• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is alcohol abuse a "disability"?

Is alcohol abuse a disability; do you agree or disagree with the EEOC?

  • I agree alcohol abuse is a disability, I agree with the EEOC position

    Votes: 4 10.8%

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

    Votes: 2 5.4%

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

    Votes: 2 5.4%

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

    Votes: 20 54.1%

  • Rutabega

    Votes: 2 5.4%

  • Other (Explain please)

    Votes: 7 18.9%
  • Total voters
    37
  • Poll closed .
Tigger said:
They may be ADDICTIONS but they are not Disabilities. They're simply the end result of an inability to lead a moral and decent life.
Click to expand...

They are disabilities, medically speaking. It's no different than if someone is depressed, bipolar, psychotic, etc. There is a loss of control and function, and support is required.

Your argument about morals is ignorant. Many alcoholics (the dependent kind) have pre-existing mental health conditions. It was not their morality which lead them to alcoholism but other factors.

I'm glad people like you do not write policy in this country.
 
Temporal said:
They are disabilities, medically speaking. It's no different than if someone is depressed, bipolar, psychotic, etc. There is a loss of control and function, and support is required.

Your argument about morals is ignorant. Many alcoholics (the dependent kind) have pre-existing mental health conditions. It was not their morality which lead them to alcoholism but other factors.
Click to expand...

You know what.... I've spent probably the last 25 years of my life mildly depressed. I've spent parts of the last decade much more than mildly depressed. I have never once turned to alcohol, tobacco, or drugs to deal with it. I simply suck it up, accept that life is a ball of crap, and MOVE ON WITH LIFE. Why is that? Because I was taught that no matter what hand you're dealt, you simply have to deal with it. The Fates can be cruel women when they spin the thread of our lives, but there is nothing any man or God can do to change that. Deal with it, or deal with the consequences of not dealing with it.

Temporal;1059773654I'm glad people like you do not write policy in this country.[/QUOTE said:
Yes you probably are very glad. I'd suggest that those individuals whose mental health and substance abuse issues put them in a situation to not be able to provide any benefit to society and instead take from society should be even happier that I don't write the policy.
Click to expand...
 
It's not a disability, it's a type of stupidity!
 
Whether you want to call it a "disability" or not is of no consequence. We can call it a "hoobleynokiex" instead if you like. What matters is the actual policy and so far nobody has come up with any argument I've seen for why it isn't a good idea to forbid employers from firing people for being alcoholics if they seek treatment and kick the booze. Just seems like common sense to me. You want employees that need rehab to be able to go without fearing losing their jobs and it gives alcoholics a big incentive to quit drinking and stay quit. Don't get distracted by all the nonsense about personal responsibility and what term to call it and whatnot. That stuff is just spin. Does anybody have an argument against the actual policy?
 
teamosil said:
Whether you want to call it a "disability" or not is of no consequence. We can call it a "hoobleynokiex" instead if you like. What matters is the actual policy and so far nobody has come up with any argument I've seen for why it isn't a good idea to forbid employers from firing people for being alcoholics if they seek treatment and kick the booze.
Click to expand...

That's not the problem here. The company wasn't going to fire him.
 
1Perry said:
That's not the problem here. The company wasn't going to fire him.
Click to expand...

The situation, as I understand it, is that they demoted him. But, regardless of the circumstances of this individual case, the bigger issue is whether the policy is a good policy. So far nobody has come up with an argument for why it isn't and I think I've presented several for why it is a good policy. Do you agree or disagree?
 
teamosil said:
The situation, as I understand it, is that they demoted him. But, regardless of the circumstances of this individual case, the bigger issue is whether the policy is a good policy. So far nobody has come up with an argument for why it isn't and I think I've presented several for why it is a good policy. Do you agree or disagree?
Click to expand...

It's perfectly sane policy to not allow an alcoholic to have the keys to the company truck. He will always be an alcoholic.
 
1Perry said:
It's perfectly sane policy to not allow an alcoholic to have the keys to the company truck. He will always be an alcoholic.
Click to expand...

That's fine. But the policy of not allowing employers to fire or demote alcoholics who seek treatment and stay off the booze. Do you think that is a good policy or a bad policy generally?
 
Hey, I've got an idea for people with the "disability" of alcohol abuse. It's called man up and exercise a little ****ing self control.
 
teamosil said:
That's fine. But the policy of not allowing employers to fire or demote alcoholics who seek treatment and stay off the booze. Do you think that is a good policy or a bad policy generally?
Click to expand...

I think permanently banning them from driving might be taking it a bit overboard. It's perfectly possible to reform. They're perfectly justified in busting his ass until he can unequivocally demonstrate that he's gotten over his problem, though, and the EEOC policy is quite simply retarded. How about this: They let him drive. Then, when he gets into an accident while driving under the influence, they sue the ****ing pants off the EEOC. Maybe that will make them reconsider their position in the future.
 
atrasicarius said:
I think permanently banning them from driving might be taking it a bit overboard. It's perfectly possible to reform. They're perfectly justified in busting his ass until he can unequivocally demonstrate that he's gotten over his problem, though, and the EEOC policy is quite simply retarded. How about this: They let him drive. Then, when he gets into an accident while driving under the influence, they sue the ****ing pants off the EEOC. Maybe that will make them reconsider their position in the future.
Click to expand...

Abstract it a bit. Do you think it is a good policy not to allow employers to fire or demote alcoholics who seek treatment and stay off the booze. I mean in general, not just this specific case.
 
atrasicarius said:
Hey, I've got an idea for people with the "disability" of alcohol abuse. It's called man up and exercise a little ****ing self control.
Click to expand...

Hey look - it's free, too!

Wow - saves lives and money.
 
teamosil said:
That's fine. But the policy of not allowing employers to fire or demote alcoholics who seek treatment and stay off the booze. Do you think that is a good policy or a bad policy generally?
Click to expand...

It depends. If a driver pays $65,000 a year and a warehouse job pays $50,000 a year, yes, that's the best they can do. If there is another $65,000 a year position and he's a good employee I would hope that the company would offer that to keep him IF he quits drinking BUT it's none of the governments business to tell a company what job someone must have.

People get demoted for making bad choices. That's not a place for government.
 
1Perry said:
It depends. If a driver pays $65,000 a year and a warehouse job pays $50,000 a year, yes, that's the best they can do. If there is another $65,000 a year position and he's a good employee I would hope that the company would offer that to keep him IF he quits drinking BUT it's none of the governments business to tell a company what job someone must have.

People get demoted for making bad choices. That's not a place for government.
Click to expand...

Wow. I actually completely agree with you for a change. What is this madness?
 
atrasicarius said:
Wow. I actually completely agree with you for a change. What is this madness?
Click to expand...

According to your list, we would likely agree on many things. Not so on others.
 
teamosil said:
Abstract it a bit. Do you think it is a good policy not to allow employers to fire or demote alcoholics who seek treatment and stay off the booze. I mean in general, not just this specific case.
Click to expand...

It's bad policy to allow employers to fire employees who seek treatment for addiction because it will discourage addicts from seeking treatment. The end result will be that the addict will continue to hide their addiction and continue driving which endangers the public safety. Employers should be allowed to shift the employee into a job with the closest similar paying job that they are qualified to do even if that means a pay cut
 
sangha said:
It's bad policy to allow employers to fire employees who seek treatment for addiction because it will discourage addicts from seeking treatment. The end result will be that the addict will continue to hide their addiction and continue driving which endangers the public safety. Employers should be allowed to shift the employee into a job with the closest similar paying job that they are qualified to do even if that means a pay cut
Click to expand...

in general, I agree with this. However, we are currently discussing a truck driver. I don't know about you, but I don't want to be on the road with an alcoholic who is in control of a semi truck.
 
evanescence said:
in general, I agree with this. However, we are currently discussing a truck driver. I don't know about you, but I don't want to be on the road with an alcoholic who is in control of a semi truck.
Click to expand...

I guess I wasnt clear enough when I said "Employers should be allwed to shift the employee into a job" I should have said "into another NON-DRIVING job"
 
I'm pissed that I didn't know this over 20 years ago, damn I could have been paid to hang out at the local watering hole.
 
Councilman said:
I'm pissed that I didn't know this over 20 years ago, damn I could have been paid to hang out at the local watering hole.
Click to expand...

No, no. You can't collect disability insurance for being an alcoholic. The policy is just that you can't fire or demote somebody for being an alcoholic if they get treatment and stick with it.
 
teamosil said:
No, no. You can't collect disability insurance for being an alcoholic. The policy is just that you can't fire or demote somebody for being an alcoholic if they get treatment and stick with it.
Click to expand...

Yep.

Sounds silly to actually suggest that one should be fired/demoted for an issue if it's not interfering with their abilities to work, etc.
 
When it comes to alcohol and drug abuse, there is from some people a very harsh judgement. That you're somehow doing it because you're a depraved soul. Or you want to be bad and addicted.

I can tell you it is a road that is as smooth as a quiet country path that leads you to it. It doesn't happen overnight, and its certainly not because you ever mean it.

Is alcoholism a disability? Legally speaking, and certainly when it comes to workplace dysfunction... I'm afraid I simply cannot comment. That will have to be the judgement of the courts.

Is alcoholism Debilitating? Absolutely!

Can an alcoholic be rehabilitated and become just as productive as he was before? Absolutely!

But it takes a personal choice and will to make it happen. Your workplace that entrusts you to do your duty, especially driving a vehicle that has a potential to kill people, cannot be responsible for your decisions, no matter what reasons lead you to that place.

In this particular case. If the guy was rehabilitated and could prove it... I think perhaps the trucking company should review its policy, but thats not for me to say, it's a tough call and at the end of the day, if Obamas Limo driver or pilot for air force one had a history of alcoholism... do you think he'd be driving Obama around ;)
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Yep.

Sounds silly to actually suggest that one should be fired/demoted for an issue if it's not interfering with their abilities to work, etc.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, people shouldn't be fired for things in their personal life if they don't interfere with their job performance. But on the flip side, if it is interfering with their job performance, a treatment program isn't necessarily going to make it magically stop. It should be at the discretion of the business.
 
teamosil said:
No, no. You can't collect disability insurance for being an alcoholic. The policy is just that you can't fire or demote somebody for being an alcoholic if they get treatment and stick with it.
Click to expand...

Turns out you are right. Congress has now prohibited Social Security from paying benefits on the basis of drug addiction or alcoholism, but they used to allow SS to pay for this.
 
atrasicarius said:
In my opinion, people shouldn't be fired for things in their personal life if they don't interfere with their job performance. But on the flip side, if it is interfering with their job performance, a treatment program isn't necessarily going to make it magically stop. It should be at the discretion of the business.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. . . common sense in action.

I never cared about the personal lives of my employees - but I did care about their business functionality and if they didn't function then they didn't have a job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom