• 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 .
Ockham

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,003
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
FoxNews said:
Citing a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Obama administration is suing a trucking company for taking the keys away from an Arkansas driver and eventually firing him after he admitted he was battling alcohol abuse.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit this week arguing that Old Dominion Freight Line discriminated against Charles Grams by stripping him of his position and offering him a demotion even if he completed a substance abuse counseling program.


Instead, the EEOC argued, the North Carolina-based company, which has a service center in Arkansas, should have complied with the law, known as the ADA, while ensuring safety.
“The ADA mandates that persons with disabilities have an equal opportunity to achieve in the workplace,” said Katharine Kores, director of the EEOCs Memphis District Office, which covers Arkansas. “While the EEOC agrees that an employer’s concern regarding safety on our highways is a legitimate issue, an employer can both ensure safety and comply with the ADA.”

The EEOC says alcoholism is a recognized disability under the ADA and that the company violated the law with its policy that bans any driver who admits alcohol abuse from driving again.

The EEOC wants the company to reinstate Grams and another affected driver to their previous positions and provide them with back pay, compensatory and punitive damages and compensation for lost benefits. The EEOC is also seeking to block the company’s alcohol-related policy.

The company's policy bans any driver who self-reports alcohol abuse from driving again. Reassignment to a non-driving position is contingent upon the driver enrolling in a treatment program.

Joel McCarty, general counsel to Old Dominion, wouldn’t comment on the details of the pending litigation. But he told FoxNews.com, “We intend to vigorously defend our position.”
When asked to respond to EEOC’s comments and rationale behind the lawsuit, McCarty said, “Obviously, we disagree with their position totally.”
“Our concern is safety,” he said. “And that’s why we intend to defend the policy.”
Click to expand...


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?
​
 
The Americans with Disabilities Act has exclusions for safety. The only issue I see here is that they demoted him, instead of giving him a position equal in status/pay/etc

And since it FauxNews, I'm not surprised to see the misleading headline. Almost every disability case goes through the EEOC...It's the law
 
Alcohol abuse is not a disability and should not be treated as such. A private company can do what they want.
 
If his alcohol abuse is going to affect the safety of his driving, that's a valid reason for banning him - whether it's a disability or not is irrelevant; he wouldn't be allowed to drive if he was blind, and that's definitely one. If it's not going to affect the safety of his driving, they shouldn't be allowed to ban him, irregardless of the fact that they're a private company - for the same reason that they shouldn't be allowed to ban him if he voted Democrat when the company owner was a Republican; it's got nothing to do with them.

From the news story alone, it's pretty tough to work out which of the two situations the guy is in. Random spot-test breathalyser checks for a month and see how he goes?
 
It's an addiction.

is addiction a disability or disorder? Only if it's caused by some type of natural issue of the individual such as a health condition like a tumor or regulatory miscommunication in the body (which accounts for a small number of cases) - like, for those who are overweight - some suffer from Momo disease which is where their mind tells their body that they're hungry even when they aren't . . .leading to constant overeating. For tehse people their obesity is a side effect of an underlying issue. I can imagine that the same situation can happen for an alcoholic (etc) - but it's probably not very common.

It, being an addiction for most, is a choice that has many consequences.
 
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.
 
It's a way to get people that need it to go to rehab. If employers could just fire people for being alcoholics, no alcoholic that has a job could go to rehab. This makes it possible for people to go. And it even adds in an incentive to go- they can fire you if you refuse to seek treatment. Employers also only need to offer you that chance one time, so it creates an incentive to stick with the treatment.

I know a couple of people that have taken advantage of this option and in both cases it completely turned their lives around.

I don't really see a downside. Appears to just be Fox trying to make the world suck worse for people as per usual.
 
It's no more a disability than it is a frigging disease. It's a CHOICE.
 
It is a disability, but as with so many things from Faux News, there is much more to it than the story. It requires a bit of critical thinking, something you will not find that works well with Fox. The ADA - has anyone read the law? - mandates reasonable accommodation. I do not think that it is reasonable for a transportation company to routinely hire drug addicts and alcoholics as drivers. I don't believe that it is reasonable for a person who has a clear record of alcohol abuse to the point that it becomes a disability to expect to be hired as a freight hauler. What would be expected if a driver began to develop macular degeneration? Macular degeneration constitutes a disability. Would you honestly expect that person to drive? I wouldn't. It would be unreasonable.

The OP is exactly the kind of crap that Fox and uninformed Absolutists jump on. Alcoholism is a disability, however, the ADA does not mandate that alcoholics be permitted to have any job they want. That's bull**** and the ADA doesn't say that. It is reasonable to assume that deaf people not be given jobs as sonar operators, it is reasonable that blind people not be given jobs as air traffic controllers. It is reasonable that alcoholics not be given jobs as commercial drivers.

What Faux News has done - as usual - is stir the pot for people who are too willfully ignorant to analyze the information they are given and the way it is present, by Fox. The story here is actually about the fact that the guy was provided a lesser paying position. If that is all that is available then that is all there is. It is unreasonable for Old Dominion to create a position for the driver. That would be wrong.

I am an employer, I think Republican partisans now call that a "job creator". I have experience with EEOC and from first hand experience I can tell you that EEOC lawyers can be wrong and have been wrong. The ADA isn't a bad law and like good laws it is left to interpretation.
 
Ockham said:
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]
Click to expand...

He actually has more opportunity working the warehouse or logistics to advance and compete than he would if he remained a driver. more time near home to take classes to advance at community college, etc. After all, there are not executive long haul drivers, or management intrastate/local. While a cut in pay may result initially, the opportunity to rise above what he would have made as a driver is clearly there.
 
Last edited:
Gosh. I chose to pick up my first ciggie when I was 16 cuz I wanted to be like the other cool kids. Now I have been addicted for 43 years. It's a disease I tell ya. Picked it up in this amazonian forest called High School while wading in the masses of morons in the lake of Morons. Smoking Disease. Hard to kick, but can be done if I wanted to kick it back enough. But I don't choose to, so therefore, pity me that I have a disease I chose to wade in.
I should be able to trot right on down to SSI and get my disability too, right? If it's a disease, I should expect my check soon, eh?

BIG assed eye roll.
 
Enola said:
Gosh. I chose to pick up my first ciggie when I was 16 cuz I wanted to be like the other cool kids. Now I have been addicted for 43 years. It's a disease I tell ya. Picked it up in this amazonian forest called High School while wading in the masses of morons in the lake of Morons. Smoking Disease. Hard to kick, but can be done if I wanted to kick it back enough. But I don't choose to, so therefore, pity me that I have a disease I chose to wade in.
I should be able to trot right on down to SSI and get my disability too, right? If it's a disease, I should expect my check soon, eh?

BIG assed eye roll.
Click to expand...

That doesn't have anything to do with anything. From what I can see, all there is to this is that people can't get fired or demoted for being alcoholics if they're willing to go to rehab for it and they manage to kick. You're getting distracted by the terminology. Do you have an objection to that policy? Seems pretty sensible to me.
 
If it affects their job performance, they deserve to be fired, or at the very least moved to another job where it doesn't affect performance, if such exists. That should go for *ANY* activity. Being able to perform the job for which you were hired is essential.
 
No sane business owner I know would knowingly hire a current or former (recovering) alcoholic as a driver. It puts a jeopardy their entire company.
 
Cephus said:
If it affects their job performance, they deserve to be fired, or at the very least moved to another job where it doesn't affect performance, if such exists. That should go for *ANY* activity. Being able to perform the job for which you were hired is essential.
Click to expand...

They only can't fire or demote them if they get treatment and successfully quit drinking, so it wouldn't be affecting their job performance any more.

Besides, if you could get fired for going to rehab, nobody that had a job could ever go to rehab. Right? That would be very bad, wouldn't it?
 
Ockham said:
No sane business owner I know would knowingly hire a current or former (recovering) alcoholic as a driver. It puts a jeopardy their entire company.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I might agree that that should fall within the safety exception. But the overall policy is sound I think.
 
teamosil said:
They only can't fire or demote them if they get treatment and successfully quit drinking, so it wouldn't be affecting their job performance any more.

Besides, if you could get fired for going to rehab, nobody that had a job could ever go to rehab. Right? That would be very bad, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

Then put them on leave or in another position until they have completed rehab. For as long as they are unable to perform their duties, they should not have those duties.
 
Cephus said:
Then put them on leave or in another position until they have completed rehab. For as long as they are unable to perform their duties, they should not have those duties.
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah, that's how it works.
 
teamosil said:
That doesn't have anything to do with anything. From what I can see, all there is to this is that people can't get fired or demoted for being alcoholics if they're willing to go to rehab for it and they manage to kick. You're getting distracted by the terminology. Do you have an objection to that policy? Seems pretty sensible to me.
Click to expand...

Once an alcoholic, ALWAYS an alcoholic. Rehab my ass.
 
Ive had personal experience with Alcohol and job performance and disciplining of employees for alcohol use....the problem is that every employee caught drinking while working...used the alcholic excuse to avoid being fired...not all problem drinkers are Alcholics or addicted...who knows where this guy falls in...but what the company should have done...if this was his first time in the barrel...send him to rehab get him help...bring him back and offer him and no driving position....Trucking outfits pay huge insurance...to have a driver drunk and kill someone their liability is HUGE even if they are totally covered by insurance...their insurance will soar....If your caught driving commercially drunk, then admit to being an alcholic...you should not be driving commercially again...
Id like to add that I doubt Old Dominions insurer will cover this guy after being caught drunk and admitting to being an alcholic
 
Last edited:
Of course it's a disability. It's a self inflicted one though. If a drywaller decides to cut one of his arms off his employer is under no obligation to find him another postion to do a half assed job.

If I was the employer, I'd llkely give the guy a chance to rehab BUT I would never allow him to drive again. I don't undertand though.....if the employer offers him a warehouse job and it pays less is the government saying they can't do that?
 
You can have physical withdrawals due to alcoholism, so yes it is a disability. Alcoholics are just as stuck as heroin addicts.
 
This goes straight to the heart of the fact that we no longer expect anyone to take responsibility for their own actions, and that we as a society seem to want the Government to step in and make everything "fair" instead. Alcoholism is no more a disability than smoking is. It's a CHOICE. When you make choices you need to step up and accept responsibility for the consequences of those choices.

Many of the people I work with are required to take drug & alcohol tests randomly because they hold Class A or B Commercial Driver's Licenses. If they fail a test they can be fired on the spot. Period. A chronic alcoholic has no right to suddenly claim they should be accomidated by their employer if they can no longer do the job they were hired to do. I say that as someone who has worked with several members of our engineering staff who were former linemen and whom the company made accomidations for after they were no longer able to do line work due to accidents.
 
Temporal said:
You can have physical withdrawals due to alcoholism, so yes it is a disability. Alcoholics are just as stuck as heroin addicts.
Click to expand...

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.
 
nota bene said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would agree that some people are more genetically predisposed to addiction than others. But I hesitate to consider addiction a disease because that essentially takes personal responsibility out of the equation. I have known many drug addicts, and not a single one of them take responsibility for their own actions. My husband's family is a prime example of this. Most of them are on crack or heroin. They are thieves, liars, and a drag on their families and society. And several of them have caused me problems because of their actions. I consider alcohol to be a drug, so to me, an alcoholic is just as culpable as a crack head or meth addict. They destroy lives.

Should an alcoholic be a truck driver? Hell no! It's a matter of public safety, and to me, it is an outrage that this case was not immediately dismissed. If he wants to work somewhere that doesn't place the public at risk, fine. But for the love of god, not behind the wheel of a 12 ton rig! :doh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom