Quantcast

‘Bashful bladder syndrome,’ could cost employers billions?

~ The Rebel ~ 2012/05/10 15:36:45

It could cost U.S. employers between $2 billion and $4 billion to comply with an obscure Americans with Disabilities Act regulation meant to protect workers who are gun-shy in public restrooms.

According to an informal discussion letter the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued in August 2011, “paruresis” — more commonly known as “shy bladder syndrome” — qualifies as a disability under the amended Americans with Disabilities Act.

The International Paruresis Association defines the odd affliction as the “inability to urinate with others present.” The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the gold-standard of psychiatrists, categorizes it as a social phobia that affects roughly seven percent of the population — approximately 17 million Americans.

The Association alleges that thousands of people who are afflicted by paruresis have been unfairly fired because of their inability to urinate in a public restroom during random drug screening tests.

Read More: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/10/americans-with-d...

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Beat Magnum True Hero 2012/05/10 22:24:27
    Beat Magnum True Hero
    +1
    I've actually never had anyone present when I take a piss test.
  • goatman112003 2012/05/10 19:51:26
    goatman112003
    +2
    Then stand closer to the urinary convenience. Normally on drug tests it is a special clean bathroom and someone is there to make sure you don't swap samples as a way to get around it. To build a special bathroom for the pee hindered is something else..
  • sglmom 2012/05/10 18:49:02
    sglmom
    +3
    Say what?
    IF you need to go .. you find a way ..
    NO excuses .. this was done regularly/randomly while serving in the Military
    (and all along too outside of my Military Service days)
  • Sherlock Dog BL - a Gazillion 2012/05/10 16:10:25
  • Seonag 2012/05/10 16:02:37
    Seonag
    +2
    This is what 'big government' gets us!
  • **Bessie** 2012/05/10 15:55:34
    **Bessie**
    +3
    Wow...get over it! If I gotta pee, I will find a way and a where!
  • Mrs. ma... **Bessie** 2012/05/10 16:14:59
    Mrs. maggot
    +4
    I was "out to there" pregnant with my second daughter, when I had to attend a funeral in the way out rural mountains of NC. The church service was in a small town then a half hour drive way up in the mountains to the grave site. On the way, the little bugger kicked me in the bladder enough times to necessitate a stop for me. We pulled in at the only place there was, a general store, that was probably close to 200 years old, rustic to say the least. I went in to the good sized shop in my nicest church dress and asked directions to the ladies room. I was told NO! For shop keepers only.

    I promptly walked out into their parking lot and squatted......
  • **Bessie** Mrs. ma... 2012/05/10 16:18:06
    **Bessie**
    +4
    Gotta do what you gotta do! I can't believe, seeing your "condition", that the shopkeeper at the NC store would not make an exception! Ridiculous!!
  • Mrs. ma... **Bessie** 2012/05/10 16:22:15
    Mrs. maggot
    +4
    Yeah, there were 3 or 4 "family" members just hangin' around behind the counter too, even women.
  • **Bessie** Mrs. ma... 2012/05/10 17:11:39
    **Bessie**
    +4
    Awful!
  • Sheila 2012/05/10 15:47:23
    Sheila
    +3
    According to the state of FL testing for drugs is a violation of the 4th ammendment anyway. How long until the fired masses realize that has been ruled on there and just sue anyway? Sue for the fact that they were asked to take the test. Sue for being fired for taking the test and failing. The age of personal responsibility will be sorely missed when the gov finishes making the rulebook for life that I am sure will come out soon. Sooner if the Obamacare bill is not thrown out by the SCOTUS.
  • goatman... Sheila 2012/05/10 19:56:16
    goatman112003
    +1
    First thing the 4th amendment only applies to the government not to an employer. The only way it would apply to an employer if they are an agent of the state, this means they announce the findings will be given to the state for prosecution before the exam. The bill of rights only applies to the government not to any other party.
  • Sheila goatman... 2012/05/10 20:01:15
    Sheila
    +1
    When the gov IS the employer there has to be a way. Teachers are gov employees. Cops, firefighters, the guy who drives the big (hurts if it runs you over) garbage truck are gov employees. If no gov employees can be tested then how is the military tested? I DO know there are distinctions between public and private jobs, but this is just WRONG. (NOT you!! You are probably correct since it sounds crazy!)
  • goatman... Sheila 2012/05/10 20:21:40
    goatman112003
    +2
    There are 2 ways. One is rules and regulations where a random policy as condition of employment is done. Second they state it will not be used in prosecution and the picking is truly random. Third you administer it. Failure to give is insubordination a firing offense and testing positive is also. I worked and retired from a police department and had to deal with this. The second way is a search warrant based on probable cause where a trained observer sees something and an emergency warrant is gotten telephonically from the local judge with paperwork to follow later. Most states have a procedure for it.
  • Sheila goatman... 2012/05/11 19:21:09
    Sheila
    +2
    Thanks for the info! I had no idea that it was such a to-do to get a drug test done. Sad isn't it?
  • goatman... Sheila 2012/05/11 19:42:00
    goatman112003
    +2
    You must remember the fourth amendment. The police can't arrest you for drunk driving on a whim but must have what is considered probable cause. So what makes you think they can do it in the workplace. Either everyone takes the test at once or you have a true random draw. This is from Supreme Court decisions. Government has to go by the rules and laws of the land not make up its own.
  • Sheila goatman... 2012/05/11 20:00:31
    Sheila
    +1
    As a governing body sure, but as an employer they should operate as such.

    It just never occured to me that if I wanted to get away with it I would get a gov job...
  • goatman... Sheila 2012/05/11 22:14:19
    goatman112003
    +2
    You might but if caught they will tell any future employer of the discharge. Most future employers don't like hiring ex civil servants because you have to be a royal screwup to get fired.
  • Andy 2012/05/10 15:38:37
    Andy
    +2
    WOW...never heard of this... sorry for the condition!!

Living

2013/05/20 14:54:16

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals