Despite President Obama's empty rhetoric about jobs, his appointees at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission are discouraging job creation by making sure that employers will be sued no matter what they do, such as ordering them to hire alcoholics to drive trucks and operate heavy machinery, even though such hires can later lead to costly lawsuits against employers by accident victims. Who would want to set up a business if doing so requires you to make risky, potentially-costly hiring decisions? (This is part of a pattern of economically-destructive decisions by the Obama Administration, whose stimulus package destroyed jobs in our export sector and wasted money on subsidies for overseas energy jobs at the expense of American workers, effectively outsourcing American jobs.)
The EEOC is now demanding that trucking companies like Old Dominion Freight Line not only hire and employ “recovering” alcoholics, but also to allow them to continue working as interstate truckers rather than being assigned “to a less safety-sensitive position.”
If this is true, it is mind boggling. Once again government sticking its neck into places it has no business being there. I can see this actually being the case as part of a political ploy to bring down the unemployment numbers. There is no doubt Obama is politically astute as well as crass. From what I've seen, he cares more about himself than he does America or its people. Shameful.
WayneH wrote: The examiner hires work-at-home writers who get paid by the number of views their story gets, fyi.
I guess recovering alcoholics should be on welfare, instead of working for a living, after reading the article.
Perhaps some of the writers on the examiner are recovering alcohols. :thumbsup:
I acknowledge not having read the article. It's the content that is the issue however. Clearly the issue is not whether recovering alcoholics should or should not work. Most of us will agree that having them work is better than not having them work. So in that regard, I'm certainly not supportive of the author's point of view given what you said. My main objection is two fold. First, that the government is dictating hiring practices. I've NEVER been in favor of filling quotas. Second, the biggest objection is having government insist on on job placements that any sane person would not condone. Hiring recovering alcoholics for truck driving jobs is simply irresponsible, especially if it is for cross country runs. It puts not only the company employing them at risk, but innocent people on the road, should a recovering alcoholic go off the wagon. I've direct experience with an alcoholic, and their recovery is unfortunately never complete or insured.
Many of the Examiner writers are better than full time writers on local news sites. In any case, most Examiner writers are better writers than the President. rofllol rofllol
There is a difference in saying you "have" to hire recovering alcoholics, and saying you can't use their condition of recovered alcoholic as a reason not to hire them, or as a reason to fire them. I would have to read the original regulation before I commented further.
WayneH wrote: I guess recovering alcoholics should be on welfare, instead of working for a living, after reading the article.
So in that regard, I'm certainly not supportive of the author's point of view given what you said. .
RdF,
That is not the author's pov. That is merely Wayne's drive by distortion. I doubt he read it. From the article,
"not only hire and employ “recovering” alcoholics, but also to allow them to continue working as interstate truckers rather than being assigned “to a less safety-sensitive position.”
