Before you support the NFL's drug code

[Pope Flick]

 

[Perchoutofwater]

Club you can't do anything for him. He has to be able to drive to the site, and on occasion pick up materials. The guy would be useless if he were reasssigned to the office. When you say the insurance company is liable, but the company is not, how do you justify this. What if the injured party sues, and are awarded a judgement greater than our insurance limits?

 

Anyway, this has been fun, now I have to go and visit a job site, to make sure it is a safe working enviroment, and prepare for a state inspection tomorrow. Later.

[Pope Flick]

I don't know.  It is industry standard to provide a truck to field superintendents, or at the very least a driving allowance.  It is one of the perks that has become manditory if you want to hire someone that is worth a darn.  Their primary job is supervising work on a job site, but occasionally they have to go to the lumber yard or hardware store, or what not to get materials.  So I guess you could say that driving is part of their job, however it is a very very minute portion of their job.  Deliveries are normally made by the material supplier.  About the only time they drive, is when they forget to order something they need, and what they need is not large enough to justify the supplier to deliver it to the the job site.

 

583300[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

I'm no lawyer meself, but it sounds like if this guy only ever had a desk job with your company there would be no say. But since he tracels, and am guessing got one or more tickets on the company car they insure, they have some leverage here.

[Soylent Green]

Club you can't do anything for him.  He has to be able to drive to the site, and on occasion pick up materials.  The guy would be useless if he were reasssigned to the office.  When you say the insurance company is liable, but the company is not, how do you justify this.  What if the injured party sues, and are awarded a judgement greater than our insurance limits?

 

583326[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

PM me if you want when you get back because there are too many scenarios to cover. Where was he heading at the time, what was he doing at the time, what are the injuries. It's certainly complicated and you certainly have the right to can him. If you care to continue this later, you know where to find me.

 

Drive safe.

[Bill Swerski]

3 in one year.

 

583303[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Hmmm. IIRC, Illinois will suspend one's driver's license if he/she gets three speeding tickets in one year. I know this because the only two speeding tickets that I've ever received happened to be within six months of each other. I don't think that I drove more than five over for the following six months. If your employee had been an Illinois resident, he may have not been allowed to drive at all for some time.

 

That said, insurance companies are a bunch of crooks. My brother-in-law has eplilepsy and, after suffering his first seizure (as a teenager, before he was diagnosed), his parents had to threaten to sue their insurance company to get them to pay for the ambulance ride to the hospital.

 

I'm sorry to hear that both you and your employee got such a raw deal. You might want to consider switching insurance companies, if possible.

[Perchoutofwater]

Thanks for the offer Club but it is done. No injuries, I fired the guy six month ago, because of insurance purposes. Now I have to go.

[The Misfit]

I think it's important to note that this is just not a question of logic or liability.

 

Our number one cultural value is not logic or law or fairness or the rights of individuals. It's marketing. Heck, even personal worth -- far from Walden Pond or the Monks of New Skeet -- is largely determined by how well you market yourself. That's why monks sell Gregorian chant CDs and New Skeet tells you how to raise puppies.

 

The NFL cannot afford to market a product that in any way can be seen as conducive, or even tolerant, of illegal drug use. That's also why a lot of companies, even without jobs that an impaired employees may cause liability, test for drugs. They don't want to be associated as the place for potheads. It's bad for marketing, and therefore bad for the bottom line.

 

Marketing concerns had as much to do with Ron Arteest getting a one-season suspension as the actual brawl. Marketing concerns are why Chavez was banned from the huddle.

 

I agree with you in principle, detlef, but, even if we don't want to admit it, the fight for individual liberties went out of style a long time ago. At most, it's been replaced with "group rights" -- hence, the country's division over male butt bonding. The Fourth Amendment of which you speak has been steadily eroding since the Rehnquist Court came into being: The police can in fact stop you without probably cause (they're called "check points"), and what constitutes "probable cause" and "exigent circumstances" for home entry without a warrant has expanded in all kinds of creative ways.

 

So, I guess my point is, you can try to get people fired up about their loss of individual liberties ... but only if you market it correctly.

[detlef]

It is your right not to be tested, but if you want to work in certain occupations you give up that right.  It is my right to carry a pocket knife, but if I want to fly, I have to give up that right while I'm on the plane.  Should we get rid of metal detectors and x-ray equipment?  These are searches with out cause, but we allow them if we want to fly.  What is the difference?

583274[/snapback]

You make a good point in terms of theory. After all, it was me who started the "Where does it end?" bit. After some thought, I've settled upon why I can be cool with that. This is an amendment to one of my rights that being dictacted by the same body that granted it in the first place. The other is an entity that I feel should have limited rights to my privacy overstepping their boundries.

 

In the case of the government, I willingly subject myself to their authority and in turn they pledge to not abuse it (of course the line gets fuzzy with the Patriot Act in mind). If myself, and enough others are not happy with the manner they conduct themselves, we can replace them. Even non-elected positions in the public sector can be controlled in this manner because those in control of them can be replaced by the people and thus be forced to remove them as well.

 

In the case of private companies dictating what the limits of my privacy are, I have less control. Those in power of such policy are not there because they were elected, they're there because they have the most money. While I don't fault anyone for having money (especially those who are inclined to pay dearly for my services), I'd prefer to limit the amount of control they have on my life. I understand there are some fundemental ways they will have more say than I do, so I'm not taking this to a naive level. At the very least, I'd rather not have to forfeit any liberties to them that I don't have to forfeit to my government. Or at least, I'm not going to get in line and be happy about it. That so many do strikes me as very unamerican.

[JoJoTheWebToedBoy]

There's a big disinction that isn't being made: if you are in the military, chances are at some point you are theoretically in a position where lives are at stake at any given moment.

 

Heavy equpipment use: forklifts, flying airplanes etc is another area where people's well beings are at stake.

 

Now that a BIG difference from Ricky Williams doing bong hits in his living room between game weekends.

 

583203[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

It's not about comparing the two jobs. It's about following the rules. You want to make a million dollars a year, don't do the drugs. If you do, and you busted, then suffer the consequences, and quit running to your Union Rep and crying foul.

[Donutrun Jellies]

Break the training rules, off the team. It's been that way since pop warner and tee ball ... Sure, it cost our teams some drug addicts who had athletic potential, but that was their choice. Pro athletes? Sorry, actions still have consequences.

 

Want your RBs smoking dope? Watch Indonesian Football or change the law on smoking dope ... but until the law changes, don't expect the NFL to hold athletes to a lower and more lenient standard than other professionals ...

 

Drug addicts have far bigger problems than being denied their unalienable right to run the ball -- oh, I mean, squandering their priviledge of amassing wealth by simply playing a game.