|
|
|
|||
| Go to page 1~2~3~4 [Next] | ||||||||||
Woland Special user 680 Posts 
|
And you wonder why nobody is hiring?
Quote:
The federal government has sued a major trucking company for its firing of driver with an admitted alcohol abuse problem. Quote:
If the EEOC prevails, of course, it will mean that Old Dominion will still be liable both for any damage to life or property that results from a potential relapse by one of its recovering drivers – which in turn increases the risks involved in investment in the company – and for the cost of trying to ensure that such damage never occurs. All of these new burdens will raise Old Dominion’s cost of doing business, and hence the cost of everything they transport. And all of this can’t possibly ensure that a recovering driver does not relapse without the company’s knowledge. The cultural background for this sort of economy-destroying over-regulation is so ingrained in our world that almost nobody notices it. It is a kind of folk-marxism. As in Liam Neeson's recent film, "Unknown" in which a gang of ex-STASI assassins are set to blow up the Berlin Adlon hotel, making it look like their target is an innocent, philanthropic Saudi prince, when they were really hired (by un-named agribusiness corporations) to assassinate a plant geneticist whose top-secret high-yield, disease-resistant corn will save the world from famine but harm corporate profitability when he makes it available to all for free . . . . Meanwhile, of course, in the real world, it is the leftists in control of the EUSSR whose "green" policies prevent any such genetically-modified agricultural product from being imported into their markets, thereby dooming third-world farmers to poverty and famine . . . |
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts
|
I swear I've not taken over Woland's account.
Also, I wondered when they would start dealing with the contradictions caused by addictions and disabilities regulations. Still waiting for them to realize not allowing alcoholics to get liver transplants is also "discrimination" based on a disability.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
|
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts
|
So employers should be able to fire employees because of things that they might do?
John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
|
Woland Special user 680 Posts
|
Let's not get all hypothetical just yet. In this case, the truck driver's main responsibility is transporting the truck & its load over the road without destroying the load, the truck, or other people's lives and properties. That an alcoholic presents a high risk in this situation is evident on the face of it. Would you hire an alcoholic to chauffeur your children? Would you insure someone who did? In the current liability climate, hiring an alcoholic to drive a truck amounts to insane negligence.
|
|||||||||
|
Woland Special user 680 Posts
|
According to UNOS, more than 7500 alcoholics received a liver transplant between 1992 and 2001 - nearly 20% of all liver transplants during that period.
|
|||||||||
|
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2011-09-05 13:54, Magnus Eisengrim wrote: Why not?
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
|
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2011-09-05 14:07, Woland wrote: There are still plenty rejected specifically for being alcoholics.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
|
Woland Special user 680 Posts
|
Many factors are involved in a solid organ transplant, and each case has to be judged on the merits. There are some people who because of continuing and ongoing abuse of alcohol and other drugs, failure to adhere to a medical regimen, and unwillingness to accept medical advice, are just not good risks for a life-threatening procedure such as liver transplantation and the subsequent immunosuppression that will be required.
|
|||||||||
|
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2011-09-05 17:37, gdw wrote: Just out of curiosity, do you think workers should have any rights in the workplace? If so, what?
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
|
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2011-09-05 13:54, Magnus Eisengrim wrote: If you hired a babysitter or a daycare operator, then found out that that person was a heroin addict, should you have to keep that person employed ad infinitum?
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
|
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts
|
The DSM4's definition of "alcohol abuse," btw, is "repeated use despite recurrent adverse consequences." If that's not enough to cost you a job DRIVING TRUCKS, it sure ought to be. Any the very least, any government organization that mandates his retaining his job ought to indemnify the company for any damages he causes in the future if he's kept on. Of course, that indemnification would just be paid for by tax dollars, so...
Maybe the EEOC could give him a desk job at his current salary.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
|
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2011-09-05 20:02, LobowolfXXX wrote: I'm not sure if you mean a casual babysitter or a nanny-type, as the situations are different. Let's look at the daycare worker. If we can imagine the highly unlikely situation in which the addict never has heroin in her system, and never has her work impaired in any way, I might not like it, but I don't see that I have a reason to fire this person. I don't know if it's still the case, but AA members used to say that they will always be alcoholics, even if they never drink again. If they call themselves alcoholics on a questionnaire, should they be fired? There is a small amount of information to go on in the original link, but from what little there is, the case appears to be that the person "reported to the company that he believed he had an alcohol problem"--this hardly seems sufficient to fire the guy. Keep in mind that if more relevant information is forthcoming, opinions might change. John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
|
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2011-09-05 20:09, Magnus Eisengrim wrote: If it's "hardly sufficient to fire the guy," then it shouldn't be sufficient to qualify as a disability. Per the DSM-4, "alcoholism" was split into alcohol abuse and alcohol dependency, which includes alcohol abuse. So the medically recognized categories both include the "repeated use despite recurrent adverse consequences." So if he's a 'colloquial' alcoholic (e.g. the AA guy who hasn't had a drink in a year, but would still be considered an alcoholic), then he DOESN'T qualify under the DSM-4, as he's not exhibiting "repeated use." Conversely, if recurrent adverse consequences aren't stopping him from drinking, then he shouldn't be driving a truck.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
|
Woland Special user 680 Posts
|
It's interesting that our discussion seems to be focused on the reasonableness of the specific issue in this case, i.e. whether an admitted alcoholic should be driving a truck, but not so much on the propriety of the federal government micro-managing an individual enterprise to such a degree.
I doubt that is one of the governmental powers enumerated in the Constitution. |
|||||||||
|
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2011-09-05 19:18, Woland wrote: Woland, I'm not arguing against it, the same as I'm not arguing against firing someone for being an alcoholic, but the govt is protecting people now in the latter as being discrimination on the basis of a disorder, but not the former.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
|
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2011-09-05 19:42, Magnus Eisengrim wrote: They have the same rights inherent to them by their sovereignty over their own bodies, but outside of that, the "workplace" is someone else's property, and the worker has obligations, responsibilities, and privileges, all of which they have agreed to or negotiated.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
|
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2011-09-05 11:31, Woland wrote: FWIW, a lot of what The Foundry / Heritage.org is reporting appears to be factually incorrect, and the headline is misleading. For one thing, as far as I can see the driver wasn't fired. For another, one of the main problems cited in the suit was "conditioning reassignment to NON-driving positions on the enrollment in an alcohol treatment program" (I guess the point being, why is the treatment program necessary for a NON-driving position given that the employee had worked for the company for five years without incident). See: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-16-11d.cfm
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
|
|||||||||
|
Woland Special user 680 Posts
|
Well gdw, I think in most cases in which an alcoholic was being considered for a liver transplant, it would be difficult to prove that the case was deferred because of his or her alcoholism. Just being considered for a transplant, and being put anywhere on the transplant list, would prevent the charge from being made, no?
|
|||||||||
|
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts
|
Woland, I may have been remembering things and recalled reading an article complaining about alcoholics receiving liver transplants, and referring to people defending it as alcoholism is considered a disease.
(Possibly) my bad.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
|
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2011-09-05 11:31, Woland wrote: So let me get this straight--employers have stopped hiring because they don't want to hire alcoholics. Were such a rule overturned, we would then be living in boom times. Got it.
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » More good news for employers! (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page 1~2~3~4 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Sep 5, 2011 03:31 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.04 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 
|