Is alcohol abuse a "disability"?

Tigger said:

I would suggest that it definitely does hurt them. It forces them to put an employee in a job they may not be qualified for, or to create a job for them which is not what they were initially hired to do. It also forces them to provide additional oversight to ensure the employee is doing the job, and not falling into their old ways.

Click to expand...

Keep them in a job they might not be qualified for? What do you mean? They can fire them for not being qualified just like usual, they just can't fire them for drinking if they get treatment and manage to kick it.

teamosil said:

Keep them in a job they might not be qualified for? What do you mean? They can fire them for not being qualified just like usual, they just can't fire them for drinking if they get treatment and manage to kick it.

Click to expand...

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?

Cephus said:

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?

Click to expand...

You guys are really fixating on this scenario where they need to switch jobs... That is a very oddball exception to the rule. Virtually always they would just keep them in the same job. The law makes exceptions for safety concerns, in which case they can be fired. The only time this oddball scenario would come up is if they employer thinks there is a safety concern that the EEOC doesn't think is legit... So to evaluate the policy based primarily on this 1 in a million quirky scenario makes no sense. The solution to these kinds of exceptions is either for the EEOC to expand its safety exception or for employers not to overreact. I don't know. But either way, evaluating the policy on this bizarre exception, that's like deciding what house you want to buy based primarily on whether or not they previous owner is willing to leave their door mat behind for you.

Cephus said:

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?

Click to expand...

Time between when you find out and when they seek treatment? I'm not sure what you mean. You find out and tell them that they have to get treatment or you will fire them. They do one or the other immediately. If they say they'll seek treatment, but don't, you fire them.

teamosil said:

Huh? No, normally they would just keep them in their own job. But even in the unusual situation where there is such a serious safety concern with their current job that they wouldn't even let a recovered alcoholic hold it and they needed to move them into another job, then that opens up their current job, so it would just be shifting people around, not firing anybody...

Click to expand...

Do you really believe that this company has trained and licensed long-haul truckers just sitting around doing bookkeeping or doing warehouse work? It's more likely than not that they'll have to hire someone with his qualifications to take over his job but now they need to find something for this man to do that doesn't use his skill set.

teamosil said:

Time between when you find out and when they seek treatment? I'm not sure what you mean. You find out and tell them that they have to get treatment or you will fire them. They do one or the other immediately. If they say they'll seek treatment, but don't, you fire them.

Click to expand...

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"?

Cephus said:

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"?

Click to expand...

My understanding is that if they keep drinking after the company calls them out on it, they can fire them at any time. I mean, presumably you can't like call them out at 10 am and at 10:01 freak out that they haven't started treatment yet or anything idiotic, but yeah, they need to stop drinking and seek treatment immediately and never relapse to keep their jobs.

teamosil said:

My understanding is that if they keep drinking after the company calls them out on it, they can fire them at any time. I mean, presumably you can't like call them out at 10 am and at 10:01 freak out that they haven't started treatment yet or anything idiotic, but yeah, they need to stop drinking and seek treatment immediately and never relapse to keep their jobs.

Click to expand...

But none of that seems to relate to because you are 'being an alcoholic' - but more so 'drinking while on duty' or 'letting it interfere with sleep at night so for work the next day you're hung over' and so on -these times are when it becomes a problem to the point where an employer can make some decisions. . . and these can also be issues with non-alcoholics who just love to lush it up sometimes and let things get out of hand without any type of reliance or addiction to it.

I also think everyone's defaulting to the belief that alcoholics are always under the influence - when they're not. Some are binge drinkers or sporatic - where the drinking is designated for the weekend or anytime they have a day off - others are purely seasonal . . . and so on. Some are open about it while others are secret.

teamosil said:

My understanding is that if they keep drinking after the company calls them out on it, they can fire them at any time. I mean, presumably you can't like call them out at 10 am and at 10:01 freak out that they haven't started treatment yet or anything idiotic, but yeah, they need to stop drinking and seek treatment immediately and never relapse to keep their jobs.

Click to expand...

Why don't people like you, you know, the people who get off on forcing other people to comply with your ideology, get together and donate your own money to an indemnity fund which will accept all responsibility for an accident that an alcoholic truck driver causes after relapsing from his period of abstinence. You blowharding about "doing the right thing" is easy to do when you don't have to shoulder any of the risk.

RiverDad said:

Why don't people like you, you know, the people who get off on forcing other people to comply with your ideology, get together and donate your own money to an indemnity fund which will accept all responsibility for an accident that an alcoholic truck driver causes after relapsing from his period of abstinence. You blowharding about "doing the right thing" is easy to do when you don't have to shoulder any of the risk.

Click to expand...

You mean auto-insurance and the court system?

You're still defaulting to this belief that someone who is an alcoholic is *drunk* right now - or that their behavior, ability to think, react in a dangerous driving situation - and so on - is effected *without* having alcohol in their system.

A non-alcoholic is just as much of a danger as an alcoholic with liquor in their system. It's the presence of the alcohol (and other substances, don't even need to just talk about alcoholism, here) that causes the problem. Not the mental desire to drink.

**** - I want a drink right freaking now. But I'm not DRUNK so I can drive to the store with my kids in the car without a worry or without stirring concern. Being so butt faced plastered daily 5 years ago does not affect how I can function at this moment.

RiverDad said:

Why don't people like you, you know, the people who get off on forcing other people to comply with your ideology, get together and donate your own money to an indemnity fund which will accept all responsibility for an accident that an alcoholic truck driver causes after relapsing from his period of abstinence. You blowharding about "doing the right thing" is easy to do when you don't have to shoulder any of the risk.

Click to expand...

What is the problem with setting minimum standards for the socially responsible behavior of corporations? Corporations are supposed to be tools people use to better the world for people, not the other way around...

Aunt Spiker said:

You mean auto-insurance and the court system?

You're still defaulting to this belief that someone who is an alcoholic is *drunk* right now - or that their behavior, ability to think, react in a dangerous driving situation - and so on - is effected *without* having alcohol in their system.

A non-alcoholic is just as much of a danger as an alcoholic with liquor in their system. It's the presence of the alcohol (and other substances, don't even need to just talk about alcoholism, here) that causes the problem. Not the mental desire to drink.

**** - I want a drink right freaking now. But I'm not DRUNK so I can drive to the store with my kids in the car without a worry or without stirring concern. Being so butt faced plastered daily 5 years ago does not affect how I can function at this moment.

Click to expand...

We covered this without anyone rebutting the point. No, a sober driver is a sober driver. An alcoholic behind the wheel is always more of a risk for a company than someone who is not.

If a driver has an accident and is drunk, it's going to be bad for the company. If someone the company knows is an alcoholic gets drunk and has an accident it's going to be far worse for the company.

teamosil said:

Keep them in a job they might not be qualified for? What do you mean? They can fire them for not being qualified just like usual, they just can't fire them for drinking if they get treatment and manage to kick it.

Click to expand...

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.

Aunt Spiker said:

You mean auto-insurance and the court system?

You're still defaulting to this belief that someone who is an alcoholic is *drunk* right now - or that their behavior, ability to think, react in a dangerous driving situation - and so on - is effected *without* having alcohol in their system.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not doing that. Have you read this entire thread? Did you see the two comments I made which showed how companies are sued for the accidents caused by their employees and the specific charge is that the companies were reckless for entrusting the employee with the job and FOR HIRING THE EMPLOYEE.

If this truck driver ever causes an accident and alcohol is related to the accident, then this company is on the hook big time. Why? They do a good deed and they get shafted by the courts. Go back and read those two comments I offered.

1Perry said:

To argue that government agencies don't change their tactics because on the administration in power is a fallacious arguement. Of course they do. I've not searched to see if the current administration has had any input here but administrations certainly do have an impact of what will be addressed and how it will be.

Nobody would argue that INS doesn't act differently under Obama than they would under say, Ron Paul.

Click to expand...

Okay, so on the topic of 'tactics' changing because of the administration in power & since you mention Ron Paul: where were the Libertarians/TP when Bush was spending more on Social programs then any other GOP president? Why were they silent when the 'Bush' Government 'forced' them to help others by dumping LOADS of money into welfare programs? Even if the answer is that Obama "changed the tactics" and is spending "more" than Bush...no one said a single thing about Bush's spending being unconstitutional. No one says the Government is wrong in 'forcing' citizens to fund the military industrial complex, etc.

I'd not have the opinion of the GOP/TP/Libertarians that I do, when it comes to helping others, if they had shown the same discord for Bush when he threw money around and expected everyone to fund social programs and two wars. If they could show even an ounce of consistency in what they stand for, people might believe the Patriotism.

So yes, agencies change with the Admin, sure, but the Constitution stays the same. If something is unconstitutional now, it was unconstitutional under Bush.

Obviously People change because of the Administration in Power as well.

I agree there are flaws with our Government. But I think it would be better if we found a way, as united people, to reform our Federal Government rather than dissemble it. People dont trust that States can handle things on their own. And no one seems to know what a "private organization" is past being a "private organization"... so it's not even an option.
IMO, "The People" would pick a Progressive candidate over a Libertarian one. Libertarians seem too left and their answers are rather vague..

SeattleRain said:

Okay, so on the topic of 'tactics' changing because of the administration in power & since you mention Ron Paul: where were the Libertarians/TP when Bush was spending more on Social programs then any other GOP president? Why were they silent when the 'Bush' Government 'forced' them to help others by dumping LOADS of money into welfare programs? Even if the answer is that Obama "changed the tactics" and is spending "more" than Bush...no one said a single thing about Bush's spending being unconstitutional. No one says the Government is wrong in 'forcing' citizens to fund the military industrial complex, etc.

Click to expand...

O.K. do you want to discuss what we were discussing or discuss Bush? What exactly does this have with my point? No, I do not wish to go off topic. If you wish to discuss this fine, I'll discuss it, but not here.

So yes, agencies change with the Admin, sure, but the Constitution stays the same. If something is unconstitutional now, it was unconstitutional under Bush.

Click to expand...

So we now agree that your earlier description might not be quite correct? That this might have been done under the instructions of the current administration?

I agree there are flaws with our Government. But I think it would be better if we found a way, as united people, to reform our Federal Government rather than dissemble it. People dont trust that States can handle things on their own. And no one seems to know what a "private organization" is past being a "private organization"... so it's not even an option.
IMO, "The People" would pick a Progressive candidate over a Libertarian one. Libertarians seem too left and their answers are rather vague..

Click to expand...

Some things need transformed and some need dissembled.

Tigger said:

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.

Click to expand...

You guys are really fixating on this scenario where they need to switch jobs... That is a very oddball exception to the rule. Virtually always they would just keep them in the same job. The law makes exceptions for safety concerns, in which case they can be fired. The only time this oddball scenario would come up is if they employer thinks there is a safety concern that the EEOC doesn't think is legit... So to evaluate the policy based primarily on this 1 in a million quirky scenario makes no sense. The solution to these kinds of exceptions is either for the EEOC to expand its safety exception or for employers not to overreact. I don't know. But either way, evaluating the policy on this bizarre exception, that's like deciding what house you want to buy based primarily on whether or not they previous owner is willing to leave their door mat behind for you.

teamosil said:

You guys are really fixating on this scenario where they need to switch jobs... That is a very oddball exception to the rule. Virtually always they would just keep them in the same job. The law makes exceptions for safety concerns, in which case they can be fired. The only time this oddball scenario would come up is if they employer thinks there is a safety concern that the EEOC doesn't think is legit... So to evaluate the policy based primarily on this 1 in a million quirky scenario makes no sense. The solution to these kinds of exceptions is either for the EEOC to expand its safety exception or for employers not to overreact. I don't know. But either way, evaluating the policy on this bizarre exception, that's like deciding what house you want to buy based primarily on whether or not they previous owner is willing to leave their door mat behind for you.

Click to expand...

So a company is supposed to maintain an individual with a known drinking problem in a position where they are required to drive a vehicle? Are you NUTS? Think about the potential liability of that for just a couple seconds.

Tigger said:

So a company is supposed to maintain an individual with a known drinking problem in a position where they are required to drive a vehicle? Are you NUTS? Think about the potential liability of that for just a couple seconds.

Click to expand...

What? I'm not saying that. Re-read my post.

Ockham said:

I do believe the employer policy should stand in this case, and the Fox story identifies the Obama policies, which are pushed through his administration to his appointees. It's not only a fair assessment but an accurate one.

Click to expand...

I agree the employer policy should stand in this case.

I disagree that Fox presented it clearly regarding "Obama admin sues".

In fact, as I pointed out it was enacted in 2008 under a different administration .That driver used that Act to make his own personal case. Please link me directly to something that shows Obama sued or support your premise that Fox is reporting correctly he directly initiated or his admin sued this company?

Again, the many points made about ETOH addiction are well understood by me as well so those who made those points I listened carefully and I do understand however I would rule on the side of the trucking company in this specific case. One reason being ... he does not work under supervision and could harm others.

Back to the Fox reporting ... they took the case reported from source that I linked ... and added Obama admin sues ... Ockham could you support your premise that Fox News has any basis to this claim?
[/QUOTE]

Dion said:

I agree the employer policy should stand in this case.

I disagree that Fox presented it clearly regarding "Obama admin sues".

In fact, as I pointed out it was enacted in 2008 under a different administration .That driver used that Act to make his own personal case. Please link me directly to something that shows Obama sued or support your premise that Fox is reporting correctly he directly initiated or his admin sued this company?

Click to expand...

EEOC said:

The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) was enacted on September 25, 2008, and became effective on January 1, 2009. The law made a number of significant changes to the definition of “disability” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). It also directed the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to amend its ADA regulations to reflect the changes made by the ADAAA. The EEOC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on September 23, 2009. The final regulations were approved by a bipartisan vote and were published in the Federal Register on March 25, 2011.

Click to expand...

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

Dion said:

Again, the many points made about ETOH addiction are well understood by me as well so those who made those points I listened carefully and I do understand however I would rule on the side of the trucking company in this specific case. One reason being ... he does not work under supervision and could harm others.

Click to expand...

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

Dion said:

Back to the Fox reporting ... they took the case reported from source that I linked ... and added Obama admin sues ... Ockham could you support your premise that Fox News has any basis to this claim?

Click to expand...

See my prior posts on the subject in this thread.

Ockham said:

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
.

Click to expand...

Here from your fact sheet;

The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) was enacted on September 25, 2008, and became effective on January 1, 2009. The law made a number of significant changes to the definition of “disability” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). It also directed the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to amend its ADA regulations to reflect the changes made by the ADAAA. The EEOC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on September 23, 2009. The final regulations were approved by a bipartisan vote and were published in the Federal Register on March 25, 2011.

Click to expand...

The driver contacted the EEOC and has a fair case against the trucking firm ... however there are mitigating factors and I personally would rule in favor of the trucking firm despite the fact the driver had no violations and openly admitted he thought he might have a problem with ETOH.

However the ACT in which he used for his case was enacted in 2008 and became effective january1, 2009 ... long before Obama took office. A bipartisan vote on the final regulations was approved and published in 2011.

The leader to the news feed said Obama admin sues. You are not stupid ... this is a thinly veiled attempt for those unable to understand or critically think to paint a fraudulent picture of the news story.

You know it and I know it and so does anyone reading this that the driver felt discriminated since he came forward with his problem and sought help and was demoted. I applaud the driver yet again, I agree the company has a right to have strict polices on any condition ...disabled or not that impacts safety.

In fact, the "story" was taken from a hack site that actually said "Obama wants drunk driver on the road".

To Fox News ... (rolls eyes) ... not everyone gets caught in emotion of the story and cusses out that damn black Obama for "wantin drunks on ther road". Some of us actually process all of it.

In fact, they wanted to discuss the disease and how such cases should be handled Fox wold have reported it accurately. It was a thinly veiled ruse under the guise of a story.

Interesting that Fox News chose not to explore the ACT this individual is using to sue his employer. Instead ... Obama sues? I knew Fox catered to the uneducated crowd ... yet did they think Americans would be that gullible?

Press Conference and House Vote - House Leaders, Disability Community, Business Community to Hold ADA Amendments Act of 2008 Press Conference. - American Association of People with Disabilities

Here is the ACT amendment. Nothing has been amended under alcoholism since 2008. That employee (who sounds reasonably responsible) sought help for what he felt was ETOH issues with his Employees Assistance Program. He had never had a violation.

I would rule with the employer's right to restrict his job duties; however the employee feeling his rights had been violated sought legal help from the EEOC.

The Americans with Disabilities Act: Applying Performance and Conduct Standards to Employees with Disabilities

Fox News and various right hack site are reporting this case with headlines such as Obama sues for drunk etc ... Does anyone else agree this is intentionally misleading reporting?

Ockham .. hacks use thinly veiled stories with partial facts. Fox might be leader of this tabloid game ... yet most of the corporate networks are guilty.

It would be just as ludicrous to say GW Bush supports suing trucking company since he signed the law or that Boehner wants drunks on the road as he supported this amendment.

Seriously the opener to your link ...Obama admin suing trucking company was thinly veiled new flash.

I am not sure but I do know that a lot of whinos draw a check every month due to their drinking. It pisses me off as they wanna give sober people with real medical issues a hard time but giving these folks a check? I don't like it as the only thing wrong with them is their desire to drink plus a lot of times they do work under the table via construction work. There is a place in my town to where all the wineos wait each morning to be picked up to go to work under the table and these places pick them up in trucks to do side jobs and labor and pay them at the end of the day. Also they drink from sunrise to sunset. Cannot be safe but guess it does not matter as it is cheap labor. They mainly show up when there disability checks have been ran through on drinking and a lot of them also smoke of the crack.

It is not that I do not feel for them as alcoholism is a disease. But it is one that can be helped if you are willing to get treatment and it is a somewhat self inflicted disease (even though there is proof that it is gentic too or can be). What bugs me is so many folks that need disabilty through no fault of their own but are denied yet here are these folks drinking themselves to death get these checks.