Comments on Plaschke's rant on the Hamilton trade?

[Tank]

Plaschke is a hack.

[Puget Sound Angel]

Does anyone not remember Hamilton's performance in the ALDS last year?

[HeavenlyHalos]

One thing I find interesting is that the NFL suspends players all the time for marijuana use, which is legalized in a few states, and seems likely to be legalized by many more in the next few elections, and is a far less harmful substance than cocaine/alcohol (not to mention the evidence that shows it to help alleviate pain). For the most part I seem to hear the analysts and "experts" say that the player is incredibly stupid and has chosen weed over millions and their profession (Ricky Williams, Josh Gordon, etc.). Yet, Hamilton receives no suspension and is getting the exact opposite treatment from the media, where the narrative seems to be along the lines of an addict struggling with his problem that needs to be fully supported by team and be given yet another chance. Anyone else confused by this?

Edited April 29, 2015 by HeavenlyHalos

[AngelsSurfer]

I'm disabled so I'm going to jump in here. One thing to remember about the FMLA is that it only offers protection for twelve weeks. That's it. After twelve weeks, your employer can fire you, and that often happens to people who have cancer, chronic illness or something else that can't be magically resolved within that time frame. Technically if they fire you for illness you have recourse under the ADA because you cannot legally be fired for being disabled, but it's hard to figure it out. Some companies cover certain things, but generally your medical bills are your responsibility either out of pocket or through your health insurance; not your employer's.

 

The only exception I know with that is if you're out because of an injury or condition you incurred on the job, in which case it's workman's comp. Under California law, if you're out on a workman's comp claim the employer's paying your medical expenses, and they're usually required to give you your job back and make any modifications the doctor recommends whenever you are ready to return.

 

The ADA requires employers to make reasonable accomodation; not to accommodate anyone with any disease for any reason. The ADA can protect addicts who have been rehabilitated, but current drug users, whether they are casual users or addicts? Absolutely not. You can't just do drugs, take off for rehab and get off the hook. They actually take a hard line against that and they make it clear that the disease of addiction does not trump the Drug-Free Workplace Act or any regulations on drug use that the employer has.

 

It's come up in numerous cases, where someone has used drugs (thus breaking company policy), gone for rehab and then returned and invoked ADA protection to avoid any disciplinary measures or termination, and the courts have consistently ruled against them. http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/ada/ch4.htm
 

• An individual who is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs is not an “individual with a disability” when the employer acts on the basis of such use.

• An employer may not discriminate against a person who has a history of drug addiction but who is not currently using drugs and who has been rehabilitated.

• An employer may prohibit the illegal use of drugs and the use of alcohol at the workplace.

• It is not a violation of the ADA for an employer to give tests for the illegal use of drugs.

• An employer may discharge or deny employment to persons who currently engage in the illegal use of drugs.

• Employees who use drugs or alcohol may be required to meet the same standards of performance and conduct that are set for other employees.

• Employees may be required to follow the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 and rules set by federal agencies pertaining to drug and alcohol use in the workplace.

Edited April 29, 2015 by AngelsSurfer