Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Annoyed]

why would the company give a damn? it's legal that's all that matters

But it's NOT legal to fire someone who is in treatment for alcoholism for being a drunk.

Special protections for certain groups, remember?

[SoulReaver]

But it's NOT legal to fire someone who is in treatment for alcoholism for being a drunk.

no but it is legal to fire someone who just happens to be a drunk in treatment for alcoholism

- are you an alcoholic undergoing treatment?
- yes
- ok no biggie. btw you're fired
- for being an alcoholic?
- nah in fact I'd already forgotten that. you're fired just 'cause. cheers

it's all subtle see but in the end the law makes things very simple for the employer

edit> missed that one:

A private sector employer is NOT a social services organization. It's mission in life is to make the most profit possible for its owners, investors, etc.

hoho this could be generalized to every single person
everyone's goal - unless their name is Jesus Christ or something - is to make their own life as profitable/fulfilling as possible. others are irrelevant or at best come second place
best way to do this would be to ditch Law altogether then :|

[Falcon Horus]

But it's NOT legal to fire someone who is in treatment for alcoholism for being a drunk.

Unless he/she is not taking the treatment to heart, and still arrives drunk at work. Depending on the sort of work, this could mean endangering their colleagues to completing work filled with mistakes. Both would be cause for dismissal.

However, it is indeed not legal to fire someone who is in treatment for an alcohol problem. In fact, it shows they are committed which is a good quality to have as far as employers are concerned.

[Annoyed]

But the point I make is valid; a group of people, in this case, people with disabilities, (and alcohol/drug abuse is under that umbrella) have gotten themselves special treatment, over and above the treatment accorded to "ordinary" folks.

[Gatefan1976]

But the point I make is valid; a group of people, in this case, people with disabilities, (and alcohol/drug abuse is under that umbrella) have gotten themselves special treatment, over and above the treatment accorded to "ordinary" folks.

If you had a problem, would you like that to be considered?

[Falcon Horus]

People with disabilities are people too, and an employer has to be able to accommodate their shortcomings in order to hire them. They can't do every job, but they are quite capable. The job may have to be adjusted but they are good employees as well.

If you promise the employers a bonus of any kind, they'll be far quicker to hire this "special group". They too have a right to a good job (and I have three colleagues who belong in a "special group" and they are awesome, hard working people who can always count on to help out if I need help).

[Gatefan1976]

People with disabilities are people too, and an employer has to be able to accommodate their shortcomings in order to hire them. They can't do every job, but they are quite capable. The job may have to be adjusted but they are good employees as well.

Are you trying to equate experience to ability here??
You communist!!

If you promise the employers a bonus of any kind, they'll be far quicker to hire this "special group". They too have a right to a good job (and I have three colleagues who belong in a "special group" and they are awesome, hard working people who can always count on to help out if I need help).

Bonuses are special treatment, Tax Deductions are far nicer

[Annoyed]

If you had a problem, would you like that to be considered?

No. To be blunt. If I screw up and misuse alcohol to the point where it affects my job, that's on me. It is no one else's responsibility to provide for me. I am the one that chooses to take a drink.

I understand about people with legitimate disabilities, their needs should be accommodated within reason. A blind person cannot be a bus driver, for example.

But in my view, addiction is NOT a legitimate disability, no matter how often the people who make their livings "treating it" claim it is. It's simply a poor choice, lack of willpower, or whatever.

And yet these folks have carved themselves out an exemption to the rules the rest of us have to live by.

[Gatefan1976]

No. To be blunt. If I screw up and misuse alcohol to the point where it affects my job, that's on me. It is no one else's responsibility to provide for me.

That is not what I asked, but nice try.

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

I want to live in Annoyed's world. Everything is black or white. There's a simple solution to everything.

[Falcon Horus]

Are you trying to equate experience to ability here??
You communist!!

I look good in red.

Bonuses are special treatment, Tax Deductions are far nicer

Lowering the cost of labor.

[Gatefan1976]

No. To be blunt. If I screw up and misuse alcohol to the point where it affects my job, that's on me. It is no one else's responsibility to provide for me. I am the one that chooses to take a drink.

I understand about people with legitimate disabilities, their needs should be accommodated within reason. A blind person cannot be a bus driver, for example.

But in my view, addiction is NOT a legitimate disability, no matter how often the people who make their livings "treating it" claim it is. It's simply a poor choice, lack of willpower, or whatever.

And yet these folks have carved themselves out an exemption to the rules the rest of us have to live by.

Your original was far more presidential...........

[Annoyed]

I'm not running for President. Wouldn't want the job.

[garhkal]

Unless he/she is not taking the treatment to heart, and still arrives drunk at work. Depending on the sort of work, this could mean endangering their colleagues to completing work filled with mistakes. Both would be cause for dismissal.

Agreed. I've known plenty of guys in the mil who showed up to work still drunk (or at least smelling of alcohol) who got taken to medical for an evaluation, then got promptly wrote up..





Now back to the topic on false claims, and punishment for that person. It was reported yesterday that the gay guy who claimed Wholefoods was homophobic and sold him a bunk cake, finally admitted that he made it all up..
So what should happen to HIM??
I also note that while his initial claims against wholefoods was all over the news, his 'retractions and admitting to being a liar' have NOT had anywhere near as much media attention..
Is that just cause the media is so damn liberal?

[pookey]

Whats a bunk cake and why is that homophobic dear ?