Employers forcing employees into AA/NA

[Guest guest]

I read the post from the woman who was threatened with job loss by

her employer if she did not join the cult of AA and immerse herself

into FIVE meetings a week. Looks like the boss really wanted to

brainwash this poor woman. It is none of an employers' business what

a worker does on time off. The only time that alcohol or drug use

can be an issue is if the employee is losing work time due to usage

or if it is a safety issue such as pilots showing up at the airport

after a bender. Forcing an employee to attend these meetings just

because the manager thinks that there may be a " problem " is the same

as forcing workers to attend church. I was glad that the poster did

see an attorney and file suit. I was even happier when the employer

agreed to settle. Too often, most people do not know what their

rights are in the workplace and many employees get strong-armed into

these treatement programs.

[Guest guest]

Hi AH,

The really disturbing thing abt Rita's case though is that she only

really had legal recourse because she worked for a State-owned

company. If it had been a private employer, she'd be in shtum. In

addition, she had to undergo much hardship and privations to achieve

success and only someone of her commitment to her beliefs could have

got through it. Also she was obliged to go to SMART, which appears

to be a very fine self-help group, but as she was not Alcohol

Dependent, completely unnecessary. Even now I understand the E'AA'P

Mullahs/Thought Police are still on her back.

P.

> I read the post from the woman who was threatened with job loss by

> her employer if she did not join the cult of AA and immerse herself

> into FIVE meetings a week. Looks like the boss really wanted to

> brainwash this poor woman. It is none of an employers' business

what

> a worker does on time off. The only time that alcohol or drug use

> can be an issue is if the employee is losing work time due to usage

> or if it is a safety issue such as pilots showing up at the airport

> after a bender. Forcing an employee to attend these meetings just

> because the manager thinks that there may be a " problem " is the

same

> as forcing workers to attend church. I was glad that the poster

did

> see an attorney and file suit. I was even happier when the

employer

> agreed to settle. Too often, most people do not know what their

> rights are in the workplace and many employees get strong-armed

into

> these treatement programs.

[Guest guest]

>

> > Why did Rita's employer feel that s/he had the " right " to force

her

> > into this cult? That is really scary.

> >

> ---------------

>

> I work on a state-run railroad and though I had an excellent

work record, I was found with a tiny trace of alcohol once (years

ago) on a random breathalyzer.

Even a spoonful of Nyquil could have given a tiny trace of alcohol in

a breathalyzer. And we all know how poppyseed bagels send off

a " false " opiate-positive in a drug test

They claimed they were " protecting the public " by forcing me to be

involved with the " recovery " cult. They have never given any

explanation of how it " protects " anyone riding on a railroad if an

employee of the railroad is compelled to sit in recovery meetings and

pretend on command to believe in " powerlessness " and the other crap

spouted there.

When I was in AA/NA, I was surprised at how many people were forced

into the " rooms " by their employers. It is as if their private lives

can no longer exist because a trace of alcohol was found on their

breath or it was found out that someone smoked a joint on a day off.

It is scary how many employers do have that power over the

people that work for them. Thank-you for telling me what happened to

you.

>

> As Pete mentioned, after filing a First Amendment suit, I

was " allowed " to attend SMART instead of AA -- but SMART was not

necessary or relevant either, since I had long since corrected my

alcohol-misbehavior (which was never very serious). I found it

hilarious that they insisted I name a " sponsor " in SMART -- to shut

them up I told them my sponsor was Lois Trimpey (wife of Jack, the RR

dude, who doesn't approve of recovery groups of ANY kind, and hates

SMART in fact!). They actually accepted it and wrote it down -- it's

still in my EAP " progress record " .

>

Writing down a sponsor's name in a work file seems like a breach of

privacy. What is next? The workplace being able to monitor where

one goes to church and even if that person goes to " confession " and

to which priest s/he went to?

[Guest guest]

Hi Rita

While I wrote previously of the good fortune of Americans to have a

written constitution to protect them, I petty well forgot how limited

its value it is against the imperious rule of private agencies such

as employers. That the AA behemoth could have risen to this

ludicrous state of affairs is incredible. They of course would also

have expected yout to name an AA sponsor if you had gone, forcing you

to break their anonymity!

Expecting safety-critical employees not to have drunk alcohol too

close to when they are on duty is reasonable. Responding to a

violation with the insistence that the person is an " alcoholic " , over

direct medical testimony to the contrary as in your case, is utterly

outrageous. Quite apart from the violation of your religious freedom,

five meetings a week for heavens sake? There is no evidence to

support forcing this level of involvement even if you were alcohol

dependent, but seeing as you werent, it beggars belief. AA is not " I

drank too close to when I start work " Anonymous. It is explicitly

solely for alcoholics who wish to stop drinking totally. There is no

evidence at all this was necessary in your case.

Apart from the injustice of it, this authoritarianism must surely be

counter-productive. Employees outraged at the injustice are more

than likely to view the EAP and the whole AA involvement with

contempt and this is hardly likely to encourage reformation of their

drink problems if they actually have them - and this too of course

does not include the disruptive effect on the social support if they

drink socially, or the stress caused if it clashes with the person's

culture, such as the role of alcohol in Jewish customs.

On ADD_MED the Big Book Borg have been as usual engaging in their

ritual backslapping and denunciations of skeptical voices such as

myself. As usual they have the situation entirely reversed - the

intensely destructive force comes from the Borg, who ferociously

attempt to impose their world view on others, and perceive any other

perspective as an attack upon themselves. This would be bad enough

if it were soely confined to the actual alcohol/drug abusing

population, but increasingly it catches completely inappropriate ppl

in its net, the AA Qaeda.

P.

>

> I work on a state-run railroad and though I had an excellent

work record, I was found with a tiny trace of alcohol once (years

ago) on a random breathalyzer. They claimed they were " protecting

the public " by forcing me to be involved with the " recovery " cult.

They have never given any explanation of how it " protects " anyone

riding on a railroad if an employee of the railroad is compelled to

sit in recovery meetings and pretend on command to believe

in " powerlessness " and the other crap spouted there.

>

> As Pete mentioned, after filing a First Amendment suit, I

was " allowed " to attend SMART instead of AA -- but SMART was not

necessary or relevant either, since I had long since corrected my

alcohol-misbehavior (which was never very serious). I found it

hilarious that they insisted I name a " sponsor " in SMART -- to shut

them up I told them my sponsor was Lois Trimpey (wife of Jack, the RR

dude, who doesn't approve of recovery groups of ANY kind, and hates

SMART in fact!). They actually accepted it and wrote it down -- it's

still in my EAP " progress record " .

>

> ~Rita

[Guest guest]

> Writing down a sponsor's name in a work file seems like a breach of

> privacy. What is next? The workplace being able to monitor where

> one goes to church and even if that person goes to " confession " and

> to which priest s/he went to?

Maybe Riate should have giventhe name of the dude who wrote the

releveant bit of the First Amendment....

P.

[Guest guest]

> Hi Rita

>

> While I wrote previously of the good fortune of Americans to have a

> written constitution to protect them, I petty well forgot how

limited

> its value it is against the imperious rule of private agencies such

> as employers.

Freedom in this country is really a myth. Religious right-wingers

are always finding loopholes to get their agenda forced onto everyone

else. The ones with the most money can buy their freedom while the

poor or middle-class are just SOL. Look at OJ. Employers in many

states - including mine since Florida is a " right-to-work " state -

can do whatever they damned well please to their workers. Forcing

employees into AA or NA is very big in the Sunshine State. One does

not even need a DUI arrest or a positive pee test for a boss to force

Twelve-Step membership. I saw a lot of it while I was in the cult.

Many people were NOT alcoholics or addicts but were forced into the

program with the threat of job loss. After awhile, many of these

poor souls actually believe that they were as sick as the rest of the

people in the rooms.

[Guest guest]

> Forcing

> employees into AA or NA is very big in the Sunshine State. One does

> not even need a DUI arrest or a positive pee test for a boss to force

> Twelve-Step membership. I saw a lot of it while I was in the cult.

> Many people were NOT alcoholics or addicts but were forced into the

> program with the threat of job loss. After awhile, many of these

> poor souls actually believe that they were as sick as the rest of the

> people in the rooms.

>

---------------

How awful! What pretext do the Fla. employers use for the mandate to

AA/NA, if it didn't involve " positive " breath or urine?

And why would someone who does not have a drink or drug problem ever begin

to believe they are " sick " with " addiction " ?? I should think they'd either be

seriously pissed off, or else just bored and indifferent -- e.g. reading the

newspaper and listening to a Walkman during meetings.

~Rita

[Guest guest]

>>>the Big Book Borg have been as usual engaging in their

ritual backslapping and denunciations of skeptical voices such as

myself. As usual they have the situation entirely reversed - the

intensely destructive force comes from the Borg, who ferociously

attempt to impose their world view on others, and perceive any other

perspective as an attack upon themselves.<<<<<<<

Big Book Borg...........love that

thank you

MC

[Guest guest]

>

> Freedom in this country is really a myth. Religious right-wingers

> are always finding loopholes to get their agenda forced onto

everyone

> else. The ones with the most money can buy their freedom while the

> poor or middle-class are just SOL. Look at OJ. Employers in many

> states - including mine since Florida is a " right-to-work " state -

> can do whatever they damned well please to their workers.

I take it " right to work " is disgusting rightwing humbug code for

" right to make ppl choose between starvation or slave wages " . This

horrific Orwellian authoritarianism gets me even more pissed than the

steppers do. It is a neaner neaner to " right to social security "

which is a UN Charter Human Right. As if stopping unemployed ppl

starving and ensuring them dignity with reasonable pay and

conditions in employment is preventing anybody from working for fuck's

sake.

According to the ultra-conservatives and Libertarians, this shows how

free you are. Youre free to own a company that grinds the faces of

the poor making you as rich as you like. what is so immensely stupid

about this argument is that it totally ignores the power that wealth

brings. It would be ok maybe if we all started at 18 with equal

wealth and education, but we dont. There is no fairness or freedom

when some ppl start off so more advantaged than others.

If freedom means giving other ppl the right to rip others off to feed

their own greed then freedom truly is slavery.

P.

[Guest guest]

Yep .

Why do you think Rita that they insisted on FIVE meetings a week, and

12-step therapy can go on for months, or even years? It's basically

saturating you with it till it starts to rub off. Also that level of

involvement hampers your ability to have involvements outside XA. I

was actually told to just got to work, go to an XA meeting, and then

go to bed, and that was pretty well what I did. If I'd had a family

the kids would have been in bed by the time I got back and maybe the

missus too.

In reality it was always nuts that I was an alcoholic, butmy exposre

to XA genunely convinved me that I was, and then my gf succumbed to

the virus too, but I think she was already infected. I dragged up

" youthful indiscretions " to justify my decision, and she came up with

the fact that one day she found herself staring at alcohol bottles!

When I mention that on addict-l Floyd Garrett said that it might be

indeed an indicator of alcoholism.

This is one reason why the " Read he BB and listen to AA speakers to

learn about alcoholism " argument, which has appeaed (again) on add_med

recently, is so flawed. As the Ofshe study showed, ppl gradually

tailor there story to fit the AA model and adopt the whole AA

philosophy.

P.

P.

> > And why would someone who does not have a drink or drug

problem ever

> > begin to believe they are " sick " with " addiction " ?? I should

think

> > they'd either be seriously pissed off, or else just bored and

indifferent

> > -- e.g. reading the newspaper and listening to a Walkman during

meetings.

>

> For months or years, there is a constant droning repetition of " If

you

> didn't belong here, you wouldn't have ended up here. Denial is part

> of the disease. " Under pressure, the target may mention some

> trivial incident such as once drinking too much at a party, and be

> greeted with snickering " shares " like " Yep, that's how it started

> with me, too. And five years later I had three DWIs under my

> belt. " If the target points out that he/she has never had any

> significant problems from alcohol, the answer is a smug " Yet. "

>

> If this crap happened only once or twice, it could be brushed off

> as a strange Kafkaesque experience. But the coercion usually

> continues for much longer. Few people are so unimpressionable

> as to remain completely unaffected by this programming.

> Especially when one's ordinary and normal behavior is constantly

> being reframed by the steppers as a disease symptom, many

> people eventually come to question their own identities.

>

> It'd be nice if more people had the gumption to challenge the

> coercion immediately. Most people's reaction seems to be

> that they'll just endure it and try to get on with their lives,

> not realizing exactly how damaging the process is.

>

> H.

[Guest guest]

Yep .

Why do you think Rita that they insisted on FIVE meetings a week, and

12-step therapy can go on for months, or even years? It's basically

saturating you with it till it starts to rub off. Also that level of

involvement hampers your ability to have involvements outside XA. I

was actually told to just got to work, go to an XA meeting, and then

go to bed, and that was pretty well what I did. If I'd had a family

the kids would have been in bed by the time I got back and maybe the

missus too.

In reality it was always nuts that I was an alcoholic, butmy exposre

to XA genunely convinved me that I was, and then my gf succumbed to

the virus too, but I think she was already infected. I dragged up

" youthful indiscretions " to justify my decision, and she came up with

the fact that one day she found herself staring at alcohol bottles!

When I mention that on addict-l Floyd Garrett said that it might be

indeed an indicator of alcoholism.

This is one reason why the " Read he BB and listen to AA speakers to

learn about alcoholism " argument, which has appeaed (again) on add_med

recently, is so flawed. As the Ofshe study showed, ppl gradually

tailor there story to fit the AA model and adopt the whole AA

philosophy.

P.

P.

> > And why would someone who does not have a drink or drug

problem ever

> > begin to believe they are " sick " with " addiction " ?? I should

think

> > they'd either be seriously pissed off, or else just bored and

indifferent

> > -- e.g. reading the newspaper and listening to a Walkman during

meetings.

>

> For months or years, there is a constant droning repetition of " If

you

> didn't belong here, you wouldn't have ended up here. Denial is part

> of the disease. " Under pressure, the target may mention some

> trivial incident such as once drinking too much at a party, and be

> greeted with snickering " shares " like " Yep, that's how it started

> with me, too. And five years later I had three DWIs under my

> belt. " If the target points out that he/she has never had any

> significant problems from alcohol, the answer is a smug " Yet. "

>

> If this crap happened only once or twice, it could be brushed off

> as a strange Kafkaesque experience. But the coercion usually

> continues for much longer. Few people are so unimpressionable

> as to remain completely unaffected by this programming.

> Especially when one's ordinary and normal behavior is constantly

> being reframed by the steppers as a disease symptom, many

> people eventually come to question their own identities.

>

> It'd be nice if more people had the gumption to challenge the

> coercion immediately. Most people's reaction seems to be

> that they'll just endure it and try to get on with their lives,

> not realizing exactly how damaging the process is.

>

> H.

[Guest guest]

> I take it " right to work " is disgusting rightwing humbug code for

> " right to make ppl choose between starvation or slave wages " . This

> horrific Orwellian authoritarianism gets me even more pissed than

the

> steppers do. It is a neaner neaner to " right to social security "

> which is a UN Charter Human Right. As if stopping unemployed ppl

> starving and ensuring them dignity with reasonable pay and

> conditions in employment is preventing anybody from working for

fuck's

> sake.

I heard that Social Security may raise the retirement age to SEVENTY-

TWO! Geez, talk of being total scrooges. I see oldsters pushing

carts in supermarkets or pushing brooms in fast-food joints just to

make ends meet. Yet the government wants to work the elderly even

longer.

>

> According to the ultra-conservatives and Libertarians, this shows

how

> free you are. Youre free to own a company that grinds the faces of

> the poor making you as rich as you like. what is so immensely

stupid

> about this argument is that it totally ignores the power that

wealth

> brings. It would be ok maybe if we all started at 18 with equal

> wealth and education, but we dont. There is no fairness or freedom

> when some ppl start off so more advantaged than others.

>

> If freedom means giving other ppl the right to rip others off to

feed

> their own greed then freedom truly is slavery.

>

> P.

I could not have said it better myself. Walt Disney World is another

horrible example of greed and the " right-to-work " mentality. Since

September 11, business has suffered at the WDW theme parks. Now

Eisner, the ultra-rich scrooge CEO of Disney, has " asked "

that the employees " voluntarily " cut their work week hours by 20%

to " help " the company during this tough time. It sickens me that

this billionaire CEO with his huge bonuses demands that the underpaid

hourly employees sacrifice for the " good " of the company while Eisner

and his other head honchos still draw their huge salaries and

bonuses. The poor are expected to continuously suffer so that the

rich get richer. Yes, this bothers me much more than the Steppers.

[Guest guest]

> I take it " right to work " is disgusting rightwing humbug code for

> " right to make ppl choose between starvation or slave wages " . This

> horrific Orwellian authoritarianism gets me even more pissed than

the

> steppers do. It is a neaner neaner to " right to social security "

> which is a UN Charter Human Right. As if stopping unemployed ppl

> starving and ensuring them dignity with reasonable pay and

> conditions in employment is preventing anybody from working for

fuck's

> sake.

I heard that Social Security may raise the retirement age to SEVENTY-

TWO! Geez, talk of being total scrooges. I see oldsters pushing

carts in supermarkets or pushing brooms in fast-food joints just to

make ends meet. Yet the government wants to work the elderly even

longer.

>

> According to the ultra-conservatives and Libertarians, this shows

how

> free you are. Youre free to own a company that grinds the faces of

> the poor making you as rich as you like. what is so immensely

stupid

> about this argument is that it totally ignores the power that

wealth

> brings. It would be ok maybe if we all started at 18 with equal

> wealth and education, but we dont. There is no fairness or freedom

> when some ppl start off so more advantaged than others.

>

> If freedom means giving other ppl the right to rip others off to

feed

> their own greed then freedom truly is slavery.

>

> P.

I could not have said it better myself. Walt Disney World is another

horrible example of greed and the " right-to-work " mentality. Since

September 11, business has suffered at the WDW theme parks. Now

Eisner, the ultra-rich scrooge CEO of Disney, has " asked "

that the employees " voluntarily " cut their work week hours by 20%

to " help " the company during this tough time. It sickens me that

this billionaire CEO with his huge bonuses demands that the underpaid

hourly employees sacrifice for the " good " of the company while Eisner

and his other head honchos still draw their huge salaries and

bonuses. The poor are expected to continuously suffer so that the

rich get richer. Yes, this bothers me much more than the Steppers.

[Guest guest]

> I take it " right to work " is disgusting rightwing humbug code for

> " right to make ppl choose between starvation or slave wages " . This

> horrific Orwellian authoritarianism gets me even more pissed than

the

> steppers do. It is a neaner neaner to " right to social security "

> which is a UN Charter Human Right. As if stopping unemployed ppl

> starving and ensuring them dignity with reasonable pay and

> conditions in employment is preventing anybody from working for

fuck's

> sake.

I heard that Social Security may raise the retirement age to SEVENTY-

TWO! Geez, talk of being total scrooges. I see oldsters pushing

carts in supermarkets or pushing brooms in fast-food joints just to

make ends meet. Yet the government wants to work the elderly even

longer.

>

> According to the ultra-conservatives and Libertarians, this shows

how

> free you are. Youre free to own a company that grinds the faces of

> the poor making you as rich as you like. what is so immensely

stupid

> about this argument is that it totally ignores the power that

wealth

> brings. It would be ok maybe if we all started at 18 with equal

> wealth and education, but we dont. There is no fairness or freedom

> when some ppl start off so more advantaged than others.

>

> If freedom means giving other ppl the right to rip others off to

feed

> their own greed then freedom truly is slavery.

>

> P.

I could not have said it better myself. Walt Disney World is another

horrible example of greed and the " right-to-work " mentality. Since

September 11, business has suffered at the WDW theme parks. Now

Eisner, the ultra-rich scrooge CEO of Disney, has " asked "

that the employees " voluntarily " cut their work week hours by 20%

to " help " the company during this tough time. It sickens me that

this billionaire CEO with his huge bonuses demands that the underpaid

hourly employees sacrifice for the " good " of the company while Eisner

and his other head honchos still draw their huge salaries and

bonuses. The poor are expected to continuously suffer so that the

rich get richer. Yes, this bothers me much more than the Steppers.

[Guest guest]

What a wonderfully persuasive argument you use Tommy. So mature,

reasoned and balanced, full of evidence and logical deduction. you

fighter for the rights of the mentally ill to starve on the streets

or rot in jail for committing crimes to eat or because they dont even

know what fucking planet theyre on.

You chide me for my lack of travel, and for not having heard of

Szasz's UK double, Double. How much do you know of sen's theory

of schizophrenia, I wonder? Tell me, how many mentally ill ppl have

you actually met? For almost my entire adult life my closest friends

have included mentally ill ppl. i will probably ask one to be best

man at my wedding. How many do you know, or you do just read Szasz

and conclude they dont exist?

> It is a neaner neaner to " right to social security "

> > which is a UN Charter Human Right.

>

> Rock-a-bye petie, in the state's arms

> But don't ask petie to work on the farms.

> When the state breaks, the cradle will fall

> And down will come petie, cradle and all.

>

>

> Just what I'm thrilled about these days, Pete. All those " rights "

I

> have been granted by our " social security " system. I got a letter

> just this week from them telling me how much I should expect to get

> when I turn 62 (but the scumbags will probably raise the age by

> then). Guess what. I think I will break even in real money if I

> live to be about 128. With rights like those, who needs liberty.

>

> And what did the state do with all that money they forced me

> to " save " ? Gave it to all the cry-babies to breed more cry-babies

so

> we would have a world of cry-babies who had no choice but to rock

in

> their arms and be too dumb to vote for freedom.

[Guest guest]

> I had heard that " odd " behavior is considered reason enough for an

> employer to suspect a person of drug or alcohol abuse. Employers

get

> away with a lot more in Florida since the unions are not worth a

damn

> in a " right-to-work " state.

I cant get over that Orwellian term. In the UK in the 70s and 80s,

it referred to a belief in the obligation of the State to provide

jobs by supporting failing industries or creating non-existent new

ones. At least it actually corresponded to what policies were

suggested.

A while back we came across an " addiction screening " questionnaire

for employers drawn up by an *Accountant*, not a shrink of any

kind. If you answered " No " to every single question, it retyurned a

25% chance you might be chemically dependent. If you answered " Yes "

to just one question, it returned at least 50%.

The addiction juggernaut has gone totally fucking mad.

P.

[Guest guest]

> I had heard that " odd " behavior is considered reason enough for an

> employer to suspect a person of drug or alcohol abuse. Employers

get

> away with a lot more in Florida since the unions are not worth a

damn

> in a " right-to-work " state.

I cant get over that Orwellian term. In the UK in the 70s and 80s,

it referred to a belief in the obligation of the State to provide

jobs by supporting failing industries or creating non-existent new

ones. At least it actually corresponded to what policies were

suggested.

A while back we came across an " addiction screening " questionnaire

for employers drawn up by an *Accountant*, not a shrink of any

kind. If you answered " No " to every single question, it retyurned a

25% chance you might be chemically dependent. If you answered " Yes "

to just one question, it returned at least 50%.

The addiction juggernaut has gone totally fucking mad.

P.

[Guest guest]

> Hi AH

>

> This is why the establishment loves steppism so much. It tells you

> to shut up and stop complaining that youre ripped off and be

grateful

> that you can kiss the butts of and be bone-assed by ppl who throw

you

> their scraps to live off.

>

> P.

>

Hi Pete:

Anytime a person has shared at a meeting regarding a horrible manager

at work or slave wages, that individual was told to shut up, stop

complaining, and to be GRATEFUL for that meager job. The ironic

thing was that it was usually a fairly well-off person who told the

other to not complain of bad treatment in the workplace. I had a

horrible incident with a higher-up at a former security job. I was

forced to resign due to flase allegations the security chief made

against me. I saw a lawyer to see if I had any rights. I could have

saved the fifty dollar consultation fee since I was told that I had

NO rights in a " right to work " state and that an employee can be

fired for ANY reason. The attorney says that a worker can be let go

in Florida if the supervisor does not like what kind of shoes an

employee wears. When I shared at few meetings, I was told to " shut-

up and stop complaining " even though this man had basically tarnished

my name. I finally was able to get over this betrayal by this boss,

whom I had once trusted, AFTER I left the " program " .

BTW, I work as a courier now. I did briefly go back into security

but the BS was the same with that company. Even though this captain

was better than most, he still did a lot of dirty dealings to some of

his officers and I could not respect that. So I went back to work

for the courier service. As an independent contractor, I get more

respect than I do in a " traditional " job. And I can take a day or so

off when I want to without the threat of losing my job. Business has

been slow due to the economy downturn and Sept.11 but I am much

happier than I was in a " regular " job.

One time I did have a hassle with a dispatcher who can be a real pill

sometimes. I was still in the program back then. I mentioned that

dispatcher's use of foul and threatening language towards me. I also

told of how the situtaion escalated when I reported this to the next

person-in-command when the manager was out. I was verbally attacked

in the group after one woman started the flame fest by saying that I

was acting like a " dry drunk " for reporting this man and how I needed

to " shut up and put on a happy smile " . When I told these people to

stop taking " my inventory " and told the female ringleader to look at

her own shortcomings since she had bragged of drinking 'near beer'

(which does have alcohol content in it) while she wa PREGGO! Of

course, I was made to look like the " evil person " for refusing to

take any garbage off of these Steppers. These assholes also told me

that I was playing the role of the " victim " by making a complaint

about this co-worker.

It was okay for them to tell me to accept any type of treatment but

the would not " accept " it when I bluntly told them to look at their

own despicable behavior instead of judge me for taking care of myself

in a tense work situation. Of course, the AA hypocrites could

not " accept " that. That is when I vowed to never go back to AA or

NA. You are right how the establishment does love Steppism because

it is all about blaming the victim and telling people to accept

whatever awful treatment is tossed at them. I had known of several

AA/NAers who had their own companies and how badly they had treated

their employees.

I am still angry how these people in AA felt that it was acceptable

to verbally attack me and tell me that I was worthless because I

refused to take bad treatment from a co-worker. I once even heard a

woman say at a meeting that childhood sexual abuse survivors were

supposed to list the abuse on their " Fourth Steps " . How does

something like that go on a " moral inventory " . It looks as if

the " program " is telling men and women sexual abuse victims that they

were at fault for being raped.

[Guest guest]

Is Rita an engineer? If I were on a train and the engineer were all drunked up

and could

not run the train properly, I'd be pretty concerned. Get that engineer off the

train and

put on an engineer who can drive the train.

I suspect Rita works in an office. I could understand that a person who

consistently

comes in with hangovers could make mistakes in clerical work.

In that case, fire the person for making just too many mistakes.

But this treatment coercion is another thing entirely. If there's nothing wrong

with an

employee's work, there's no damn reason for anything.

Cheers,

nz, whose wish before she dies is to ride up front in the engine when the

train comes

around the Horseshoe Curve, just outside of Altoona, PA. (No matter how old I

get, I love

to wave at the engineer when the train goes by. I'm like a little kid...)

[Guest guest]

> > It is a neaner neaner to " right to social security "

> > > which is a UN Charter Human Right.

> >

> > Rock-a-bye petie, in the state's arms

> > But don't ask petie to work on the farms.

> > When the state breaks, the cradle will fall

> > And down will come petie, cradle and all.

> >

> >

> > Just what I'm thrilled about these days, Pete. All

those " rights "

> I

> > have been granted by our " social security " system. I got a

letter

> > just this week from them telling me how much I should expect to

get

> > when I turn 62 (but the scumbags will probably raise the age by

> > then). Guess what. I think I will break even in real money if I

> > live to be about 128. With rights like those, who needs liberty.

> >

> > And what did the state do with all that money they forced me

> > to " save " ? Gave it to all the cry-babies to breed more cry-

babies

> so

> > we would have a world of cry-babies who had no choice but to rock

> in

> > their arms and be too dumb to vote for freedom.

[Guest guest]

> Is Rita an engineer? If I were on a train and the engineer were all drunked

up and could

> not run the train properly, I'd be pretty concerned. Get that engineer off

the train and

> put on an engineer who can drive the train.

>

> I suspect Rita works in an office.

>

---------------

Neither is correct. I operate switching equipment. And I have no argument

with the federal regulations that mandate that no one be allowed to operate any

kind of railroad equipment WHILE under the influence of alcohol or drugs. As

intrusive and problematic as it is, I can't reasonably argue against random drug

and alcohol testing of railroad employees -- in fact we have a 24-hour lab, and

any employee can be tested at any time.

However, the notion that no one is capable of ensuring that they are

drug/alcohol free while on duty, UNLESS they are in some kind of " program " , is

spurious. I would never have filed suit against the RR if they had briefly

suspended me from duty (as is the policy for any other rule infraction) and then

mandated daily or frequent testing for a long period of time -- a year maybe? --

before returning me to the " regular " rate of random testing. It was their

insistence that I MUST be " treated " , and the " treatment " consisting of telling

me repeatedly that I was utterly incapable of controlling myself and MUST spend

the rest of my life with meetings, sponsors, steps, and prayer to " higher

powers " in order to be considered " fit for duty " that caused me to sue.

> I could understand that a person who consistently

> comes in with hangovers could make mistakes in clerical work.

>

> In that case, fire the person for making just too many mistakes.

>

> But this treatment coercion is another thing entirely. If there's nothing

wrong with an

> employee's work, there's no damn reason for anything.

>

---------------

I agree entirely. And that's true even for employees who come up with

" dirty " breath or urine. Fact is, the federal DOT regulations do not mandate

" treatment " for transportation employees who get " positive " random tests -- they

mandate an EVALUATION to determine if they meet the criteria fro a clinical

substance use disorder, and only if they do are they required to get " treatment "

before being restored to duty. An employee who has had consistently good job

performance evaluations and good attendance, good health etc. can hardly be

assumed to be " alcoholic " or " addicted " based on one dirty pee or breathalyzer.

Yet reality is, this is what is done on my railroad and many other

transportation companies -- especially ones who are subsidized by tax dollars.

Heck, the " treatment " doesn't cost the company anything -- so they just throw

everyone into it, like garbage down a chute, and meanwhile keep telling us not

to think we're " unique " in any way -- we ALL have the same " disease " . What rot.

~Rita

[Guest guest]

> Now when did I ever say the " mentally ill " sould be imprisoned?

> Seems like I have been the one to say that only those who have

> commited crimes should be imprisoned. Seems like you once gave a

> short list of those so called " mentally ill " who, having commited

no

> crimes, should be imprisoned.

Tommy,

If you do not believe a mentally ill person should be supported and

hence they steal in order to live, then as you seem to think they

should be punshed with the full penalty of the law - which includes

imprisonment for repeat stealing. In addition, mentaly ill ppl

sometimes commit crimes because theyhave no idea wha they are doing,

such as whe they ae violent becasue they think they are being

persecuted. Since you believe in the death penalty, you presumably

advocate these ppl are actually executed, let alone imprisoned.

> >

> > You chide me for my lack of travel

>

> No, Pete, for your continuous negative generalizations of the

> American people. You're on a lofty perch, Pete, with a dire need

to

> believe you are inherently superior to Other, or rather that Other

is

> inherently inferior to you.

No Tomm you speifically criticised e for expressing opinion without

having travelled to America. Also I dont claim superiority for

myself or even for Britan particularly, or even for European Social

Democracy of which regrettably Britain has too little. I decry the

*lack* of Sical Democracy n ther laces, incduing America, which

fortunately has a damn sight more than Afghaistan or Iraq.

> , and for not having heard of

> > Szasz's UK double, Double. How much do you know of sen's

> theory

> > of schizophrenia, I wonder? Tell me, how many mentally ill ppl

> have

> > you actually met?

>

> None. How many real witches have you met, Pete?

Ok wise guy, how many ppl do you know who are USUALLY CONSIDERED

mentally ill by ppl who actually know wha they are talking about,

such as might have heard of Anreasen for example, i.e. how ,many ppl

dxed with schizophrenia or other serious psychological disorder?

Zilch mumero zero I am sure, except for those poor bastards much of

America leaves dribbling on street corners, and you quote just the

oddball shrinks who happen to seuit your purposes while make no

atte,mpt whatsoever to familiarize yourself with the mainstream

medical evidence.

> Well aren't you " compassionate " , Pete, to allow those you

stigmatize

> to have the honor of being in your wedding.

I dont stigmatize them Tommy by acknowledging their lillnees anymore

than I would stigmatize anybody by providing a ramp for their

wheelchairs. By doing so I often allow them some leeway thwat many

ppl would not. Those who dont accept they are ill may refuse to

having anything to do with them altogether, and stigmatize me because

I will.

To claim that psychiatry is a religion is total horseshit, and

undermines the credibility od fighting real pseudo-medical religions

like steppism.

Szasz is an eccentric wacko.

[Guest guest]

The below might have something going for it , but it's still a

stupid name. It ought to be called " No right to run closed shops " .

Since employment law often involves many commitments by both parties,

including to pay taxes, Im not sure requiring ppl to join the Union

is a bad thing - they get to vote and they get all the benefits the

Union wins for them, dont they?

P.

> " Right to work " means that employers may not run union-only

> shops. It's supposed to allow employees the freedom to

> choose whether or not to join the union. Florida's law states

> the following:

>

> " The right of persons to work shall not be denied or abridged on

account

> of membership or non-membership in any labor union or labor

organization.

> The right of employees, by and through a labor organization, to

bargain

> collectively shall not be denied or abridged. "

>

> No one is prevented from joining a union by right-to-work. But

> no one is forced to join either.

>

> I checked out a bunch of US right-to-work laws on this page:

>

> http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm

>

> All of them that I checked had both clauses. Unions may seek

> voluntary members, but may not attack people for refusing to

> join and may not coerce employers into establishing union-only

> shops.

>

> It's hard to see what's wrong with that. Would you rather

> return to the days when people who didn't want to join the

> union had bricks thrown through their windows?

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

At 07:49 PM 11/1/01 +0000, you wrote:

>The below might have something going for it , but it's still a

>stupid name. It ought to be called " No right to run closed shops " .

>Since employment law often involves many commitments by both parties,

>including to pay taxes, Im not sure requiring ppl to join the Union

>is a bad thing - they get to vote and they get all the benefits the

>Union wins for them, dont they?

But they have to pay union dues, which aren't always cheap.

And the union isn't necessarily trying to win any benefits that

people actually want.

My mother works for a university where a handful of people

keep trying to unionize. They hire professional unionizers to

come in and try to stir people up. She thinks her salary

and benefits are just fine already, so of course she votes

against it. Why pay the steep dues and have to keep an

eye on the union leaders, when nothing's wrong in the first

place?

Ohio doesn't have right-to-work, so if the rabble-rousers ever

somehow managed to succeed then she'd end up in the

union against her wishes (or have to leave her job). If Ohio

had right-to-work, she'd have the option to choose.

Requiring her to join a union would be goofy. She'd have to

spend money she doesn't want to spend, and have to keep

an eye on what the professional union people were trying

to do with her money in her name. It's fortunate for her that

the unionization will probably never pass.

[Guest guest]

Maybe your mom should have a right NOT to join a Union, but I hope

she doest object to OTHER employees having one if they want one, or

her bosses either.

P.

> >The below might have something going for it , but it's

still a

> >stupid name. It ought to be called " No right to run closed shops " .

> >Since employment law often involves many commitments by both

parties,

> >including to pay taxes, Im not sure requiring ppl to join the Union

> >is a bad thing - they get to vote and they get all the benefits the

> >Union wins for them, dont they?

>

> But they have to pay union dues, which aren't always cheap.

> And the union isn't necessarily trying to win any benefits that

> people actually want.

>

> My mother works for a university where a handful of people

> keep trying to unionize. They hire professional unionizers to

> come in and try to stir people up. She thinks her salary

> and benefits are just fine already, so of course she votes

> against it. Why pay the steep dues and have to keep an

> eye on the union leaders, when nothing's wrong in the first

> place?

>

> Ohio doesn't have right-to-work, so if the rabble-rousers ever

> somehow managed to succeed then she'd end up in the

> union against her wishes (or have to leave her job). If Ohio

> had right-to-work, she'd have the option to choose.

>

> Requiring her to join a union would be goofy. She'd have to

> spend money she doesn't want to spend, and have to keep

> an eye on what the professional union people were trying

> to do with her money in her name. It's fortunate for her that

> the unionization will probably never pass.

>

>