Alcoholic truck driver deemed "disabled" under ADA

denverpilot

Tied Down
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
55,483
Location
Denver, CO
Display Name

Display name:
DenverPilot
So if you can't fire an alcoholic truck driver, you can't fire an alcoholic pilot either now, right?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...y-for-taking-keys-away-from-alcoholic-driver/

The ability of Government to intervene in otherwise simple stuff is amazing.

(You're not capable of safely operating a motor vehicle for a living. You're fired.)

Oh well. I guess we can all start drinking on the job now (Note: I sit at a desk.), knowing there will only be a mandatory substance abuse program as a consequence. Your employer is now responsible for your rehab.
 
Astounding.

The Left's mind-set never ceases to amaze me. Just when you think they can't get any dumber...
 
What's astounding to me is the ability of people here - who are generally fairly smart in my opinion - to sound utterly uninformed and ignorant. Read what actually happened here from a reliable news source, read what ADA requires, and understand what a disability is. Then speak :mad2:
 
I have (as of late) realized it's not just the Left. It's government. They continually make themselves more "needed" by removing personal responsibility.

I'm going to claim my flying habit is an addiction and my employer must accommodate my slow many-year recovery. They must build a runway in the parking lot so I can fly to work.

I'll hire Dr. Bruce to certify that this is the appropriate slow course of treatment. He'll have to fly regularly with me as well as land his own aircraft at the airport to inspect it.

All PoAers will be 3rd party witnesses and will join the daily flights in their own aircraft and sign affidavits that I'm still horribly addicted but slowly improving.

;) ;) ;)

Perhaps if you're an alcoholic truck driver, you should consider different work... like Congressman. ;)
 
I have (as of late) realized it's not just the Left. It's government. They continually make themselves more "needed" by removing personal responsibility.

Um, well, yes, but...the Left IS the government.

Look at the statistics, look at how they vote. (Not that anyone could blame them, really. The bureaucrats are going to support the Left because they butter their bread the thickest; 'twas ever thus.)

Same with scientists. Just 9% call themselves "Conservative": http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/10/only-six-percent-of-scien_n_229382.html

Same with the media. Only 17% identify themselves as "Conservative": http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics.asp

Same with academia -- only 15% describe themselves as "Conservative". (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html) Every survey produces the same results.

These four extremely powerful groups are all aligned with the Left, and have been for many years. How do you think we got into this mess?
 
Nowhere in the article does it say he was drinking on the job. It also doesn't say he violated anything the DOT regulates. And assuming he reports the counseling on his net DOT physical he will probably still be in compliance.

So from the report we have a truck driver in good standing who has a drinking problem off the job and wants treatment. Sounds like the ADA applies.

On the other hand if he was caught drinking on the clock out of the cab with a company policy against it, that would be a valid firing offense. Or if he was caught drinking and driving. Again perfectly valid to fire him and the ADA won't apply.

So what should have happened? When he self reported he should have been put on leave for treatment since the DOT probably won't let him drive with an untreated disqualifying condition. After treatment and returning to his previous job the employer is free to give him frequent and random drug tests since his job and successful treatment are a matter of safety. If he tests positive the employer is free to apply company policy to him as they would any other employee.
 
So what should have happened? When he self reported he should have been put on leave for treatment since the DOT probably won't let him drive with an untreated disqualifying condition. After treatment and returning to his previous job the employer is free to give him frequent and random drug tests since his job and successful treatment are a matter of safety. If he tests positive the employer is free to apply company policy to him as they would any other employee.

That's what happens in the movies, maybe.

What happens in the real world is that someone plants a doobie in his ashtray, and he's fired on the spot -- no muss, no fuss, no "paid leave", no treatment.

The do-gooders of the world never seem to understand that for every nice, warm, fuzzy, touchy-feely law they enact, there are ten devious bastards who will find a way around them.
 
Nowhere in the article does it say he was drinking on the job. It also doesn't say he violated anything the DOT regulates. And assuming he reports the counseling on his net DOT physical he will probably still be in compliance.

So from the report we have a truck driver in good standing who has a drinking problem off the job and wants treatment. Sounds like the ADA applies.

On the other hand if he was caught drinking on the clock out of the cab with a company policy against it, that would be a valid firing offense. Or if he was caught drinking and driving. Again perfectly valid to fire him and the ADA won't apply.

So what should have happened? When he self reported he should have been put on leave for treatment since the DOT probably won't let him drive with an untreated disqualifying condition. After treatment and returning to his previous job the employer is free to give him frequent and random drug tests since his job and successful treatment are a matter of safety. If he tests positive the employer is free to apply company policy to him as they would any other employee.

In Texas, if you are a nurse with a substance abuse problem and (key point) you SELF REPORT and seek help your license is protected and in most cases your job is too.

I think it's a shame this guy did the right thing, sought help, and got burned, especially when I know of other drivers with other companies that accommodated this and worse within reason- drove in the yard only, for example.
 
You can't tell me he didn't know what type of employer he worked for either. Some play ball, some don't.

But he walked in the door and said, "I can't do the job you hired me to do anymore." That's his call and the company's. To call it a disability is somewhat shameful to those who have real disabilities.

Disabilities don't go away with counseling. And you don't put someone in a 40,000 lb rolling box, alone with their thoughts for days on end, with the substance they couldn't resist legally available at every truck stop. It's just common sense.

He needs a new occupation. What
do you suppose the draw to truck driving for an addict was in the first place? No supervision perhaps?

Come on. Get real here. This judge lives in fantasy-land where the invisible unicorn herd hangs out.

Required team driving perhaps? Breathalyzer in the truck? He pays for all of it? No other employee harmed by the higher insurance rates the company will accrue?

At what point does an addiction become a disability? Are all addictions disabilities, or only addictions to legalized drugs? Is smoking Crack Cocaine on your day off from operating heavy machinery or farm equipment a disability too?
 
You can't tell me he didn't know what type of employer he worked for either. Some play ball, some don't.

But he walked in the door and said, "I can't do the job you hired me to do anymore." That's his call and the company's. To call it a disability is somewhat shameful to those who have real disabilities.

Disabilities don't go away with counseling. And you don't put someone in a 40,000 lb rolling box, alone with their thoughts for days on end, with the substance they couldn't resist legally available at every truck stop. It's just common sense.

He needs a new occupation. What
do you suppose the draw to truck driving for an addict was in the first place? No supervision perhaps?

Come on. Get real here. This judge lives in fantasy-land where the invisible unicorn herd hangs out.

Required team driving perhaps? Breathalyzer in the truck? He pays for all of it? No other employee harmed by the higher insurance rates the company will accrue?

At what point does an addiction become a disability? Are all addictions disabilities, or only addictions to legalized drugs? Is smoking Crack Cocaine on your day off from operating heavy machinery or farm equipment a disability too?

Being addicted and currently using illegal drugs does not qualify for ADA protection. Sometimes an old addiction will qualify if you need an accommodation of some kind because of it. But not if you are still using.


Alcoholism is influenced by heredity and generally requires some sort of treatment to successfully beat the addiction. I would say it meets the bar of a disability when it is negatively affecting your mind and body on a continuing basis. As well as any tasks you might be trying to complete.

The Fox article says the guy was working for the company for 5 years. He probably hadn't become addicted at that point. I think its far better that someone comes forward and seeks treatment. Its much better for both parties if he seeks treatment early when he has a much better chance of shaking the addiction.

Its not like the treatment center isn't going to monitor his progress. Frequently even outpatient programs require testing every few days. If he can't successfully complete the treatment then obviously xDOT isn't going to sign off on him driving.

I don't think the judge is the one living in a fantasy land.

The do-gooders of the world never seem to understand that for every nice, warm, fuzzy, touchy-feely law they enact, there are ten devious bastards who will find a way around them.
Obviously the answer is to just sit on your hands because some people will do bad things to other people.
 
So if you can't fire an alcoholic truck driver, you can't fire an alcoholic pilot either now, right?

The ability of Government to intervene in otherwise simple stuff is amazing.

(You're not capable of safely operating a motor vehicle for a living. You're fired.)

Oh well. I guess we can all start drinking on the job now (Note: I sit at a desk.), knowing there will only be a mandatory substance abuse program as a consequence. Your employer is now responsible for your rehab.

Was this driver drinking on the job? Did he ever operate a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol?
 
The fundamental issue with alcohol dependence and abuse is the inability of the person to control alcohol consumption so it is unlikely that anybody with either of these problems would be able avoid drinking on the job.
 
So if you can't fire an alcoholic truck driver, you can't fire an alcoholic pilot either now, right?
At the airlines with union contracts, that's correct, and has been for a long time. Alcoholism is, under those contracts, deemed a medical issue just like a busted leg. You get sidelined with pay during treatment until you can fly again. Even pilots busted for flying drunk on the line can get to go back to work (see http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/14/us/airline-gives-ex-drunken-pilot-a-second-chance.html). Since you lose your medical at the second DUI, the airlines generally won't hire anyone with even one because if it happens again, the airline is stuck paying your salary for doing nothing for 6-12 months, and there are enough applicants with no DUI's that they can afford to be selective that way.
 
Last edited:
These four extremely powerful groups are all aligned with the Left, and have been for many years. How do you think we got into this mess?

Silly me. I thought is was Bush, Cheney & Halliburton spending all our money to ensure that all their buddies could get rich off the backs of the working class.
 
Interesting that this subject is brought up now. I just spent an hour chatting with a guy who used to be the head of safety ops at a major airline, back in the '70s. (He's 88, now.)

The stories he told! (Flying a P-38 Lightning under all the bridges on the Sacramento River was one fun one!) The one that was pertinent to this thread, however, is this one:

He was called in on a day off because there was an emergency landing inbound to Houston. Two of their pilots, on a repositioning flight of a brand, new B-727, had gotten too low on an ILS approach, and hit...something. They didn't know what, and they were inbound with all equipment scrambling.

As they approached the field, they did a fly-by, past the tower, to assess the damage. Tower personnel were absolutely astounded to see a TELEPHONE POLE sticking out of the bottom of the plane!

The guys had sheared off a pole. When it broke off, it hit the ground, rebounded, entered the fuselage behind the main spar, and driven into the cargo hold by over 30 feet. The tip of the pole, still trailing wires, was sticking out the front/bottom of the plane!

Amazingly, they landed okay, although the plane was a total write-off. The pole had not hit a single major system in the aircraft, and the only thing that didn't work was the brakes. Luckily they had ample runway, and partial braking was good enough.

Our guy met the pilots in the elevator on their way up to see the chief pilot. Once the elevator door closed, he could smell the booze. These guys had gone straight from an all-night party to the flight deck!

He hit the "stop" switch, and confronted the pilots. They knew they were had.

They both admitted what they had done, and decided to save everyone the trouble by resigning on the spot. Both pilots submitted their resignations, and our hero agreed to say nothing further about the incident.

Then their union got involved. The pilots were convinced to file a grievance against the airline, and -- after a lengthy battle -- both were actually reinstated, at which time our story-teller tendered HIS resignation. As he put it, he wasn't going to be responsible for putting passengers at risk -- and these guys were clearly dangerous.

This argument has been going on for a long time. IMHO, whether you're flying a 727, or driving a big-rig, addiction to alcohol is a disqualifying condition.
 
Um, well, yes, but...the Left IS the government.

Look at the statistics, look at how they vote. (Not that anyone could blame them, really. The bureaucrats are going to support the Left because they butter their bread the thickest; 'twas ever thus.)

Same with scientists. Just 9% call themselves "Conservative": http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/10/only-six-percent-of-scien_n_229382.html

Same with the media. Only 17% identify themselves as "Conservative": http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics.asp

Same with academia -- only 15% describe themselves as "Conservative". (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html) Every survey produces the same results.

These four extremely powerful groups are all aligned with the Left, and have been for many years. How do you think we got into this mess?

Gosh...and that we don't have any politically powerful institutions in this country that trend conservative! :rolleyes:
 
It is laws like this that get innocent people killed.
Laws like what?

The policy of the company in this story was that the person will be allowed to get treatment and transferred to a non-driving job. However the company did not follow its own policy and effectively fired the guy who, by all accounts, took responsibility for his illiness and sought treatment and notified the company per their policy. Seems that the company is not doing what they promised to and are being taken to task for that. There is no evidence that this guy was driving drunk and trying to hide it at all.
 
Laws like what?

The policy of the company in this story was that the person will be allowed to get treatment and transferred to a non-driving job. However the company did not follow its own policy and effectively fired the guy who, by all accounts, took responsibility for his illiness and sought treatment and notified the company per their policy. Seems that the company is not doing what they promised to and are being taken to task for that. There is no evidence that this guy was driving drunk and trying to hide it at all.

The fact remains that he is addicted to alcohol, and the recidivism rate for alcoholics is appallingly bad. (I should know -- it runs in my family.)

If he's an alcoholic, he's drinking daily. If he's drinking daily, it is happening on the job. What sort of a non-driving job would you expect a drunk guy to effectively perform? Why should I, as an employer, be forced to deal with this crap?

This law illustrates exactly what is wrong with our government. Multiply it times a hundred, then by a thousand, then by 29 million businesses -- and you will know precisely why no jobs were created in the U.S. in August.
 
Gosh...and that we don't have any politically powerful institutions in this country that trend conservative! :rolleyes:

I composed a lengthy, well-constructed, logical retort to this silly statement -- but it FOR SURE would have bounced us into the SZ. :rolleyes:

Therefore, suffice it to say I disagree... :D
 
Why should I, as an employer, be forced to deal with this crap?
The company policy was to reassign him to a non driving job. There is nothing to indicate that they were forced to do that. What they are being brought to court over is that they refused to abide by their own policy. They should be forced to do keep their promises should they not? You are an employer do you just state policies to your employees that you have no intention of keeping?

From the OP's link to the Fox News Article

The company's policy bans any driver who self-reports alcohol abuse from driving again. Reassignment to a non-driving position is contingent upon the driver enrolling in a treatment program.
The driver abided by that policy and was instead fired. The driver did what is right in this situation as was punished by what appears to be the company violating its own written policy.
 
Last edited:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

If employers could be sued for lying to employees, I would own every newspaper I ever worked for. :lol:

No, I don't lie to my employees. In fact, one of the main reasons I left the corporate world for the glamorous 24/7 life of owning my own business, was so that I could live my life with integrity and honesty.

That said, you have strayed far afield from the points I've already made. Nothing unusual, there, but I have nothing more to add. An employer should not have to put up with a drunk -- period. Any government law that says otherwise is a bad law.
 
Last edited:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

If employers could be sued for lying to employees, I would own every newspaper I ever worked for. :lol:

No, I don't lie to my employees. In fact, one of the main reasons I left the corporate world for the glamorous 24/7 life of owning my own business, was so that I could live my life with integrity and honesty.

That said, you have strayed far afield from the points I've already made. Nothing unusual, there, but I have nothing more to add. An employer should not have to put up with a drunk -- period. Any government law that says otherwise is a bad law.
So it is ok that employers lie and that they should not be held accountable. Hmmm

As for straying afield, you sir are way in another back 40 from what this article is discussing and your comments are not based on the reality of situations at all.

The government is not forcing this company to employ a drunk driver and keep him on the road. They are suing because they failed to abide by their policy. A policy which allows for him to stay employed while getting treatment but off the road. What this company has done is now to let a man who was getting help go, so that he can be untreated and maybe will be a drunk driver, running into members of your family. But that is the world you want to live in. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
I doubt we are hearing the whole story. I would suspect that the employee handbook describes exactly what the company will do should an employee shows up under the influence for work. It perhaps says, "WHEN POSSIBLE, the employee will be assigned a non-driving role.". Clearly, they do not want to risk putting someone back on the road who may be incapacitated nor is it their obligation to make work for him.
If they do not have a full time non-driving role to give him, do you propose they fire someone else to make that job for him?
They did the best they could. He knew the rules before he drank. He broke them. He has to live with the consequences.
The first step in getting help for a problem is making an honest assessment that you have one. You own it and all its consequences. No one can can help you unless you are ready to help yourself.
 
So it is ok that employers lie and that they should not be held accountable. Hmmm

As for straying afield, you sir are way in another back 40 from what this article is discussing and your comments are not based on the reality of situations at all.

The government is not forcing this company to employ a drunk driver and keep him on the road. They are suing because they failed to abide by their policy. A policy which allows for him to stay employed while getting treatment but off the road. What this company has done is now to let a man who was getting help go, so that he can be untreated and maybe will be a drunk driver, running into members of your family. But that is the world you want to live in. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

I don't know what article you're reading, but these are the pertinent paragraphs:

"The EEOC says alcoholism is a recognized disability under the ADA and that the company violated the law with its policy that bans any driver who admits alcohol abuse from driving again."

"The EEOC wants the company to reinstate Grams and another affected driver to their previous positions and provide them with back pay, compensatory and punitive damages and compensation for lost benefits. The EEOC is also seeking to block the company’s alcohol-related policy."
 
I too, highly doubt any lawyer-written employee handbook or alcohol policy would ever be written in such a way as to make the company's response mandatory.

And the idea that a company wouldn't lie to employees... wow that's rich. But it's still not a matter of law (or the government's business) unless there was a breach of contract.

What the activist government is trying to do here create yet another protected class of citizen. Now alcohol abuse is a disability.

Never seen an employee handbook that didn't say, "This policy may be changed at any time for any reason."

If he signed that, "I received the handbook and I know the rules can change" sheet, it's game over.

Unless the Judge is amongst those who can see the invisible unicorn herd, grazing on lollipops and rainbows provided by government fixing everything for everyone in a big fluffy cloud. ;)
 
Actually, Airline pilots are treated the way this court ruled that the truck driver was to be treated.

It all depends on the contract. Unfortunately, the recidivism rate for truckes (alone, days at a time) is much higher than in the multi crew "evaluated every week, leaned on every day" environment.
 
At the airline, if you self-reported, you were golden, sent for counseling, kept on the payroll, allowed to use paid sick time, and fully reinstated after treatment.

On the other hand, if you were caught on the job under the influence, you could be summarily dismissed. However, I have personally faced this situation and managed to use the threat of dismissal to get the individual to "voluntarily" enroll in treatment and thus save their job.

The process is somewhat different for "covered" employees, i.e. those in a so-called safety-sensitive job and in the random testing pool.

It's been my experience that those with a problem who successfully complete treatment are some of the best people you will ever have on your staff.
 
.....It's been my experience that those with a problem who successfully complete treatment are some of the best people you will ever have on your staff.
...and they are fabulously helpful when they meet once a week tih a chief pilot, and the newly returnd to service guy. They smell problems like a bloodhound.

AND they are SO glad they have jobs.
 
So it is ok that employers lie and that they should not be held accountable. Hmmm

Come on, Scott. He didn't say that, and you know he didn't say that. That comment is beneath your dignity.
 
Come on, Scott. He didn't say that, and you know he didn't say that. That comment is beneath your dignity.

Really, you do not think that is exactly what he meant when he wrote:

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

If employers could be sued for lying to employees, I would own every newspaper I ever worked for. :lol:.
Obviously he feels that they should not be held accountable.

It sure sounds like that is exactly what he meant. Given what this story is about, an employer that is not abiding by its own policy, and the defense of the firing that Jay is mounting for them It seems plainly obvious he has no problem with an employer breaking promises. If he meant something else, he could have clarified it after my question. So far he has chosen not to.
 
Gosh, all I saw from that comment of Jay's is that he believed every newspaper for which he had worked had had management which lied to its employees...
 
Saying his employers have lied to him (as have mine) and that he moved on, isn't defending the behavior at all.
 
Gosh, all I saw from that comment of Jay's is that he believed every newspaper for which he had worked had had management which lied to its employees...
It was the wording. "If they could be sued" The implication is that he does not believe they could be sued. Obviously they can be sued and are being sued. They are being held accountable which is what differs from Jay's wishful statement.

All of that plus Jay's defense of the company for violating their agreements and the law is indicative of which side he has picked to support. It is the side the lied. Sorry if you and I see it differently.

Just a general comment about this whole thing and other topics that are discussed on here. It is the lack of compassion I see from a lot of board members that really disappoints me about the pilot community. There are some people who would do anything for anyone. Then there are others that would not **** on you if you crashed and were on fire. Sadly I guess the pilot community is not unlike the rest of this country. Sad really. We used to be a country that would look out for one another. Now we are just in it for ourselves and more interested in making sure no one but ourselves get anything. Misfortune for others is now entertainment for a great many in this country.
 
Last edited:
I highly doubt Jay believes a company "can't be sued". Anyone or anything can be sued in these here United States. ;) It's the American way!

If he'd said "successfully sued" maybe, but then we have to define "successful".

Now that my head's less stuffy I realized that this isn't a landmark case at all. This is just a Judge making sure everyone gets paid. Well, the lawyers anyway.

Here's what'll happen...

This guy isn't going back to truck driving for this company. Ever.

He'll get a cash settlement.

The company will get a clean record of "no wrong-doing".

Lots of lawyers will get paid their retainer on the company side and insurance company side, and the guy's lawyer will take most of his settlement money.

He'll be using the "disabled" ruling to live off of the taxpayer for a while.

Might even spend some of the settlement money on a nice rehab facility if there's enough left. It won't be a requirement of the settlement because the company will want to walk away forever.

Termination will be part of the settlement. He will not be eligible for unemployment benefits.

The company PR person will tell the press that the company has come to a private agreement with Mr. X and wishes him well in his future rehabilitation.

The Judge will seal the settlement where none of us will ever see it.

Until the next poorly written employee handbook pops up to pay some more lawyers. ;)

Oh, and the head of HR will be leaving the trucking company to "spend more time with their family".

Accountability won't factor in at all. The guy who can't stop pouring alcohol into his pie-hole won't be held accountable to getting and staying sober. There will be no strings attached to the settlement check, which in return, the company will get to say they did nothing wrong. They'll never even check up on the guy.

If the settlement is really high, the company will lay off some of his sober co-workers to pay for it or they'll lose their bonuses this year due to the company's poor bottom line performance this year.

The company CEO won't lose a dime and will be golfing with his buddies the same as last year.

So the net-net: Lawyers get paid. Judge gets publicity for re-election as a Judge "for the little guy". Company penalizes sober co-workers to pay for this guy. Taxpayers pay to keep him out of trucking. HR person finds a new job eventually and knows how to write an even more draconian employee handbook and/or makes company lawyers approve it next time. Driver either gets himself sober, or drinks away the settlement money. His call.
 
Just a general comment about this whole thing and other topics that are discussed on here. It is the lack of compassion I see from a lot of board members that really disappoints me about the pilot community. There are some people who would do anything for anyone. Then there are others that would not **** on you if you crashed and were on fire. Sadly I guess the pilot community is not unlike the rest of this country. Sad really. We used to be a country that would look out for one another. Now we are just in it for ourselves and more interested in making sure no one but ourselves get anything. Misfortune for others is now entertainment for a great many in this country.

My battery was low on the gadget, so I had to save this for another post...

Drunks are part of my family history. They'll do anything to suck on a bottle, even while you're trying to help them. My step-sister had to do an intervention on her MOM, throwing meth-heads out of the house, putting her mom in rehab, and changing the locks. Our family "gets" addiction.

We don't have to look outside the little dysfunctional tribe to find an addict to help.

The one thing even the heavy drinkers in our family will not tolerate in the slightest is getting behind the wheel of a motor vehicle intoxicated. This is zero-tolerance. I've watched functional alcoholics in my family ready to kick someone's ass over this, in person.

You can waste your life away in a bottle at home or at the bar with a cab ride home, all you want. But you get in a car and drive, and we're letting you rot in jail and we'll happily testify against you in court. It's where the line is drawn.

We also have had in the past a number of truck drivers in our family. Folks who did difficult driving in awful conditions. One was a State snowplow driver in the Rockies for an entire career, now happily retired.

Me? I'm one of two pilots in the entire extended family tree. The other owns a 210 in Texas somewhere and I rarely see him... a third cousin or something like that.

So my reaction to a drunk truck driver or a drunk pilot is pretty much that I'm going to kick your ass. I don't care if you say you never drove drunk, I know better.

I'm not the person to look for compassion in for drunk machinery operators.

I will never have compassion for that, ever. I've got too many family members who make a living on the road, and myself... I'm too happy and amazed to be lucky and successful enough to have the privilege of flying aircraft to ever believe there's someone out there who'd put a bottle higher in their priorities than that.

Color me unsympathetic when it comes to alcoholics... I've watched too many from childhood to adulthood who willingly picked up a bottle and crawled in... every night. Some during the day. They chose.

They weren't "disabled". They chose. They picked up the bottle and poured it in their pie-hole.

Thus my initial negative reaction to this story.

As far as the bigger picture of society and compassion... I've worked at homeless shelters. I lived at a commune that ran one even, donating my work efforts to their bottom line. (It was a loooong time ago. Yes, a religious cult style commune complete with communistic dogma mixed with religious guilt.)

Since then, I've donated significant sums of money I earned to various causes and still do. I even have the photo of a nice young lady who we sponsored through one of those "help a child in need" programs. She was born September of 1994. The most recent photo on the fridge is of a happy, healthy teenager. Cheesy as it may be to have done that one, or cliche'... we gave every month since she was two years old. Didn't miss a month even when I was out of work for a year.

We don't have kids. We sometimes joke that she was a lot cheaper. LOL!

More personally and recently, I had a homeless friend living in our house. He was in a house he wasn't the owner of, the owner was gone, and the house was being foreclosed upon, had a $3500 energy bill when it all started, and the house had no electricity in the middle of winter. Temperature was about 40F most of the time. When we found out, it wasn't a question of "should we?", it was "Get over here."

Turned into an utter disaster. Friend (former friend, I don't know) moved in, well should I say I moved him in... multiple weekends of cleaning up the old place, (remember that 40F part... such fun), and my two car garage full of his stuff he "couldn't live without".

Sat down and set some goals, deadline dates, and the ground rules... ultimately of which, none were followed. Helped him get jobs, acted as a reference, and pushed and prodded while he proceeded to make himself comfortable here in my home. Everything we offered we did, including free room and board, plus more. Far more. Prescriptions for needed drugs, junk food, whatever... we did it.

We realized we had a teenager on our hands. He couldn't keep a calendar straight, couldn't get to bed on time to be up for work... it was a total nightmare. I went to work every day wondering when he'd get himself fired.

His attitude wasn't one of "I got a second chance", it was one of the victim... "I'll never move up in the world. My boss is twenty years younger than me and I hate him"... yadda yadda yadda.

I have never seen an adult so unmotivated towards anything that would better themselves in my life. When the car broke down, I had to show him how to look up how to fix it, and he'd blown the budget again (which he was hiding from us) and I bought the parts and lent him tools.

He stood around an entire Saturday until I walked outside and "showed" him how. Then after complaining that his only form of transportation was likely to die at a moment's notice, he promptly took off across town the next day to visit church friends.

No thought whatsoever to the cost or whether he could afford it. He drove around all the time in the "car that was about to die" instead of saving it's last breath to get to work and back.

When the car broke, his expectation was that I'd just pay someone to fix it, apparently. He was shocked when I said no, we'll work on it in the driveway.

See, having someone work on your car is a luxury when you're broke... I do that for MY cars now that I can afford it, but when I was broke like you, I fixed my own cars.... understand? Nope. Never got it.

Wanted to take it to a Pep Boys and have a "tune-up" done... bald tires, leaking oil, never changed or added any fluids, wouldn't read anything about basic maintenance I showed him, and was running at least one cylinder down when it arrived here... but yeah... that $150 "package" deal where they clean fuel injectors is just what it needs... uh-huh. Oh, and if you're on schedule on that budget, you don't really have $150 anyway... well, you do but it's earmarked for something else, and if those slip, your date you'll move out will slip. You committed to that date...

And then he did it anyway. Didn't make the car run a lick better. Knocked a month off the move-out date.

This went on for almost a year. We finally got him moved into an apartment, he found a good job, and it only took us two or three months longer than originally planned, and I had to move his furniture in 100F heat in a U-Haul I rented while he stood inside and told other "friends" where to put his crap. We lifted, and wrenched our backs out... he pointed.

He held the job for a few months, and I got a call one day that he was broken down somewhere. I was in a meeting on a Saturday, and by the time I got out, I called and got the story... hadn't put any oil in it since the day it left here. Seized the engine. Some other friend had come and picked him up and they were enjoying a nice Chinese food lunch. I had some mail that had come to the house, so I stopped in and dropped it off. I didn't stay for lunch. Asked him for the sixth time if he'd turned in a change of address card. No.

Eventually we just started writing "not at this address, return to sender" on stuff and putting it back in the mailbox. That was after three months of politely putting things that came in another envelope with a "Here's more mail for you" note and a request to turn in that change-of-address form and/or to notify the folks who were sending stuff here... of which most had sent five or six things.

Later I heard that after refilling it with oil, somehow they got the car to turn over and it ran again. Unbelievable.

Anyway, another couple of months go by, and I get a call... he's being evicted. Was fired for sleeping at his desk, after he stayed up all night playing video games online again. Something he did often while he was here, and I'd find myself banging on his door like he was 16, asking him if he were going to work that day.

I said, "Wow. It's going to be tough to find another job that good in this economy" and waited until he hung up the phone after a long story about how it wasn't his fault.

Never was any of it his fault. Or if you nailed him down and said it was, he would then play the "Oh, then I shouldn't even try anymore" drama card. Any other time, it was a bad/crazy boss... his past history with family problems... crazy siblings... the government... something... anything but him.

So compassion... yeah. I have it in spades for those willing to help themselves. I even have it for those who ACT like they're going to help themselves. But it does run out eventually...

Would I take another homeless friend into my home? Well... ironically I thought another friend was going to be in that same situation only a month or so after the first guy left. I still offered. This second person IMMEDIATELY rejected... "Thank you for the offer, but you'll only hear from me if I really can't make this all work out, okay?"

Yes, my friend... and thank you for helping me see the difference between someone actively trying hard every day, and the manipulator who stayed in my home.

He's doing fine. Took his kids and him flying this summer. They had a ball.

I think you're concern is somewhat unfounded -- looking for compassion on an Internet message board -- is probably a bit futile. Here we discuss things in theory, and take examples from the news to see what others think about it.

That versus what really happens in our homes... is two quite different things.

Pilots, in general, are very appreciative of the success we've had to be able to afford to fly. We're also typically very generous in real life for those who need a hand up.

What we tend to not tolerate is those who want a hand out.

I'll share the "secrets" of my path from cockroach-infested first apartment with a torn fake-leather couch in one room, a tiny TV with rabbit ears, and a mattress on the floor in the tiny bedroom... to where I am today with a manageable mortgage, one paid off car and one about to be so again. (We gave a running vehicle to my little sister, or we wouldn't have broken our rule of cash for cars. Poor dear... a NYC cab driver totaled it right after we gave it to her. She's still driving it after "her guy" patched it up. My old Jeep. She's got a Masters in Architecture and is still struggling to find a job that'll 100% support her.)

My fancy cover bestselling self-help book, will include years of multiple tough jobs at the same time, trying to attend college while holding all three, a whole lot of studying things that are boring as hell to most folks that were job-related, a bit of luck that a company needed some cheap Junior techs and then a hell of a lot of work from there to build a career, which still de-railed in the 2001 tech bubble burst, and a lot of scratching and scrimping and bad jobs to get back in.

My wife's story is similar, a Nursing degree and then scratching her way through Senior Care, Dialysis Clinics, and Home Healthcare (where at least one patient had a gun in his hand when she walked in... he was an Alzheimer's patient and was sitting at the kitchen table trying to remember how to load the gun to kill himself), and now she's "Assistant Director of Nursing" for a company who just laid off all their office staff, dumping all the paperwork on the nurses and putting her back on the streets seeing patients, along with her ADN duties.

Problem is, it's just not all that glamorous and doesn't fit in the neat little "self-help" books in the bookstore, so no one would ever want to read our little book nor follow its advice. When you lay it out on the table, people say, "You did all that?" Yeah... I did. I wanted better for myself and my wife. I screwed up a lot too, and then had to fix it. Ever stared down the gun of $30K in credit card debt? I have. I fixed it. Or should I say, WE fixed it.

My mom's side of the family moved out of state the second I graduated high school. I didn't go. I worked. My dad, I had little relationship with back then. We patched things up. The only handout I got was room and board with my grandfolks on dad's side, something I was forever indebted to them for, and my grandfather's passing was one of the saddest days of my life.

So yeah...

I have very little compassion for someone who has the ability, but won't work as hard as I have. Never will.

My heroes are people who pulled themselves out of even HARDER life circumstances and folks I meet who have the guts to run their own businesses.

Nothing was handed to me. I still give money, time, and real effort to my community in various ways. And I do care.

But I do expect folks to get up and try ... just try ... every day. I have no compassion for those who wallow in self-pity. I've been there, and done that, and it gets you nowhere. I also REALLY despise those who say government needs to save them. Government is just a huge middle-man who keeps most of the money for himself in social programs. And government isn't the answer.

Grandpa was a Great Depression kid. He taught both dad and I, "It's no sin to be broke. It's a sin to stay that way." His odd worded way of saying, "Get up, and go again."

My life view is that America really is the land of opportunity... 'cause I've lived it. I feel blessed to be where I'm at. I sneer loudly at people who jeopardize their livelihood by picking up a six-pack. People do NOT have to live that way. I could have easily crawled into a beer bottle, not gone home to study technical documentation or worked on the skills needed to move to the next job level and hung out with the guys watching sports at the sports bar every night. I chose to do something better for myself.

No school will ever have me in for "Career Night" to discuss how to scrape your way up from the bottom of the tech pool. They'll bring in the guys and gals in nice suits from the local college who are there to sell the kids on the "great jobs that await" if only they'll spend the government's student loan money at their particular higher education institution.

They won't tell the kids that the private sector only added 700,000 jobs this year, and 1.75 million people graduated from college with massive student loan debt they'll pay for the rest of their lives.

They won't tell them to look around and find things other people need done and be willing to do them at below market value for a few years, to make yourself a valued employee so you're on top of the pile when the next job comes open... and it'll take YEARS.

They won't tell them to avoid all debt like the plague that it is, nor show them the basic math of how compounding interest works to enslave millions.

Compassion? Yeah... I've got it. Where do we start telling the kids the truth... that we need people willing to work their asses off, and no... those shiny new cars on TV are for folks who already did work hard for years to SAVE for them, not to buy them on consumer debt? Buy 'em now, you'll be filing bankruptcy in a few years. How about a nice used beater pickup truck that always starts, and won't leave you stranded and that you can fix yourself?

That you can play video games all day, or only play them once a week, and learn some skills in the extra time?

That filling idle time with sex is great, but you're not prepared to be a parent nor can you afford it.

That no one makes your life go one way or another more than YOU do?

That there are people who'll pay them to do a lot of unpleasant things they don't want to, and they can turn it into a real business (that can maybe even pay its taxes)... but you'd better be ready to get up at 5AM and not hit the sack until 11PM.

That's real compassion... that there's opportunity if you're busting your ass... people WILL see it, and you will get there, but you have to make yourself do it. No one will do it for you.

My Group Commander in Civil Air Patrol is paralyzed from the waist down. He shows up, in uniform, in a motorized wheelchair and runs the largest Group in the Wing. THAT's a man who knows what living with a real Disability is like. And he excels anyway. He shows up on the field of life and plays every card he's dealt.

A truck driver suing because he can't keep from stopping at the store, buying a sixer and downing it and a Judge saying he's "disabled"? Yeah... give me a freakin' break.
 
Back
Top