Here's what is wrong with the country....

RobTheDrummer · Post by **RobTheDrummer** » Monday Sep 05, 2011

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-16-11d.cfm

Apparently the government can sue for suspending a guy because he's an alcoholic....

f.sciarrillo · Post by **f.sciarrillo** » Monday Sep 05, 2011

Being an alcoholic, and/or drug addict, are/is self inflicted. Therefore they are not disabilities.

[edit] After thinking about this. It doesn't say anything about the guy ever showing up at work drunk, or driving the vehicles while intoxicated. Therefore, they had no cause to fire him. They should have went through the proper channels instead of jumping the gun. After talking to a lawyer friend of mine, that is grounds for a lawsuit. [/edit]

RobTheDrummer · Post by **RobTheDrummer** » Monday Sep 05, 2011

f.sciarrillo wrote:Being an alcoholic, and/or drug addict, are/is self inflicted. Therefore they are not disabilities.

[edit] After thinking about this. It doesn't say anything about the guy ever showing up at work drunk, or driving the vehicles while intoxicated. Therefore, they had no cause to fire him. They should have went through the proper channels instead of jumping the gun. After talking to a lawyer friend of mine, that is grounds for a lawsuit. [/edit]

Actually, there was another article that said the company suspended him and offered to send him to treatment.....right here it is. I don't give a shit, if you are an alcoholic and driving truck, that's just disaster waiting to happen. Then if the company were to do nothing, and the drunk killed someone, then you bet your ass, they would be looking at a law suit either way. This is the kind of shit that hurts American Jobs, suing suing and more suing.....it's totally nuts.

https://www.disability.gov/viewResource?id=14266416

ToonaRockGuy · Post by **ToonaRockGuy** » Monday Sep 05, 2011

I tore my calf muscle last night running to the car to put up the windows during the rain. I'm suing God for making it rain.

onegunguitar · Post by **onegunguitar** » Monday Sep 05, 2011

ToonaRockGuy wrote:I tore my calf muscle last night running to the car to put up the windows during the rain. I'm suing God for making it rain.

Blame GW,they had to have something to do it with it.

onegunguitar · Post by **onegunguitar** » Monday Sep 05, 2011

This is really what's wrong with the country-he's still the President

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Monday Sep 05, 2011

RobTheDrummer wrote:http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-16-11d.cfm

Apparently the government can sue for suspending a guy because he's an alcoholic....

As usual, you got it wrong again. The EEOC is NOT suing the company "for suspending a guy because he is an alcoholic". And all you other "what's wrong with this country" "conservatives" jump on the bandwagon without thought or research. THAT is what is really wrong with our country. Frank actually out-thought the rest of you.

I agree with the premise that a self induced disability should not be a legal disability. However that disability has NOTHING to do with this case. (Damn, do some research when you post crap or support crap). The case has NOTHING to do with alcoholic disability.

The case is about them permanently taking away his job AFTER treatment. If he is treated and can prove on a regular basis that he no longer uses alcohol, he cannot be lawfully permanently terminated from his job.

"According to the EEOC’s suit (Civil Action No. 2:11-CV-02153-PKH in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas), the driver at the Fort Smith location had worked for the company for five years without incident. In late June 2009, the employee reported to the company that he believed he had an alcohol problem. Under U.S. Department of Transportation regulations, the employer suspended the employee from his driving position and referred him for substance abuse counseling. However, the employer also informed the driver that the employer would never return him to a driving position, even upon the successful completion of a counseling program."

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Monday Sep 05, 2011

Why doesn't this private company have to right to hire or fire anyone they want? If they were a government owned company, they the EEOC would have some legal bearing, but a private company should tell them to shove it.

A trucking company has to be insured up the wazoo against accidents. They are just protecting themselves and all the other employees by not having drunks driving their trucks. If a bunch of drunks have some accidents it could put the company and all of its other employees out of work.

It said he could not come back to a driving job, they did not fire him outright.

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Monday Sep 05, 2011

undercoverjoe wrote:Why doesn't this private company have to right to hire or fire anyone they want? If they were a government owned company, they the EEOC would have some legal bearing, but a private company should tell them to shove it.

A trucking company has to be insured up the wazoo against accidents. They are just protecting themselves and all the other employees by not having drunks driving their trucks. If a bunch of drunks have some accidents it could put the company and all of its other employees out of work.

It said he could not come back to a driving job, they did not fire him outright.

The laws were created out of necessity, just like most laws.

I doubt he wants a job as a laborer at minimum wage.

Should anyone who ever took any drug be permanently removed from their job ? If he is reformed, he is no longer a threat. Or are you saying that anyone who was once addicted to a drug should never drive again because of the danger?

If you read the story, the government requires the company to suspend him until he is reformed. So where do you get this "drunks driving trucks" story ?

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Monday Sep 05, 2011

Hawk wrote:
undercoverjoe wrote:Why doesn't this private company have to right to hire or fire anyone they want? If they were a government owned company, they the EEOC would have some legal bearing, but a private company should tell them to shove it.

A trucking company has to be insured up the wazoo against accidents. They are just protecting themselves and all the other employees by not having drunks driving their trucks. If a bunch of drunks have some accidents it could put the company and all of its other employees out of work.

It said he could not come back to a driving job, they did not fire him outright.
The laws were created out of necessity, just like most laws.

I doubt he wants a job as a laborer at minimum wage.

Should anyone who ever took any drug be permanently removed from their job ? If he is reformed, he is no longer a threat. Or are you saying that anyone who was once addicted to a drug should never drive again because of the danger?

If you read the story, the government requires the company to suspend him until he is reformed. So where do you get this "drunks driving trucks" story ?

What necessity, that all drunks should be allowed to drive large trucks at all times?

Why did you make up the part about minimum wage? I did not see that anywhere in the article.

Like alcohol, all drugs should be decriminalized. All companies should have the right to protect themselves from employees that threaten the safety of their business and other employees.

Where does this corrupt government get off telling any private company what to do???????????????????

Sports teams get rid of employees who gamble. Should the government step in and make sports teams keep players and coaches who bet against their own teams? After all, gambling is an addictive disease too.

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Monday Sep 05, 2011

undercoverjoe wrote:
Hawk wrote:
undercoverjoe wrote:Why doesn't this private company have to right to hire or fire anyone they want? If they were a government owned company, they the EEOC would have some legal bearing, but a private company should tell them to shove it.

A trucking company has to be insured up the wazoo against accidents. They are just protecting themselves and all the other employees by not having drunks driving their trucks. If a bunch of drunks have some accidents it could put the company and all of its other employees out of work.

It said he could not come back to a driving job, they did not fire him outright.
The laws were created out of necessity, just like most laws.

I doubt he wants a job as a laborer at minimum wage.

Should anyone who ever took any drug be permanently removed from their job ? If he is reformed, he is no longer a threat. Or are you saying that anyone who was once addicted to a drug should never drive again because of the danger?

If you read the story, the government requires the company to suspend him until he is reformed. So where do you get this "drunks driving trucks" story ?
What necessity, that all drunks should be allowed to drive large trucks at all times?

Why did you make up the part about minimum wage? I did not see that anywhere in the article.

Like alcohol, all drugs should be decriminalized. All companies should have the right to protect themselves from employees that threaten the safety of their business and other employees.

Where does this corrupt government get off telling any private company what to do???????????????????

Sports teams get rid of employees who gamble. Should the government step in and make sports teams keep players and coaches who bet against their own teams? After all, gambling is an addictive disease too.

No, the necessity of frivolous demotions. The key word is reformed Joe. No longer a drunk.

I made up minimum wage as a point that the man wouldn't want a job other than what he does. You knew that.

The companies already DO have that right Joe. Did you read, "The government REQUIRES suspension"? I mean, come on Joe, do I have to explain everything ?

Joe ? Should anyone who was ever addicted to a drug be permanently banned from driving ?

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Monday Sep 05, 2011

undercoverjoe wrote:
Sports teams get rid of employees who gamble. Should the government step in and make sports teams keep players and coaches who bet against their own teams? After all, gambling is an addictive disease too.

Joe, please try thinking things through...

If they are on a team and get caught gambling they lose their job. Permanently. If a man gambles on sports then he hurts the team and the employer.

Just as if the man had been drinking and driving he would have lost his job. Permanently. No law suit period.

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Monday Sep 05, 2011

Hawk wrote:
Joe ? Should anyone who was ever addicted to a drug be permanently banned from driving ?

No. Should a company have a right to fire anyone they deem a risk to their business? Yes.

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Monday Sep 05, 2011

In a truly free market enterprise system, a private company should have the right to hire and fire at their discretion.

The government can only do 2 things in a private free market enterprise system:

1. Get in the way
2. Get out of the way

RobTheDrummer · Post by **RobTheDrummer** » Tuesday Sep 06, 2011

It's a condition of employment, period. You cannot be an alcoholic and drive truck. Why does the government need to get involved? At least the employer was willing to send him to get treatment. They could have just canned his ass, and said have a good life! They are a privately owned business, therefore it's their discretion to hire or fire anyone for any reason. They will win this case, no doubt. Why can't people be held accountable and responsible for their actions? "poor me, I can't quit drinking and lost my job, it's all their fault!"

Yea, makes sense to me.....

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Tuesday Sep 06, 2011

RobTheDrummer wrote:It's a condition of employment, period. You cannot be an alcoholic and drive truck. Why does the government need to get involved? At least the employer was willing to send him to get treatment. They could have just canned his ass, and said have a good life! They are a privately owned business, therefore it's their discretion to hire or fire anyone for any reason. They will win this case, no doubt. Why can't people be held accountable and responsible for their actions? "poor me, I can't quit drinking and lost my job, it's all their fault!"

Yea, makes sense to me.....

Rob, no where does it say anything about an alocholic driving a truck. He is a former addict and is not drinking and driving. I got all of my info from your links. Read your own links.

The law is simple. A company cannot discriminate against former drug addicts.

We all know Joe prefers discrimination by employers...

"Why can't people be held accountable and be responsible for their actions" ? He is being responsible by admitting to a problem and going to treatment. (They didn't "send" him, they refered him for treatment).

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Tuesday Sep 06, 2011

Hawk wrote:
RobTheDrummer wrote:It's a condition of employment, period. You cannot be an alcoholic and drive truck. Why does the government need to get involved? At least the employer was willing to send him to get treatment. They could have just canned his ass, and said have a good life! They are a privately owned business, therefore it's their discretion to hire or fire anyone for any reason. They will win this case, no doubt. Why can't people be held accountable and responsible for their actions? "poor me, I can't quit drinking and lost my job, it's all their fault!"

Yea, makes sense to me.....
Rob, no where does it say anything about an alocholic driving a truck. He is a former addict and is not drinking and driving. I got all of my info from your links. Read your own links.

The law is simple. A company cannot discriminate against former drug addicts.

We all know Joe prefers discrimination by employers...

"Why can't people be held accountable and be responsible for their actions" ? He is being responsible by admitting to a problem and going to treatment. (They didn't "send" him, they refered him for treatment).

Damned right I want employers to discriminate. I want trucking companies to discriminate against alcoholics. I want them to be able to discriminate against anyone they feel will not help their enterprise. Should they hire the blind? Bill would say so. How about quadriplegics? Bill would get the government involved here too.

Bill gets off on his fascist government having power over private institutions and enterprises.

RobTheDrummer · Post by **RobTheDrummer** » Tuesday Sep 06, 2011

Bill, you must also understand that the information the EEOC obtains is from the alcoholic who lost his job...here's Old Dominions Eligibility requirements..

http://www.odfl.com/employment/qualDriversCompany.shtml
Pay attention to #12.

Also, here's the quote from EEOC site...

"In late June 2009, the employee reported to the company that he believed he had an alcohol problem. Under U.S. Department of Transportation regulations, the employer suspended the employee from his driving position and referred him for substance abuse counseling. However, the employer also informed the driver that the employer would never return him to a driving position, even upon the successful completion of a counseling program."

The employer has the right to do this. Nowhere is there a law that says the man must keep his job for not meeting his conditions of employment. Also, I don't know why the ADA considers alcohol a disability. It's just crazy! I guess any drug user now can't be fired from anywhere because they have a disability, and you can't fire them because you will be sued....This kind of shit opens up a whole can of worms, and yet the gov't is talking about how to create jobs....Well, how about you quit suing businesses?

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Tuesday Sep 06, 2011

RobTheDrummer wrote:Bill, you must also understand that the information the EEOC obtains is from the alcoholic who lost his job...here's Old Dominions Eligibility requirements..

http://www.odfl.com/employment/qualDriversCompany.shtml
Pay attention to #12.

Also, here's the quote from EEOC site...

"In late June 2009, the employee reported to the company that he believed he had an alcohol problem. Under U.S. Department of Transportation regulations, the employer suspended the employee from his driving position and referred him for substance abuse counseling. However, the employer also informed the driver that the employer would never return him to a driving position, even upon the successful completion of a counseling program."

The employer has the right to do this. Nowhere is there a law that says the man must keep his job for not meeting his conditions of employment. Also, I don't know why the ADA considers alcohol a disability. It's just crazy! I guess any drug user now can't be fired from anywhere because they have a disability, and you can't fire them because you will be sued....This kind of shit opens up a whole can of worms, and yet the gov't is talking about how to create jobs....Well, how about you quit suing businesses?

Rob, I not only already read that, I posted it FOR YOU... (Which shows me you are arguing with me without reading my post

) THAT was my whole point. I don't know why alcoholism is a disability either. If you had read what I said, I disagreed with a self induced disability being a protected disability. Now research and find out how the lawyers made that happen.

Your thread is still wrong. They are NOT being sued for suspending a guy for being an alcoholic. They are being sued for discrimination against a former alcoholic.

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Tuesday Sep 06, 2011

undercoverjoe wrote:
Hawk wrote:
RobTheDrummer wrote:It's a condition of employment, period. You cannot be an alcoholic and drive truck. Why does the government need to get involved? At least the employer was willing to send him to get treatment. They could have just canned his ass, and said have a good life! They are a privately owned business, therefore it's their discretion to hire or fire anyone for any reason. They will win this case, no doubt. Why can't people be held accountable and responsible for their actions? "poor me, I can't quit drinking and lost my job, it's all their fault!"

Yea, makes sense to me.....
Rob, no where does it say anything about an alcoholic driving a truck. He is a former addict and is not drinking and driving. I got all of my info from your links. Read your own links.

The law is simple. A company cannot discriminate against former drug addicts.

We all know Joe prefers discrimination by employers...

"Why can't people be held accountable and be responsible for their actions" ? He is being responsible by admitting to a problem and going to treatment. (They didn't "send" him, they refered him for treatment).
Damned right I want employers to discriminate. I want trucking companies to discriminate against alcoholics. I want them to be able to discriminate against anyone they feel will not help their enterprise. Should they hire the blind? Bill would say so. How about quadriplegics? Bill would get the government involved here too.

Bill gets off on his fascist government having power over private institutions and enterprises.

They are NOT being sued for suspending a guy for being an alcoholic. They are being sued for discrimination against a former alcoholic.

If you had read what I said, I disagreed with a self induced disability being a protected disability. Now research and find out how the lawyers made that happen.

I want trucking companies to discriminate against alcoholics too Joe. Where the hell did I say otherwise ?

EDIT: Removed some true comments that were too negative...

Flaw · Post by **Flaw** » Tuesday Sep 06, 2011

Horrible forum topics is what is really wrong with this country....

bassist_25 · Post by **bassist_25** » Tuesday Sep 06, 2011

Jesus H. Christ people! It's called a bonafide occupational qualification, and I'm sure the the trucking company's counsel is going to argue that moving someone from operating a truck due to a history of alchoholism is a legitimate BFOQ. The gnashing of teeth can stop and reductio ad absurdum arguments can end. Pick up a labor law text book and read some case law. You'll get more answers from that rather than flaming each other on a message board about something you know little about.

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Tuesday Sep 06, 2011

Missed the point entirely. Original post about government wasting time and tax dollars going after a privately owned enterprise. Then some government fascist defend anything the government does, very similar to the Gibson Guitar case. Some here do not like government interference into private enterprise and some get off on a fascist government overexercising its power.

whitedevilone · Post by **whitedevilone** » Tuesday Sep 06, 2011

undercoverjoe wrote:Missed the point entirely. Original post about government wasting time and tax dollars going after a privately owned enterprise. Then some government fascist defend anything the government does, very similar to the Gibson Guitar case. Some here do not like government interference into private enterprise and some get off on a fascist government overexercising its power.

+1

RobTheDrummer · Post by **RobTheDrummer** » Wednesday Sep 07, 2011

If you go the EEOC website, there are literally hundreds of cases since last October! It's ridiculous!

ROCKPAGE

Here's what is wrong with the country....

Here's what is wrong with the country....

Re: Here's what is wrong with the country....