• 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?


  • Total voters
    37
  • Poll closed .
I keep hearing that people want a driver with an alcohol issue given a different job in the company he works for because his alcoholism is a disability. Who's to say that there is another job in the company that he IS qualified for?

For example.... The vast majority of the senior linemen that work for the company I do would NOT be qualified for even the entry-level position in my department. They do not have the technical, computer, or inter-personal skills to work in the office environment. It would seem that you folks are suggesting that if these guys fail an alcohol test (which they are given randomly), that the company should MAKE a job for them, because there isn't one that doesn't require driving that they'd qualify for.

That's exactly what I said and nobody had an answer for it then either. Funny, huh?
 
But nobody is going to ask you and they are going to be held liable. Many of us noted that it would be slightly different at least if there was a way to remove this liability but there isn't.

So your arguement boils down to one where you would not hold them liable but that's a fantasy position. We can't expect companies to operate under fantasy scenario's.

No, my argument does not boil down to fantasy at all. It boils down to things that the company can do to minimize the chance of liability. There are plenty of alternatives to what the company did... which under the current law, nets then a lawsuit. So, since their current actions will cause the company consequences, what all of YOU are talking about are fantasy positions. I am fine with the status quo. I'm just offering suggestions of how the company might protect themselves better. Now, you all can pretend that things are different, but they aren't. Like I said, the fantasy position is yours, not mine.
 
What has been presented are not factual (as far as we know) to the situation but they are logical as to what will happen somewhere.

Driver pays $60,000 a year. It's the best job in the business. The company offers him another job in the warehouse but it pays $45,000. What are we supposed to do? Force the company pay him $60,000 for the warehouse job?

Irrelevant to the scenario we are discussing. As I said, the two situations are not comparable. Come up with one that is and maybe we can discuss it.
 
No, my argument does not boil down to fantasy at all. It boils down to things that the company can do to minimize the chance of liability. There are plenty of alternatives to what the company did... which under the current law, nets then a lawsuit. So, since their current actions will cause the company consequences, what all of YOU are talking about are fantasy positions. I am fine with the status quo. I'm just offering suggestions of how the company might protect themselves better. Now, you all can pretend that things are different, but they aren't. Like I said, the fantasy position is yours, not mine.

The only alternative I can think of is giving him another position within the company. I would be ok with that. So long as he isn't on the road with me.
 
What an interesting excu---scenario. People who willingly poison their bodies should not receive such status and protection. What would happen if the alcoholic truck driver kills a family while driving drunk? Support the irresponsible seems like the mindset of today.
 
What an interesting excu---scenario. People who willingly poison their bodies should not receive such status and protection. What would happen if the alcoholic truck driver kills a family while driving drunk? Support the irresponsible seems like the mindset of today.

Because "fairness," at least in this instance, trumps public safety. In other words, until he kills someone, nothing can be done; otherwise, it is discrimination. But I agree: being a drunk or a drug addict should NOT be a protected status. That is madness. It's almost as if people are arguing that a drug addict is equal to being handicapped. How silly.
 
This is a private company with their own private policies. This could be alcoholism, drug use / abuse or other self administered problem. Second, does a company have a right to put their own policies out especially ones that protect not only their employees but others lives? Think of the lawsuit of a reformed alcoholic who falls off the wagon who was forced to be give the keys by the EEOC policy, who kills a family of three in an accident? Is it a better policy to force the keys back into their hands or is it a better policy to remove that option and keep them employed elsewhere?
[/COLOR][/LEFT]

I have no sympathy for drunk drivers.
 
You can have physical withdrawals due to alcoholism, so yes it is a disability. Alcoholics are just as stuck as heroin addicts.

I don't want heroin addicts driving truck either.
 
Hmmm... how about this. A pattern of compulsive and uncontrolled consumption of alcohol, usually to the detriment of the drinker's health, relationships, and social standing, whereas these things are secondary in nature to the individual's alcohol use. There are some genetic/biological differences, brainwise between an alcoholic and a non-alcoholic. I read a very recent study on this, but I cannot locate it at the present time.

I would rather keep someone who can't help but pick up the bottle, from being behind the wheel of any vehicle.
 
I don't want heroin addicts driving truck either.

Pfft...what's next? The meth addict? When will your prejudice end!
 
The only alternative I can think of is giving him another position within the company. I would be ok with that. So long as he isn't on the road with me.

And if he's not qualified to hold any other position within the company? What then?
 
And if he's not qualified to hold any other position within the company? What then?

North Carolina is a state with "at-will" employment standards. Federal law supersedes state law and this means that if the EEOC prevails, they can't fire someone for being an alcoholic but they can fire anyone of the other employees because they don't like how they part their hair and then give this alcoholic that person's job.
 
North Carolina is a state with "at-will" employment standards. Federal law supersedes state law and this means that if the EEOC prevails, they can't fire someone for being an alcoholic but they can fire anyone of the other employees because they don't like how they part their hair and then give this alcoholic that person's job.

Which is utterly idiotic.
 
I generally disagree that alcohol abuse is a disability. But I've known two people in my lifetime whom I'd describe as sick/disabled because of it. They've both destroyed their families and careers and have gone to jail and prison, and one of them nearly burned himself to death. And yet cannot--cannot--stop drinking. They're sick, mentally sick, and cannot help themselves.

OK now with that being said do you think the employeer should keep a guy like this around while he is fighting his addiction or whatever he has?

The employeer needs to get the work done and keep his employees safe, he does not have time to deal with employees like this. It is detrimental to the company.
 
Irrelevant to the scenario we are discussing. As I said, the two situations are not comparable. Come up with one that is and maybe we can discuss it.

Cop out. Nothing but a cop out. How do you know this isn't relative to this situation? The article noted that he was offered a job but it was a demotion. How exactly do you know that this isn't the only other job they have available?
 
Protection over madness. People are typically not born alcoholics except in a very certain scenario. Alcoholics shouldn't be given benefits. I didn't know about this stuff, but now I feel a little paranoid when it comes to driving and big trucks. If people are going to do nothing to get alcoholics off the road, and instead defend and keep them on, well, is it fair to say this is another sign of the times? What next? Fat man sues McDonalds for getting fat? *******.
 
Protection over madness. People are typically not born alcoholics except in a very certain scenario. Alcoholics shouldn't be given benefits. I didn't know about this stuff, but now I feel a little paranoid when it comes to driving and big trucks. If people are going to do nothing to get alcoholics off the road, and instead defend and keep them on, well, is it fair to say this is another sign of the times? What next? Fat man sues McDonalds for getting fat? *******.

Just wait, that's the next lawsuit. :roll:
 
Just wait, that's the next lawsuit. :roll:

The ironic part is that already happened. That's why we now have the list of calories on the back of the tray papers.
 
The ironic part is that already happened. That's why we now have the list of calories on the back of the tray papers.

Oh, I know that lawsuit happened, we have to protect people from their own stupidity. Now we have to think for them as well.

No wonder America is going straight down the tubes.
 
And if he's not qualified to hold any other position within the company? What then?

In the unlikely event that accommodations could not be made, he would have to be let go. Better that than an alcoholic driving an 18 ton rig on the road with innocent bystanders. I would hate to have to kill someone and their entire family because they drove drunk and killed my kids. But that's what would happen. All of that death and blood shed could be prevented with a single ounce of common sense. Alcoholics and drug addicts do not deserve a protected status. And they should not be given jobs where they could possibly put others in danger. Furthermore, the truck company should not have to take on more risk to employ someone who is more likely to drive drunk than the general population.
 
In the unlikely event that accommodations could not be made, he would have to be let go. Better that than an alcoholic driving an 18 ton rig on the road with innocent bystanders. I would hate to have to kill someone and their entire family because they drove drunk and killed my kids. But that's what would happen. All of that death and blood shed could be prevented with a single ounce of common sense. Alcoholics and drug addicts do not deserve a protected status. And they should not be given jobs where they could possibly put others in danger. Furthermore, the truck company should not have to take on more risk to employ someone who is more likely to drive drunk than the general population.

The problem is that people don't want them to be fired under any circumstances. It's not enough that they be removed from the driver position, they have to have another job offered, qualified or not. I agree, it's ridiculous.
 
Well I know you know more about it - your post only addressed one very stereotypical drunk concept of an individual. . .seemed out of place.

Sorry. I did speak on a sterotype that I have seen with my own eyes but it may have be unfair of me to do so without including the other side. You all know I am for everyone getting the help they need but I get a little sick of folks that need disability through no fault of their own getting turned down all the time when those that can hop on the labor truck daily get it.
 
Last edited:
Cop out. Nothing but a cop out. How do you know this isn't relative to this situation? The article noted that he was offered a job but it was a demotion. How exactly do you know that this isn't the only other job they have available?

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.
 
Is an addiction not a disability. It is an action that can be stopped if chosen, however- it can create a disability if used over long term (example alcoholic encephalopathy) or if used while pregnant (FAS Fetal alcohol Syndrome).
 
Back
Top Bottom