You have the right to drive while drunk, if it’s your job

September 1, 2011

And the US government will fight for you!

Feds to Trucking Company: You Cannot Fire Alcoholic Drivers

The federal government has sued a major trucking company for its firing of driver with an admitted alcohol abuse problem.

Alcoholism is classified as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the suit maintains, and therefore employees cannot be prohibited even from driving 18 wheelers due to their histories of abuse.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which filed the suit against the Old Dominion Freight Line trucking company on August 16, noted that while “an employer’s concern regarding safety on our highways is a legitimate issue, an employer can both ensure safety and comply with the ADA.”

Be sure to read the whole thing, and note that, while the company may not fire an alcoholic driver, it would still be liable for any damage or injury (or, God forbid, death) caused by the driver while hammered in a protected state of sobriety-deficiency. You can bet the company’s insurance agency has already sent them a notice of rate increase (if not outright cancellation) and that those increased costs will be passed along to Old Dominion’s customers, who will pass them along to their customers, until it reaches… us, the consumers.

But none of that matters to the EEOC, which will sue until you cry “uncle” to protect the God-given rights of rummies to drive 18-wheelers on the public highway.

Is it any wonder that the federal government comes in dead-last in a popularity survey?

via Zombie at PJM

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


California: Judge suspends implementation of job-killing “greenhouse gas” law

March 22, 2011

A rare victory for commonsense in the Golden State:

Judge places California’s global warming program on hold

A San Francisco superior court judge has put California’s sweeping plan to curb greenhouse gas pollution on hold, saying the state did not adequately evaluate alternatives to its cap-and-trade program.

In a 35-page decision, Judge Ernest H. Goldsmith said the Air Resources Board had failed to consider public comments on the proposed measures before adopting the plan, which affects a broad swath of the state’s economy.

In particular, the judge noted, officials gave short shrift to analyzing a carbon fee, or carbon tax, devoting a “scant two paragraphs to this important alternative” to a market-based trading system in their December 2008 plan.

The air board said it would appeal the judge’s decision, which was filed late Friday and released Monday.

Sure, the judge wasn’t rejecting anthropogenic global warming per se, but instead objecting to the board’s lack of attention to public comment and consideration of alternative means to fight a problem that does not exist*. But, still, this functions as a temporary restraining order on a bill that would only do further damage to this state’s already gut-shot economy. The judge may be doing the right thing for the wrong reason, but it’s still the right thing.

*Okay, I may have editorialized a bit with those last few words.

ADDENDUM: Even if one thinks there’s some validity to the theory of AGW, the idea that California by itself can make a significant impact in the face of gross polluters such as China is laughable. AB32 is patent medicine meant only to make the Green Statists feel good about themselves, even though it’s laced with poison.

via Watt’s Up With That?

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Symbolic?

October 18, 2009

HOPE is a lie.

Kind of fitting, when you think about it.

(via Jules Crittenden)