Obama Administration sues truck company for firing alcoholic driver

Obviously we don't want them drinking while driving, but being an alcoholic doesn't mean they are automatically drinking while they work. Being an alcoholic is not illegal. Don't get pissed at me. I didn't write the law or influence your ****ty logic.

The issue is that they were terminated though and not for violating a company policy that was compliant with Federal Law. That would be like terminating someone because they had cancer. I don't know about your company, but mine would try to get someone help. Of course my company and the owners give a **** about it's people. They're not going to make someone who needs help pay for the help they can't afford, but not until they demote them.

As long as he is not caught drunk, behind the wheel (and you don't have to be an alcoholic for that to happen) I fail to see where the company had the right to terminate the employee.

This is a FoxNews article, so we know it's not the whole story anyway. This is a link to the original article, but with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission instead of "Obama Administration" at the beginning. I wonder why?

That's "Fair and Balanced" for you...

 

clearly companies should be able to fire people for any reason they want, including cancer. but you seem to know alot about this. apparently they are writing 13 page articles about everything these days.

 

i know, who can really be bothered to read 13 pages! do you know how many that is? MLU can manage but he is an avid reader and autodidact.

 

Yeah some of Foxnew's stories are rather long.

 

seems to me this kind of action (by the company) discourages people from seeking treatment for alcoholism. wouldnt they rather have someone admit they have a problem and take care of it, than someone cover it up and continue to engage in behavior that could bite them in the ass?

i would rather have a recovering alcoholic employee that was sober, than someone who refused to see they had a problem and continued to drink, possibly effecting their job.

 

The state of Arkansas is known around here as a "right-to-work" state. Evidently a company can fire you without cause and there ain't sh*t you can do about it. Some of the bigger corporate companies who's local offices etc. get micromanaged actually will usually go through the process of their own policies, but most places will just terminate you.

I guess this is one way they're trying to create or save jobs? By tying companies' hands?

 

Which is exactly the line of thinking every company I have ever worked for had.

Aren't most states right to work states? It's pretty common so it has to at least be almost half of them. It doesn't mean what you (and I at one time) think it means. You can't fire anyone you want for any reason you want, especially if that reason runs contrary to Federal right to work rules and expect no consequences. Even if you do have the right to terminate someone, they have the right to sue for wrongful termination. Companies go through their policies to build a case in advance against potential wrongful termination lawsuits. It's smart business strategy.

Regardless of the outcome, there is a case to be made here. If he has not been found under the effects of alcohol or admitting to be under the effects of alcohol while on the job, I fail to see any wrongdoing on the part of the employee. It's a **** move on the part of the trucking company.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves for siding with a company that has demoted one of their employees who is in good standing and forcing a substantial pay cut on them because they had the courage to admit they had a problem and seek help for it.