Work Rights of Former Addicts at Issue

[CShine]

A Bush administration lawyer urged the Supreme Court Wednesday to give employers the right to reject former workers who had used drugs or alcohol on the job, even if they had been rehabilitated.

Companies are entitled to follow a "neutral policy of refusing to rehire" workers who abused drugs on the job, said Paul Clement, deputy U.S. solicitor general, in a closely watched employment case.

At issue is whether recovered addicts and alcoholics are protected from job discrimination by the Americans With Disabilities Act.

The case before the high court "has extraordinary implications" because thousands of employers have the same rule banning the rehiring of workers dismissed for misconduct, said Washington attorney Carter G. Phillips, who is representing Raytheon Co., a defense contractor. "It would make no difference whether he was a thief or whether he was somebody who used drugs," he said. Most of the justices sounded as though they agreed.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scotus9oct09002420,1,586500.story?coll=la-headlines-nation-manual

[Hawkeye-X]

1. Ah.. Double standard apply here.

We didn't hire Chimpy McCokespoon, and we reject him as the boss of the United States. He is *SUPPPOSED* to work for us, but he has failed miserably. At this point, if I were the people of the United States, I would fire his ass, file a lawsuit against him, seek criminal charges against him, and write an unfavorable recommendation against this moron to be hired again. He's better off being a deadbeat.

Hawkeye-X

[Speed8098]

2. Does that mean that * is out of a job??

Isn't he an admitted addict?

Oh, wait.......that was a youthful indiscretion.:*

[scarletlib]

3. so what are these people supposed to do?

under the punative policies of this country they may be denied welfare and/or food stamps because of a drug conviction. so now what no job either? what do they think these people will do? just lay down in the streets and die?

For god's sake people, drug addiction is a frickin' disease. when will people in this country wake up!

[Redclydesider]

5. empoyment

Hard one, but i think its up to the employer, if the person in front of him can show he is rehabilitated and the employer wants them, then they get the job.

[Fish Eye]

6. yeah!!

an if they is black or lady or queer maybe even them jews then the private company can not hire them because they do not like their "kind"

YEAH RIGHT

wake up it is the 21st century!!

do we need to give you a quick lesson about the place of the employer in a just society???

[Redclydesider]

7. personal opinion

I believe that a company can hire anyone they want, if they discriminate against white scottish immigrants in their hiring policies, fine, they dont get any of my business. To try and legislate that an employer must hire anybody, takes the power away from individuals and hands it to the government. Example, In Scotland there is a brewer called Tennants that used to have an anti catholic hiring policy, guess what i ve never touched their products, now they hire catholics, seems they were losing to much business.

[Fish Eye]

9. your personal opinion

is like the opinion of the right ....are you sure you are in the right forum...libertarian ideology is so flawed it is almost painful to watch people cling to it and then I remember how dangerous this ideology is (hey if you are going to be an anarchist then at least admit it! no more of this pussyassed libertarian shit! come on make the leap and go for the goal) LOL.....of course this is just my opinion....

by the way I love the baseless response you gave.

"To try and legislate that an employer must hire anybody, takes the power away from individuals and hands it to the government"

still LOL thanks!!

:)

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. So let's say I hire somebody

And he screws off half the time, loses me a big customer and then says he's on drugs. He gets fired by me. Now he "rehabilitates" himself and I have to hire him back?

Not a fucking prayer.

[Fish Eye]

19. ahhh simple examples for

the simple minded.....LOL

hey when you can play for real (without all the joking around) I'll respond....

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. Actually, you are quite wrong

Exact incident happened at previous employer except I wasn't his boss.

So, again Mr. Hubris?

[Fish Eye]

37. This is great!

exact incident except you were not the boss...exact but not??!?!?

do you read your posts?

[Occulus]

25. You shouldn't have the "right" to even know that

unless it's revealed in a crminal investigation. And then you should be required to prove a causative direct link between their drug use and the loss of your big contract.

Personal conduct, bub. And I resent that you, as an employer, have such.... disrespect for personal conduct. Reminds me of the Ford employees back in the 1910s that would go around to their workers' homes to make sure they were living a 'moral' lifestyle.

[Muddleoftheroad]

29. Actually, I am not an employer

But I worked with the guy, knew him and he told me what was going on. HE told the bosses he was on drugs, only after they were already firing him for losing the client.

Personal conduct on the job is what is at issue here. I don't care what you do in your free time. When you are on the clock, it is THEIR time.

[Occulus]

32. And what happens

when an employer argues that, as an employee, your personal conduct when off the clock reflects on the company?

[Muddleoftheroad]

35. If it does

Then they have a right to fire you. If you disagree, then you can sue like everybody else.

Suppose I am spokesman for the Cattleman's Association, but in my off time I work for PETA. Wouldn't that harm my ability to be a public spokesperson?

Lots of newspaper prevent people from being politically active because it gives the appearance of bias. You can get fired for what you do outside the office because it impacts either your ability to do your job or your employer's ability to function.

[Occulus]

40. And all of the above should be outright illegal.

Were an employer to fire me for doing something off the clock, I would expect their business to be closed immediately.

Yes, it's extreme. It's also a revolt against..... corporate personhood.

What I do on my private time is *my* business and no one else's.

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. Revolting perhaps

But a revolt against sanity.

So I hire you and in your off hours you can PUBLICLY undo everything I pay you to do and I can't fire you? Huh? You can undermine my business or even protest against it and I am stuck with you?

Boy, I'm glad that some of these far-out ideas will never go anywhere.

[Occulus]

45. Actualy, that's

precisely what I'm saying. And revoking corporate personhood isn't exactly a far-out idea, but rather the undoing of nearly a century of faulty legal reasoning, lobbying efforts by the corporations in question, and a general withering of society's controls over businesses.

For example, Wisconsin once had a law (on the books until the 1970s, I believe, but I may be wrong about that) which dissolved any corporation which made any political contribution. 'Corporate personhood' undid this, to the detriment of democracy as a whole.

Oh, and if there's wrongdoing involved on your part as an employer, I already have the right to undo what your business did. It's called 'whistleblower protection'.

[LevChernyi]

28. don't compare anarchists and libertarians

Anarchism has a fine respectable pedigree, some practical success in the real world (the Kibbutz movement) where "libertarianism" is a crock of selfish yuppie shit whose real world example would most closely resemble Liberia.

[Occulus]

24. If employers weren't persons under the law

we could forbid them from ever asking questions related to prior convictions or drug use and there would be nothing employers would be able to do about it.

Employers should not have the "right" to refuse to hire or terminate ANY person based on their conduct outside the workplace. Period.

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. That's because of lawyers and theft

Employers fear hiring an employee who poses a risk to others in the workplace, so they ask tougher questions. Then, they have to be concerned with theft. An employee who is out of control in his/her personal life is then a threat to steal in the workplace.

If you don't want to answer questions, no one is making you take the job. Go work for yourself.

[Occulus]

33. You're missing my point

employers should not be able to even ask those questions. Period.

[Muddleoftheroad]

36. So, let's see, you left your previous job after being arrested

for assault and battery. You are convicted, but only serve a little while in jail. I can't ask you about that?

I can't ask you about things that might harm my business? Suppose you have a history of theft, do you think you have a right to a job at my business? Suppose you have a history of violence, don't I have a right AND obligation to protect both my employees and my customers? (If you say no, I'm sure the lawyers in the room would disagree with you.)

[Occulus]

41. Absolutely.

You shouldn't even have the right to ask. In fact, as an employer, once again, you should have NO rights... only priveleges.

As an employer, you take the risk. As a nonperson under the law (as it ought to be), you should have no recourse. You simply should have no right whatever to probe into my private life.

As an employer, you shouldn't have "rights". Only priveleges.

[Muddleoftheroad]

43. I have one final right

That's to fire ALL of you and take my company to a nation that would have saner laws.

Do you want a nation of only small busineses. (Those because they could be family owned and run and avoid all the crap you are suggesting.)

[Occulus]

46. No.

I want a society where corporations are stricly beholden to the laws of the communities and states they are chartered in. I am in favor of the 'corporate death penalty', dissolution, for companies like Enron and Arthur Andersen. I am also in favor of lifetime jail sentences for CEOs like Ken Lay who abuse their corporate power to the detriment of the public.

I am absolutely against any prospective employer invading my privacy. This includes prior conduct that has been dealt with. You are advocating the 'right' of employers to do just that.

[hang a left]

4. What is the implication for Rush?

[hang a left]

17. By the way my post #4 was a joke. Am I the only one who got it?

I laughed.

[jiacinto]

8. Is this even an issue?

Isn't most employment "at will" anyway? Wherever I've worked there's always been a clause in the paperwork stating that "you can be fired at any time for any reason" and that "you can quit at any time for any reason". If that is the case then wouldn't that trump that issue?

[maxanne]

10. discrimination

is certainly an issue. Particularly on this topic, says the recovering alcoholic, maxanne.

[NashVegas]

13. On Closer Inspection

The guy in the suit had quit his job. There is no mention of whether or not an arrangement was made that would allow him to get his job back after cleaning up (2-3 years in this case).

If a prior arrangement was made, then the company should be held to it. If not, there is no reason on god's green earth why he should be able to force them to give him a job.

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. After 2-3 years?

My God. The whole business might have changed in that time.

[RobinA]

21. Employment -At-Will

This applies in most cases, but there are selected reasons for which you cannot be fired, i.e. race, religion, gender, age. I can be fired for wearing a green shirt today, but not because I am a female. The disability part of things is very difficult to pin down, because the caselaw is kind of all over the place with no clear line of reasoning.

Also, some states are more "at-will" than others. Michigan, for example, is very pro-employee. My own state, PA, is not.

[Occulus]

26. If corporations weren't persons

we could require that they only terminate employees for detrimental conduct related directly to the job. But noooooo.... employers "have the right" to do this and that.

Employers should have no rights. They should only have priveleges.

[Muddleoftheroad]

31. Both sides have equal rights

You can quit at any time. They can fire you the same.

That encourages you to work hard for them and, if you do so, encourages them to make sure they keep you.

[Occulus]

34. You're still missing my point

employers (corporations) should not have rights of personhood. They shouldn't have rights at all.... only priveleges.

[Muddleoftheroad]

39. Why?

Sorry, but giving businesses rights (and obligations) works. They have both right now. You would leave them only with the latter.

[Occulus]

44. Exactly.

By equating corporations with persons under the law, corporations have in effect more rights than you or I:

They can rip off their own arm and make a new 'person'.

They can 'live' offshore and thus avoid taxes.

They can speak with a billion dollar bullhorn, effectively rendering the speech rights of the individual impotent.

They can raise and contribute massive sums to politics, unlike individuals (remember, those millions and millions donated to Party X by Corp. Y are donated by an individual person, aka 'Corp. Y').

And, by your own arguments, they can 'control', to an extent, the behavior of their employees when not on company time or company property. In fact, by your own arguments, corporations can control an employees' behavior when they're on their own property.

None of the above should be allowed in a democracy by, of, and for the people. Period.

[dfitzsim]

47. Let's stop building straw men ...

This law does not just apply to big corporations, but mom and pop shops as well. I've incorporated a company. I'm not big. I'm not evil. I should also not be told to that I have to rehire someone who has been drinking or using drugs while working for me. That decision is rightfully mine.

Caught drinking while using a fork lift, rehire them? You've got to be joking!

[Occulus]

49. While using? No.

But say smoeone goes out to the bar after workand you, as an employer, don't want them to have any alcohol at all.

Perhaps I'm not being clear enough.... I'm not really speaking for behavior while on the job. I'm talking about behavior while off the job, or prior to hiring.

As an employer, you shouldn't expect to have the right to that information, just as I don't expect to know those things about you personally. If you, as an incorporated business, have the 'right' to check up on me, don't tell me you can seal business record, own a panten, or anything else; you are a 'person' same as me, and what you can know about me, I can know about you.

Yet- corporations can seal records and even ban local police from their property (GM, Ford, etc). I can't do the same.

Corporate personhood has got to go.

[dfitzsim]

51. Perhaps you should re-read the post ... :-)

"A Bush administration lawyer urged the Supreme Court Wednesday to give employers the right to reject former workers who had used drugs or alcohol on the job, even if they had been rehabilitated.

Companies are entitled to follow a "neutral policy of refusing to rehire" workers who abused drugs on the job, said Paul Clement, deputy U.S. solicitor general, in a closely watched employment case."



This is about workers who have abused drugs and/or alcohol ont he job.

Corporate personhood should be in a different thread (and you'd find me much more in agreement). :)

[Occulus]

52. Gotcha.

But that part about "even if they had been rehabilitated" still angers me. It forces them to not use that job as a refernce, and if they do, hey don't get hired for other jobs.

Temp agencies in my area refuse to consider you if you have a misdemeanor. Think on that a bit.

[NashVegas]

11. Maybe They Should Ask Rush To Testify Against This

God, what an asshole.

[BiggJawn]

15. Doesn't this just apply to the company that fired you for using?

Seems to be the way I read it. "Former workers","refuse to rehire", etc.

I dunno...Part of me says "this sucks" and part off me says "If it was illegal to refuse to rehire the druggie or other user, and I get my ass in a sling for something, gee, I could claim I was an Alkie, then I could get my job back later after everything calmed down..."

And I agree with Carlos (???) in today's "Employment at Will (Fire for any fucked-up reason) climate, what difference does it make? They can always claim they fired you because it was "Act like a pointy-haired boss day" and not your drinking.

[MrPrax]

16. No incentive to stop drugs

If you notice that if taking steps to 'rehab' yourself, like the Good Christians on TV say, doesn't restore you to proper citizenship and fellowship, then what incentive would there possibly be to quit drugs.

Every incentive to cover up drugs to the point of desperation...a lot of the motives of addicts is to get back their jobs--with that gone...

If society don't give them a chance, then why should they give society a chance...once the carrots are gone, only sticks, I suppose

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. The incentive

Is to stop so your life stops falling apart.

However, it is NOT the job of an employer to save you from yourself.

[Occulus]

27. Sooooo... you stop using

and you list your references on your job application, say, three years after becoming sober.

Your prospective employer contacts your references, which include the company that fired you for drug use. Or, if it's a tight industry, they simply contact other employers in similar fields in your area and find out that way.

They deny you the job based on your drug use from three years ago, even though you're completely rehabilitated.

Employers would argue that they can do this three, five, seven, ten years after the fact, because dammit, it's my business and I can hire and fire who I want.

Well, dammit, you shouldn't have the rights of persons under the law and if you didn't the public would be able to legislate a requirement of employers that they do not ask any question regarding past drug use or criminal record and as an employer you'd just have to live with it.

Hey, here's a though- screw the 'rights' of employers because legally they shouldn't have any.

[Muddleoftheroad]

38. Completely rehabilitated?

I don't know any recovering drug abuser or alcholic who claims that. I think they claim they remain an abuser, but just are now on the wagon. If they go off the wagon, the really fall apart.

Businesses not only have those rights, they have the obligation to bring into the workplace safe coworkers whenever possible. You would deny businesses the protection that they need to function. You would deny workers the right to work in an office where murderers, rapists and thugs are banned.

Yes, this does mean, if I am an employer, I would NEVER hire someone with a violent offense on their record. Drug offenses I would view differently because they are non-violent. One drug bust (non-work related) wouldn't stop me. More than one and I wouldn't hire you because you are either stupid or don't learn from your mistakes.

[Occulus]

48. "Yes, this does mean, if I am an employer, I would NEVER..."

This is the reason why my husband hasn't been ab;e to get even a Burger King to call him back for the past three years. Hundreds of applications... not one callback.

We're living right on the razor edge of poverty because employers think like you do. He was railroaded into his conviction, but the transcripts and testimony given in court don't matter to an employer; all they see is his conviction, even though the testimony clearly reflects that an incorrect decision was reached by the court.

Sooooo.... are you saying that you don't really care if a person was wrongfully convicted or not, that they've served their time in jail or probation without a hitch but that doesn't matter somehow?

What's the point of rehabilitation- jail or drug rehab or whatever- if the person doing the rehab knows that when they get clean or get out no one will offer them a chance?

Recidivism is primarily caused by people, such as employers, who refuse to accept and acknowledge the fact that once a person has paid their debt to society, they've paid their debt to society. Former criminals have nowhere to go to get a roof over their heads and food in their bellies, so they reoffend because in jail they HAVE to house and feed you. And yes, that's more common than you might think; Michigan's lieutenant Governor (under Engler... bleagh) told my husband that if he wanted help from the state in finding a job, all he had to do was commit another crime and get back into the system where he could be helped with job placement programs.

He only had to go to jail first. However, if his prospective employers couldn't ask him the felony question, he'd have found a job by now.

[ReadTomPaine]

22. Expect the loss of voting rights next.

The few people who vote, the easier it is to control things.

[0007]

23. .....and if it's a CEO

Special prays, rehabilitaion for executives at fat farms and dry out centers and then a welcome for the new hardy CEO.

And guess what the company pays the bill, and wants to cut overtime pay to recover their losses.

We are soooooo fucked!

[xJlM]

50. One of the basic tenents of recovery...

...is acceptance of your actions and their consequences. Anyone who is currently working a real program will admit this. No point in trying to get honest if you don't start with yourself. My current line of work involves millions of dollars worth of machinery, and consequences of poor quality work can be dangerous not only to company profits but to my coworkers as well. Drug abuse is like a plague on this country, and I have no problem with those who want to eliminate it from our homes and workplaces.