a "disability"?

    Most political positions are just as dogmatic as religion.
    “In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.” -Napoleon

  7. #207
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Is alcohol abuse a "disability"?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Perhaps you should follow along with the discussion. RiverDad presented a different scenario as a comparison. I indicated that it did not compare. YOU then quote my post around that demonstration that there is no comparison. THIS is what we have been discussing due to you quote-posting my debunking of the red herring. It's all there in post #172.

    As far as what YOU now are discussing, I have already stated my position on this matter. The company gave consequences to an employee who had not, as far as I know, violated any policies nor had he gotten into any alcohol related accidents. It is my position that the company was incorrect in demoting him and the EEOC agrees. The company can put lots of safeguards and parameters in place to minimize their liability. Those are my positions and have been from the beginning.

    And I will ask you the same thing that I asked RiverDad... and he did not answer. You identify as a libertarian. Tell me how giving consequences to an individual because he MIGHT violate a rule or do something wrong is consistent with libertarian philosophy.
    It's because it's my business at risk. Not yours, not his, not the governments. My first consideration has to be the business. Not his job. This has been covered.

    If he drinks and gets into an accident, it's going to be bad. If he dinks and gets into an accident after being sent off as an alcoholic the lawyers will come out of the woodwork. If the EEOC takes this position then they must also protect the business from future lawsuits because of this guys actions.

  8. #208
    ˇSelah!
    Alyssa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    southern and midwestern United States where Protestant fundamentalism is dominant
    Last Seen
    05-07-14 @ 09:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,648
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Is alcohol abuse a "disability"?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    It's because it's my business at risk. Not yours, not his, not the governments. My first consideration has to be the business. Not his job. This has been covered.

    If he drinks and gets into an accident, it's going to be bad. If he dinks and gets into an accident after being sent off as an alcoholic the lawyers will come out of the woodwork. If the EEOC takes this position then they must also protect the business from future lawsuits because of this guys actions.
    apparently this guy's "rights" trump public safety as well as an entire business.
    “In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.” -Napoleon

  9. #209
    Educator

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    08-15-13 @ 01:41 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,034

    Re: Is alcohol abuse a "disability"?

    It's scary that so many people voted for: "I disagree that alcohol abuse is a disability, I disagree with the EEOC position "

    It really shows how uneducated people really are. Learn a little about psychology and mental health; if you can understand it all (and I don't mean junk psychology .. actually pick up a textbook), the way you view the world will likely change drastically.

    Certain psychology courses should be mandatory for all citizens.

    I am unclear about one part of this post though .. many people are talking about drinking and driving .. is that something the guy was doing while working? If so he should not be working, if not, they had no grounds for firing him.
    Last edited by MusicAdventurer; 09-07-11 at 03:03 AM.

  10. #210
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,604

    Re: Is alcohol abuse a "disability"?

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    Your position is one that fits in nicely with your dogmatic liberalism - you're making up conditions (EEOC paying for testing, Company protected from liability) which justify your dogmatic position of rooting for the underdog.
    I always enjoy it when someone shows ignorance of my beliefs/position, attempting to straw man them and paint them as absolute, even thought it is obvious that they are not. Usually it demonstrates a sign of losing the debate... as you have.

    My libertarianism is not dogmatic - I look at the facts of the situation, all of the facts, I try to apply as much of my philosophy as I can to the entire situation and I BEND where I must in order to conclude with the best solution for all of the parties and all of society.
    Well, that's good to know. So you are NOT a dogmatic libertarian and indicate that in some situations, safety over-rules liberty.

    You making declarations until you're blue in the face in a thread on a bulletin board doesn't mean jack squat in the real world where companies are held accountable for the employees that they hire and the actions of the employee. The fact that this company could have kept a driver off the road BUT DIDN'T and instead only instituted spot checks on him is no consolation to a family destroyed by an act of drunken driving which could have been avoided if the driver was not given the chance to drive. The company is spared the risk of a bad outcome by taking this man off the road. Society is spared the bad outcome. The statistics on relapse are available to the decision makers here. This is a decision based on probability. This driver is alone in a truck for long periods of time during which he is unsupervised.
    You are prepared to punish someone who has done nothing wrong. If the employee had had a DUI, or had come to work drunk or smelling of alcohol, I could see your point. None of these things happened.

    Btw, do you know what the relapse rate for folks that remain in treatment is? 10% Pretty low.

    I acknowledge that the decision is unfair to the driver but I base my argument on real world concerns not dogmatic liberal make-believe concerns where logical arguments with the firmity of fairy dust are used to justify a dogmatic liberal big-heartedness and sympathy for the victim.
    No, you base your concerns on dogmatic libertarian concern for business and that's it, never understanding that it is the workers that make up the business. Your dogmatism prevents you from looking at solutions. Blame and punish the worker. That's all you know. Your argument does not consider both parts of the problem. Mine does. Since all you can see is black/white, it is necessary for you to falsely paint my position as black/white.

    As for the libertarians slant, here it is - associations must always be voluntary. This company doesn't want to enter into a voluntary association with this driver and they are being forced to maintain an involuntary association. That is a direct assault on the freedom of association. The driver has no right to force his presence onto the company and the EEOC is violating libertarian interpretations of human rights. I recognize that the EEOC has the power to run roughshod over human rights because the power of government simply overwhelms the power of individuals who stand up for their rights and I don't like it, but there is little I can do to remedy that abuse of power.
    The EEOC is preventing rampant abuses of the company. That's what would happen without regulations like these.

    In this case the libertarian position, the non-dogmatic one, trumps the liberal dogmatic pie-in-the-sky position because the libertarian position is based on the real world concerns, cites precedence, and addresses the safety of innocent people and it maintains the freedom of companies to associate with whomever they choose. The libertarian position never rests on forcing other people to be fair to you. Forcing others to be fair to you is the liberal position.
    No, the dogmatic libertarian position, which you seem to be spouting, dictates "might makes right". The company has the might, so they're automatically right. See, this is the essence of the problem with the libertarian position and why IT is "pie-in-the-sky". It forgets simple human psychology, that, if given the opportunity, an person or company will screw over anyone to get ahead, regardless of how it impacts anyone or anything else... even themselves over the long term. Now, you might want to adhere to this position, but I do not. I find that the ability of folks to work together to find reasonable solutions far more practical and productive.
    "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"

Page 21 of 37 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... 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
  •