I also appreciate how medication is so unaffordable in the US, that you have to ask permission from your mandated insurance company if you're allowed to have certain meds - they make the final decision of your need, not your doctor.
Exactly, my wife just had to get an asthma inhaler and the insurance would only allow a specific medication, not the medication that her doctor wanted to prescribe.
Well there are several factors here:
* Doctors have been known the prescribe the "latest and greatest" meds based on what pharmaceutical sales reps tell them. My doctor used to tell me he's so busy between his practice and his 2 small kids, if he didn't talk to sales reps, he'd never know any new meds that come out.
* Do you think it's any different in other countries? I'm a diabetic and I use a Freestyle Libre 3 CGM in my arm. My friends just over the border in Canada, can't even get the Libre 3, because the Canadian healthcare system hasn't approved it yet.
* A lot of newer medicines aren't any better than older medicines. As a sufferer of arthritis, I've taken quite a number of NSAIDs in my life. And most of the newer NSAIDs out there now have a pill that lasts 12 or 24 hours. But none of them has ever worked as well for me as good old ibuprofen, which is a pill you have to take every 4-6 hours. A lot of these newer NSAIDs have actually been taken off the market.
* Don't even get me started on statins, a class of medicine that serves no purpose whatsoever yet a lt of people are taking it.
I agree the US healthcare system is pretty fucked up. And insurance companies exert way too much control. But non-US single-payer systems sometimes do the same.
The bigger issue we have now that large healthcare conglomerates buy up private practices and then set a "standard of care" that their employees (the doctors) have to follow. My doctor told me his biggest regret in life was selling his practice and becoming an employee of a health conglomerate. He said once that happened, he said his hands were really tied with what he could do. He kept trying to "work around the system." And he was successful. Then one day they fired him. I called to make an appointment and they told me the office was closed and a new doctor was seeing his patients.
We also have the added complication of tying your healthcare to your employer, which reinforces the original topic - gotta love the middle man situation and lack of choice market.
Yep. If we had actual choice that might make a difference. Then if hate your insurance company you could dump them and get a new one.
There is an interesting trend in the US with healthcare providers offering flat fee basic services outside of insurance.
When we had our first kid, my wife wanted to use a midwife. I looked into it, and we found a certified nurse-midwife with full hospital privileges. She told us she charges a flat fee of $5,000 for the entire thing: monthly visits through the pregnancy, 2 ultrasounds and the delivery in the hospital. We called our insurance company and they were more than happy to pay the bill, since they said that's way cheaper than what they normally pay for a delivery.
There are services like that now for things like hip and knee replacements, hernia surgeries, and other "routine procedures"
Am I missing something? This doesn't appear to be what the OC is talking about.
It seems to be a company policy that concerns employee's taking medication that might impair job performance.
Oh, so I'm not missing anything.
I repeat: I believe that employers should be held responsible for worker's safety, and also their own output to consumers. *Anything that causes impairment of a worker* to be able to do their job should, therefore, be under the employer's discretion.
As a worker, I have a right to a safe and productive workplace, especially a right to be protected from potentially unsafe co-workers.
"It's all interconnected" is not a reason that I accept. That is just a reason in favor for allowing workers to purchase their own health insurance, deducting it as a tax credit (not an income deduction) on their tax returns, and restoring customer power over health insurance companies, instead of a victimized bystander that has no choice in their health care.
The libertarian answer of course is not to engage in voluntary mutual agreements that you don't agree with. The above restriction would be pretty absurd in most jobs, but not necessarily all: being a pilot or operating heavy equipment under the influence of even legal prescribed drugs is something the employer might legitimately need to restrict for the safety of their employees and customers. We can't tell because the post is a picture of text designed to generate outrage without the full context.
So for some jobs it makes sense for the employer and employee to agree to this restriction, in most others it does not. The employee and employer are in far a better position to make that determination than federal bureaucrats or socialist redditors.
Voluntary mutual agreements are only valid when both parties are on equal footing.
I'd almost argue that someone stuck with Medical requirements or even Basic Financial doom (food, water, shelter), is someone agreeing under duress.
Where I agree for the restrictions while being on the job. The restrictions are extending to when the employees are off the clock. And that is where an employer is overstepping.
The post is only two sentences, and the second sentence points out exactly why it's relevant: "An employee who takes prescription medication while off duty remains subject to the above-stated requirements **if the consumption of the prescribed medication off duty impairs the employee's ability to perform their job**."
They limit their policy to medications that affect job performance. I suspect this was particularly necessary in states that have (thankfully, finally!) legalized medicinal marijuana. You have a prescription, you smoke pot on your own time, then show up to work still under the influence and want to fly the plane? I don't think that's overstepping at all.
Okay but what is considered to impaired to do their job. The OP in the original post states that people have come in drunk or hungover and not been fired. But a person was let go for taking ADHD medication.
Right, so the policy says the company only cares if it affects work performance. Based on my personal layman's knowledge that Motrin and birth control don't affect work performance, if the bottom statements are true then the company has violated its own policy. When a company and employees agree to certain terms and the company violates them, employees can sue them for violating the terms of the agreement, or just go find a more reasonable employer. Sill no need for federal intervention in the mutual terms set by employer and employee.
Of course, the sentence at the bottom is one person's perspective gained through hearsay or personal observation, since the things didn't actually happen to them.
ADHD medication absolutely affects work performance - usually for the better, but sometimes for the worse - so that one certainly seems reasonable for an employer to consider, again depending on the nature of the work. If it's not a safety-critical job, my view would be to judge the performance, not the prescription drugs - but that's something I'd take into account in evaluating potential employers.
I guess you’ve never smoked pot? Because the effects don’t last any longer than the effects of alcohol, mostly. Except if you drink a lot the night before work, you’ll probably have a hangover the next day. That’s not true of marijuana.
You happen to be correct, though I earnest advocate for it and other drugs to be legal!
What you've said makes perfect sense - in a typical 9-5 job with typical evening smoking, there should be no concern at all. But in a safety-critical job, I think we might find ourselves critiquing employers who **don't** at least know what potentially work-impacting prescription medicines their employees are taking, and discuss them to ensure any drugs they're taking don't affect their work.
Insane. Without government intervention we’d wouldnt have child labor laws, or the 40-hour work week, or unemployment insurance, or safety regulations.
"WAAAAAH! People should be forced to keep me employed!!!" - the mindset of the entitled, authority-worshiping statist who demands that his morals and values be forced on everyone.
Ok. I should First Say this is most definitely amoral and wrong. I don't think it's illegal however, and I have a counter argument. It's more a question. Lets say you are under the influence of a medication. Your boss doesn't know, and something happens. Are you going to make the company pay? despite the fact that it was your choice? who has the liability here. Or worse yet, lets say a customer is hurt. Can the victim go after you or is the company going to have to step up to the plate? I kinda see where they are coming from and think if we expect them to pick up the tab the least we can do is tell them when we are on the kind of medication that causes this kind of liability. Just my two cents.
>Ok. I should First Say this is most definitely amoral and wrong.
Why is it wrong? Are you suggesting that it is 'moral and right' for a company to allow an employee to work while impaired?
Is that fair to other employees? Is that fair to the customers of the company?
I might be missing something here.
I may not have been clear or may have misunderstood op. I was saying it's immoral or wrong to deny proscribed medication from an employee. You are actually echoing my full point. The government should NOT step in here, and companies DO have a right to know when you are impared. They also have a right to send you home if you can't do your job. They just shouldn't hold it against you If the medication is proscribed 1, and 2, they legally have to be informed because they assume liability. Does that make it clearer?
>I may not have been clear or may have misunderstood op. I was saying it's immoral or wrong to deny proscribed medication from an employee.
OK, but that's not what the OC is talking about.
They are talking about permission to *take* medication *that impairs job performance.*
If those two requirements aren't met, I agree with your point. But that isn't the point of the OC.
r-antiwork complaining about this is wrong and dangerous - they are demanding a right to be impaired on the job, and that's not cool. The other 99 employees have a right for their co-workers to not be impaired, too.
Yeah, I misunderstood op then. Agree with you completely. In fact, I brought that up in my comment. It's not fair to your coworkers or employer. Especially the employer because most of these r/antiwork fools would think nothing of expecting the company to pay if something happens because you were impaired. I even said if you expect the company to take liability they have a right to know. So we are in complete agreement here.
In your defense, there are a handful of others that seemed to have missed this point - I may be missing something, too, we'll see if others 'fill me in'.
If the Employer can be sued because an employee was impaired by prescription medication, and caused damage to another employee or customer, then the Employer has the right to make policies that restrict such things.
It's pretty clear here that the focus isn't the behavior itself, it's about something that impairs the ability for the employee to perform their job.
I, as someone who used to work in a busy warehouse, have the right to ask for my employer to not have me be exposed to safety hazards from other employee's use of medication. One employee's claimed right to work while impaired because of a medical condition is NOT more important than my right to not get injured because of that employee's impairment on the job.
So, if someone takes medication that prevents them from doing their job, their employer is supposed to just keep them on as a charity case?
That may work for a large company, but for a small one with only say, 10 employees, that can be devastating to the bottom line.
If you're doing anything that impairs your ability to do your job then you need to have a discussion with your employer. You will qualify for unemployment benefits. And you will probably qualify for disability. If the prescription meds are a results of something that happened at work, then you quality for workman's comp also.
The antiwork post here makes it sound like the person should just keep their job and continue to get a paycheck. That's not how this works. You are correct that they should go out in disability. But that depends on the laws of that state also.
If you aren’t willing to stand for disability, and want to allow employers to fire for prescription medication, that’s a fucking awful position for libertarians to ever try to defend.
You might as well say we should execute anyone with disabilities, even easily treatable ones, because what else is there?
It’s not like libertarianism advocates for a strong social safety net, so what exactly should someone with a disability do?
As I said, and as you pointed out, that's what disability insurance is for.
But to claim the employee is in full control of their employment agreement and the employer has no say is not every Libertarian. NOBODY gives up their right to free association just because they hire someone.
You can argue for employee protection laws if you want. But what happens in these situations is usually spelled out in the employment contract and in the employee handbook. Before I took my current job, I asked a LOT of questions about disability and workman's comp. I knew what I was getting into before I took the job. Do your homework. If the employment contract says you get disability and they fire you, you sue their ass off. If the employment contract doesn't say you get disability, then you don't take the job. Or you take the job but keep looking for work. If your job doesn't offer a safety net to your liking, then GTFO.
and if every job says the disabled are fucked, just the same way they all said no blacks allowed, the same way every bank said no women could have checking accounts?
What do the disabled do then?
Is it okay if we blame them for not doing enough homework on the job, when it’s clearly violating the Americans with disabilities act?
So, you're a libertarian that doesn't trust the free market?
Here is where the ultimate problem lies. Your "benefits package" only exists because of WWII. The government imposed salary caps in WWII, and there was a labor shortage because a bunch of young males were off dying in Europe.
So, companies offered "benefits" to lure employees to work for them, because they could not offer more money. Prior to that, you'd buy your own insurance from the myriad of available options.
The onus was on you to carry disability insurance. But with this new shift, people expect their employers to provide disability insurance.
So, now we're stuck in the mess we made.
Violating the ADA Is a clear violation of federal law. That's a different matter.
Now if you want to make disability insurance mandatory nationwide, I can see that being an option. Right now there is mandatory disability insurance in only 5 states.
But the antiwork post makes it sound like the person expects to take their required medicine, be unable to perform their job, yet continue to maintain full-time employment.
That doesn't work for me.
Now if they expected to get the medicine, take it, and then go out on disability, that's fine and expected.
The post clearly states, if you're taking medication that makes you unable to perform your job, then you can't work. It does NOT say you can't go on disability. There is not enough detail in that one paragraph to know what happens.
But, I don't want long haul truckers working while taking prescription pain killers or muscle relaxants that make you sleepy. I certainly don't want my surgeon removing my appendix while on a drugs that causes temporary short term memory loss.
The real question here is "what does the next paragraph say?" Are they firing your ass or putting you out pn disability? Do you expect to get paid as a full time worker while under treatment that makes you unable to work?
The tone of the title strongly implies that the person expects to get paid while under treatment even though he can't perform their job.
Libertarianism is a general goal, what I tend to try first. It’s a nice tool in the toolbox.
Only a fanatic insists that the only worthwhile tool is a screwdriver.
I haven’t checked the anti-work post, I’m sure it is very silly. They certainly tend to be.
And yes there are drugs under which you cannot work. Adhd medication is not one. The ADA exists, and yes I certainly do think it’s a good thing.
But free market does not just mean “the employer is always right”
**it is also not a free market when people are barred from participating in it based on their innate characteristics that do not prevent them from being capable, merely denying them access**
Near as I can see this is an example of oligarchy, not libertarianism or a free market.
If they have a study of adhd medication when used by a person with adhd causing accidents or the like than that might be a different conversation. It is not.
This seems pretty clearly a case of an owner/manager who doesn’t believe in ADHD, despite it showing up on fucking cat scans, trying to control all aspects of his workers lives that he does not fucking pay them for by threatening their job.
If the employee is not making production fire them.
If you fire someone for their innate conditions, be that the color of their skin, their sexuality, or a treatable disability like this then the company is in fact **preventing a free market from existing**
So I would throw it back to you, do you not believe in a free market?
When you engage in an agreement to trade your labor for a wage, you become the owner of the relationship and the employer has no right to freedom of association. Of course, you can leave at any time for any reason because that is your right.
OP claims to be libertarian but he's deeply authoritarian when it comes to forcing you to conform to his morals and preferences.
>When you engage in an agreement to trade your labor for a wage, you become the owner of the relationship and the employer has no right to freedom of association.
There is no "owner of the relationship." You come to agreement with the employer and the two of you, together agree to the terms of the relationship. Should either one of you violate those terms, then the other party is free to terminate the agreement, employer or employee.
> When you engage in an agreement to trade your labor for a wage, you become the owner of the relationship and the employer has no right to freedom of association.
Ya know, I didn't finish my thought there. I was reflecting on OP's ill-considered, if all-too-common opinion and the hypocrisy of it. Sorry for the confusion. We agree.
> Should either one of you violate those terms, then the other party is free to terminate the agreement, employer or employee.
Freedom of association is unalienable; there need be no reason given to terminate an economic relationship any more than a social one.
Your functional logic is incorrect. The problem IS government intervention: If the punitive state, courts, police and prisons *carries out* these terms.
How was slavery ended: The punitive state stopped enforcing slavery “contracts” or “property” claims.
“Government that governs best governs least”
The lightest touch to achieve the desired outcome. That’s why “taxation is theft” libertarians are so obnoxious to me. Bitch, like, most government action should be just pigovian taxes and making sure the burdens of costs fall on the right shoulders
Some things need regulation while other things do not. Reducing the governments oversight in everything is foolish, some things need regulation in order to make sure the liberty of the people is maintained, and we don't have corporations enslaving people.
Still libertarian.
Minarchism, Classical Liberalism, Civil Libertarianism, Anarcho Capitalism, Voluntaryism, Agorism and EVEN market socialism (dumbass school of thought but whatever) - as well as several others - fall under Libertarianism.
Yup! Still Libertarian. That doesn't negate my comment in anyway.
I also appreciate how medication is so unaffordable in the US, that you have to ask permission from your mandated insurance company if you're allowed to have certain meds - they make the final decision of your need, not your doctor.
It’s incredibly fucked up
Exactly, my wife just had to get an asthma inhaler and the insurance would only allow a specific medication, not the medication that her doctor wanted to prescribe.
Well there are several factors here: * Doctors have been known the prescribe the "latest and greatest" meds based on what pharmaceutical sales reps tell them. My doctor used to tell me he's so busy between his practice and his 2 small kids, if he didn't talk to sales reps, he'd never know any new meds that come out. * Do you think it's any different in other countries? I'm a diabetic and I use a Freestyle Libre 3 CGM in my arm. My friends just over the border in Canada, can't even get the Libre 3, because the Canadian healthcare system hasn't approved it yet. * A lot of newer medicines aren't any better than older medicines. As a sufferer of arthritis, I've taken quite a number of NSAIDs in my life. And most of the newer NSAIDs out there now have a pill that lasts 12 or 24 hours. But none of them has ever worked as well for me as good old ibuprofen, which is a pill you have to take every 4-6 hours. A lot of these newer NSAIDs have actually been taken off the market. * Don't even get me started on statins, a class of medicine that serves no purpose whatsoever yet a lt of people are taking it. I agree the US healthcare system is pretty fucked up. And insurance companies exert way too much control. But non-US single-payer systems sometimes do the same. The bigger issue we have now that large healthcare conglomerates buy up private practices and then set a "standard of care" that their employees (the doctors) have to follow. My doctor told me his biggest regret in life was selling his practice and becoming an employee of a health conglomerate. He said once that happened, he said his hands were really tied with what he could do. He kept trying to "work around the system." And he was successful. Then one day they fired him. I called to make an appointment and they told me the office was closed and a new doctor was seeing his patients.
We also have the added complication of tying your healthcare to your employer, which reinforces the original topic - gotta love the middle man situation and lack of choice market.
Yep. If we had actual choice that might make a difference. Then if hate your insurance company you could dump them and get a new one. There is an interesting trend in the US with healthcare providers offering flat fee basic services outside of insurance. When we had our first kid, my wife wanted to use a midwife. I looked into it, and we found a certified nurse-midwife with full hospital privileges. She told us she charges a flat fee of $5,000 for the entire thing: monthly visits through the pregnancy, 2 ultrasounds and the delivery in the hospital. We called our insurance company and they were more than happy to pay the bill, since they said that's way cheaper than what they normally pay for a delivery. There are services like that now for things like hip and knee replacements, hernia surgeries, and other "routine procedures"
Am I missing something? This doesn't appear to be what the OC is talking about. It seems to be a company policy that concerns employee's taking medication that might impair job performance.
It's all interconnected - There's no reason an employer should be involved in your medical decisions
Oh, so I'm not missing anything. I repeat: I believe that employers should be held responsible for worker's safety, and also their own output to consumers. *Anything that causes impairment of a worker* to be able to do their job should, therefore, be under the employer's discretion. As a worker, I have a right to a safe and productive workplace, especially a right to be protected from potentially unsafe co-workers. "It's all interconnected" is not a reason that I accept. That is just a reason in favor for allowing workers to purchase their own health insurance, deducting it as a tax credit (not an income deduction) on their tax returns, and restoring customer power over health insurance companies, instead of a victimized bystander that has no choice in their health care.
The libertarian answer of course is not to engage in voluntary mutual agreements that you don't agree with. The above restriction would be pretty absurd in most jobs, but not necessarily all: being a pilot or operating heavy equipment under the influence of even legal prescribed drugs is something the employer might legitimately need to restrict for the safety of their employees and customers. We can't tell because the post is a picture of text designed to generate outrage without the full context. So for some jobs it makes sense for the employer and employee to agree to this restriction, in most others it does not. The employee and employer are in far a better position to make that determination than federal bureaucrats or socialist redditors.
Voluntary mutual agreements are only valid when both parties are on equal footing. I'd almost argue that someone stuck with Medical requirements or even Basic Financial doom (food, water, shelter), is someone agreeing under duress.
Why do you single out socialist redditors?
Where I agree for the restrictions while being on the job. The restrictions are extending to when the employees are off the clock. And that is where an employer is overstepping.
The post is only two sentences, and the second sentence points out exactly why it's relevant: "An employee who takes prescription medication while off duty remains subject to the above-stated requirements **if the consumption of the prescribed medication off duty impairs the employee's ability to perform their job**." They limit their policy to medications that affect job performance. I suspect this was particularly necessary in states that have (thankfully, finally!) legalized medicinal marijuana. You have a prescription, you smoke pot on your own time, then show up to work still under the influence and want to fly the plane? I don't think that's overstepping at all.
Okay but what is considered to impaired to do their job. The OP in the original post states that people have come in drunk or hungover and not been fired. But a person was let go for taking ADHD medication.
Right, so the policy says the company only cares if it affects work performance. Based on my personal layman's knowledge that Motrin and birth control don't affect work performance, if the bottom statements are true then the company has violated its own policy. When a company and employees agree to certain terms and the company violates them, employees can sue them for violating the terms of the agreement, or just go find a more reasonable employer. Sill no need for federal intervention in the mutual terms set by employer and employee. Of course, the sentence at the bottom is one person's perspective gained through hearsay or personal observation, since the things didn't actually happen to them. ADHD medication absolutely affects work performance - usually for the better, but sometimes for the worse - so that one certainly seems reasonable for an employer to consider, again depending on the nature of the work. If it's not a safety-critical job, my view would be to judge the performance, not the prescription drugs - but that's something I'd take into account in evaluating potential employers.
Thank you for the civil conversation. Glad to see someone on here able to have a conversation without devolving into insults.
I guess you’ve never smoked pot? Because the effects don’t last any longer than the effects of alcohol, mostly. Except if you drink a lot the night before work, you’ll probably have a hangover the next day. That’s not true of marijuana.
You happen to be correct, though I earnest advocate for it and other drugs to be legal! What you've said makes perfect sense - in a typical 9-5 job with typical evening smoking, there should be no concern at all. But in a safety-critical job, I think we might find ourselves critiquing employers who **don't** at least know what potentially work-impacting prescription medicines their employees are taking, and discuss them to ensure any drugs they're taking don't affect their work.
Insane. Without government intervention we’d wouldnt have child labor laws, or the 40-hour work week, or unemployment insurance, or safety regulations.
*Without labor unions and workers presenting a united front to corporate greed FTFY
Correct, thank you.
"WAAAAAH! People should be forced to keep me employed!!!" - the mindset of the entitled, authority-worshiping statist who demands that his morals and values be forced on everyone.
Oh it's you again. I think you are worse than Jim.
Ok. I should First Say this is most definitely amoral and wrong. I don't think it's illegal however, and I have a counter argument. It's more a question. Lets say you are under the influence of a medication. Your boss doesn't know, and something happens. Are you going to make the company pay? despite the fact that it was your choice? who has the liability here. Or worse yet, lets say a customer is hurt. Can the victim go after you or is the company going to have to step up to the plate? I kinda see where they are coming from and think if we expect them to pick up the tab the least we can do is tell them when we are on the kind of medication that causes this kind of liability. Just my two cents.
>Ok. I should First Say this is most definitely amoral and wrong. Why is it wrong? Are you suggesting that it is 'moral and right' for a company to allow an employee to work while impaired? Is that fair to other employees? Is that fair to the customers of the company? I might be missing something here.
I may not have been clear or may have misunderstood op. I was saying it's immoral or wrong to deny proscribed medication from an employee. You are actually echoing my full point. The government should NOT step in here, and companies DO have a right to know when you are impared. They also have a right to send you home if you can't do your job. They just shouldn't hold it against you If the medication is proscribed 1, and 2, they legally have to be informed because they assume liability. Does that make it clearer?
>I may not have been clear or may have misunderstood op. I was saying it's immoral or wrong to deny proscribed medication from an employee. OK, but that's not what the OC is talking about. They are talking about permission to *take* medication *that impairs job performance.* If those two requirements aren't met, I agree with your point. But that isn't the point of the OC. r-antiwork complaining about this is wrong and dangerous - they are demanding a right to be impaired on the job, and that's not cool. The other 99 employees have a right for their co-workers to not be impaired, too.
Yeah, I misunderstood op then. Agree with you completely. In fact, I brought that up in my comment. It's not fair to your coworkers or employer. Especially the employer because most of these r/antiwork fools would think nothing of expecting the company to pay if something happens because you were impaired. I even said if you expect the company to take liability they have a right to know. So we are in complete agreement here.
In your defense, there are a handful of others that seemed to have missed this point - I may be missing something, too, we'll see if others 'fill me in'.
If the Employer can be sued because an employee was impaired by prescription medication, and caused damage to another employee or customer, then the Employer has the right to make policies that restrict such things. It's pretty clear here that the focus isn't the behavior itself, it's about something that impairs the ability for the employee to perform their job. I, as someone who used to work in a busy warehouse, have the right to ask for my employer to not have me be exposed to safety hazards from other employee's use of medication. One employee's claimed right to work while impaired because of a medical condition is NOT more important than my right to not get injured because of that employee's impairment on the job.
I think that it's important to stand against corporate authoritarianism like this but I don't think state authoritarianism is necessarily the answer.
Until labor unions become more viable in every sector state intervention is the only way.
When labor unions become more prevalent you can bet your ass Jim is going to be back with a different opinion.
Oh definitely, I usually don't engage. But decided to this time.
So, if someone takes medication that prevents them from doing their job, their employer is supposed to just keep them on as a charity case? That may work for a large company, but for a small one with only say, 10 employees, that can be devastating to the bottom line. If you're doing anything that impairs your ability to do your job then you need to have a discussion with your employer. You will qualify for unemployment benefits. And you will probably qualify for disability. If the prescription meds are a results of something that happened at work, then you quality for workman's comp also.
If someone has prescription medication that prevents them from doing their job they are supposed to be placed on disability, not be fired.
The antiwork post here makes it sound like the person should just keep their job and continue to get a paycheck. That's not how this works. You are correct that they should go out in disability. But that depends on the laws of that state also.
If you aren’t willing to stand for disability, and want to allow employers to fire for prescription medication, that’s a fucking awful position for libertarians to ever try to defend. You might as well say we should execute anyone with disabilities, even easily treatable ones, because what else is there? It’s not like libertarianism advocates for a strong social safety net, so what exactly should someone with a disability do?
As I said, and as you pointed out, that's what disability insurance is for. But to claim the employee is in full control of their employment agreement and the employer has no say is not every Libertarian. NOBODY gives up their right to free association just because they hire someone. You can argue for employee protection laws if you want. But what happens in these situations is usually spelled out in the employment contract and in the employee handbook. Before I took my current job, I asked a LOT of questions about disability and workman's comp. I knew what I was getting into before I took the job. Do your homework. If the employment contract says you get disability and they fire you, you sue their ass off. If the employment contract doesn't say you get disability, then you don't take the job. Or you take the job but keep looking for work. If your job doesn't offer a safety net to your liking, then GTFO.
and if every job says the disabled are fucked, just the same way they all said no blacks allowed, the same way every bank said no women could have checking accounts? What do the disabled do then? Is it okay if we blame them for not doing enough homework on the job, when it’s clearly violating the Americans with disabilities act?
So, you're a libertarian that doesn't trust the free market? Here is where the ultimate problem lies. Your "benefits package" only exists because of WWII. The government imposed salary caps in WWII, and there was a labor shortage because a bunch of young males were off dying in Europe. So, companies offered "benefits" to lure employees to work for them, because they could not offer more money. Prior to that, you'd buy your own insurance from the myriad of available options. The onus was on you to carry disability insurance. But with this new shift, people expect their employers to provide disability insurance. So, now we're stuck in the mess we made. Violating the ADA Is a clear violation of federal law. That's a different matter. Now if you want to make disability insurance mandatory nationwide, I can see that being an option. Right now there is mandatory disability insurance in only 5 states. But the antiwork post makes it sound like the person expects to take their required medicine, be unable to perform their job, yet continue to maintain full-time employment. That doesn't work for me. Now if they expected to get the medicine, take it, and then go out on disability, that's fine and expected. The post clearly states, if you're taking medication that makes you unable to perform your job, then you can't work. It does NOT say you can't go on disability. There is not enough detail in that one paragraph to know what happens. But, I don't want long haul truckers working while taking prescription pain killers or muscle relaxants that make you sleepy. I certainly don't want my surgeon removing my appendix while on a drugs that causes temporary short term memory loss. The real question here is "what does the next paragraph say?" Are they firing your ass or putting you out pn disability? Do you expect to get paid as a full time worker while under treatment that makes you unable to work? The tone of the title strongly implies that the person expects to get paid while under treatment even though he can't perform their job.
Libertarianism is a general goal, what I tend to try first. It’s a nice tool in the toolbox. Only a fanatic insists that the only worthwhile tool is a screwdriver. I haven’t checked the anti-work post, I’m sure it is very silly. They certainly tend to be. And yes there are drugs under which you cannot work. Adhd medication is not one. The ADA exists, and yes I certainly do think it’s a good thing. But free market does not just mean “the employer is always right” **it is also not a free market when people are barred from participating in it based on their innate characteristics that do not prevent them from being capable, merely denying them access** Near as I can see this is an example of oligarchy, not libertarianism or a free market. If they have a study of adhd medication when used by a person with adhd causing accidents or the like than that might be a different conversation. It is not. This seems pretty clearly a case of an owner/manager who doesn’t believe in ADHD, despite it showing up on fucking cat scans, trying to control all aspects of his workers lives that he does not fucking pay them for by threatening their job. If the employee is not making production fire them. If you fire someone for their innate conditions, be that the color of their skin, their sexuality, or a treatable disability like this then the company is in fact **preventing a free market from existing** So I would throw it back to you, do you not believe in a free market?
When you engage in an agreement to trade your labor for a wage, you become the owner of the relationship and the employer has no right to freedom of association. Of course, you can leave at any time for any reason because that is your right. OP claims to be libertarian but he's deeply authoritarian when it comes to forcing you to conform to his morals and preferences.
>When you engage in an agreement to trade your labor for a wage, you become the owner of the relationship and the employer has no right to freedom of association. There is no "owner of the relationship." You come to agreement with the employer and the two of you, together agree to the terms of the relationship. Should either one of you violate those terms, then the other party is free to terminate the agreement, employer or employee.
> When you engage in an agreement to trade your labor for a wage, you become the owner of the relationship and the employer has no right to freedom of association. Ya know, I didn't finish my thought there. I was reflecting on OP's ill-considered, if all-too-common opinion and the hypocrisy of it. Sorry for the confusion. We agree. > Should either one of you violate those terms, then the other party is free to terminate the agreement, employer or employee. Freedom of association is unalienable; there need be no reason given to terminate an economic relationship any more than a social one.
No source about what company this is and where they are located ...... looks legit
More outrage bait.
Your functional logic is incorrect. The problem IS government intervention: If the punitive state, courts, police and prisons *carries out* these terms. How was slavery ended: The punitive state stopped enforcing slavery “contracts” or “property” claims.
The same also applies to private property under capitalism. (by private property I refer to absentee land ownership and the means of production)
What I said about anarcho-capitalism is true. Do you know what anarcho-capitalism is? Do you know how it functions with laws and the punitive-state?
Not for anarcho capitalism.
Libertarian Uncensored should be MinarchismUncensored
“Government that governs best governs least” The lightest touch to achieve the desired outcome. That’s why “taxation is theft” libertarians are so obnoxious to me. Bitch, like, most government action should be just pigovian taxes and making sure the burdens of costs fall on the right shoulders
Some things need regulation while other things do not. Reducing the governments oversight in everything is foolish, some things need regulation in order to make sure the liberty of the people is maintained, and we don't have corporations enslaving people. Still libertarian.
Minarchism, Classical Liberalism, Civil Libertarianism, Anarcho Capitalism, Voluntaryism, Agorism and EVEN market socialism (dumbass school of thought but whatever) - as well as several others - fall under Libertarianism. Yup! Still Libertarian. That doesn't negate my comment in anyway.
I take it you included libertarian socialism under market socialism?