Dee's questions
Hello Gang....
Some of you may be wondering about what inspired the last post by Pernell. I got an e-mail from a gal named Dee who was wondering about the legal fairness of dismissing an addict from a job. Her belief is that alchoholism/addiction is a disability, and since other disabilities have to be legally tolerated, perhaps that one should too.
This is part of my response.
"Alchoholism as a disability is debatable. In this state, it is treated as such, and recovering addicts and alchoholics can get a lot of help from state programs. However, even in the world of disability, there is such a thing as a legitimate job requirement. A roofer cannot be required to hire someone with paralysis. Presence and dependability are legitimate job requirements in any field. Obviously, one cannot perform a job if they are not present. I have been an employer. I know of which I speak."
I have read a lot of both side's arguments about whether or not addiction is a disease. Their differences seem to be largely semantic. Either the addiction is a disease, or the emotional state of mind that leads to addiction is a disease. Or both. Either way, the addict HAS a disease (or maybe two), and (in some cases) a disabling one.
This doesn't really change the answer to the question of whether or not it is fair or legal to dismiss and addict from employment. If it affects his ability to perform his job, it is. And if he is not present and cognizant, he cannot perform his job. A woman I worked with many years ago was dismissed from a job because she had cancer and her illness kept her from being dependable. I believe she was able to collect unemployment, but it is unreasonable to expect an employer to keep someone on the payroll if they cannot rely on them. For whatever reason. It is unfair financially to the employer and also unfair to other employees that have to take up the slack.
Smoke