I'm happy to stand corrected on the matter of lawHere's the definition of disability from the Employment Equality Act 1998 - Alcohol seems to fit in (e) below.
No offence taken, and I take your point, but for me its a Politically Correct step too far.No disrespect, but your book doesn't really matter in this context. It is what is in the law book that matters.
To develop this is a little further, I'm not specifically commenting on alcoholics, but include any person with addictive/compulsive disorders that impair their judgement, etc.
I don't believe its right to classify
(i) people who have a choice in determining their behaviour, like alcoholics, and choose not to deal with their addiction, with
(ii) people with disabilities, for example those who have lost a limb in an accident or who are deaf or blind because of a genetic defect.
In my experience, disabled people perform well up to the limit of their disability - their spirit and courage in the face of adversity enhance all our lives.
Addicts - as opposed to recovering addicts - are unscrupulous, devious individuals who will do anything to satisfy their craving and tend to drag others down with them.
For that reason, the distinction being based on personal choice, I think the law needs to be changed or amended in this regard to exclude "practising alcoholics" from the definition of "disabled".
Re recovering alcoholics I am open to persuasion, but in employment terms they should disclose their disease to their employers to ensure appropriate checking and support mechanisms are made available.
FWIW
ONQ.