- Joined
- Feb 9, 2011
- Messages
- 19,962
- Reaction score
- 7,356
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
That makes no sense. The only "protection" gained by being disabled is protection from being fired (or discriminated against) for being disabled. If one is not actually disabled, what need is there to be protected against being fired/discriminated against for being disabled?
And no one gets any money from the govt simply for being disabled unless they can show serious impairment.
"You're fired because you're late again"
"You can't fire me. I'm an alcoholic and it's the alcoholism that is making me constantly late for work. That's a disability! I need help."
Is the worker really an alcoholic or not? As of right now though he qualifies as being disabled as it seems to be indicated on this thread. So how do you disprove it to get rid of a worker who's lazy and wants to cover it up with "alcoholism"? It's sort of like a back injury (or at least how they used to be, not up on all the current medical tech) where it was hard to disprove. Can you fire them if they don't seek treatment or are they still considered not fire-able?