Posted 12 December 2012 - 04:59 PM
and it would be your obligation to prove such
we're not talking about a racist firing a minorty. we're talking about a pharmacy owner firing a pharmacist where race isn't even a factor.
Posted 12 December 2012 - 05:04 PM
And YES, we are talking about firing a minority. A religious minority. You are being fired because of your religious beliefs.
Posted 12 December 2012 - 05:08 PM
all the pharmacist would have to show was that he refused to fill orders, and he was fired. The law is there to protect him. Whether it works in practice is NOT the issue. The issue is that there is a law to protect that employee. Why have the law at all?
Posted 12 December 2012 - 05:09 PM
No i could have been fired because my boss says i am insubordinate often, or I dont have proper hygine at work, or that my income is such that I need to let an employee go. I would beed to connect the dots and show without a doubt that you were fired for no filling scripts. How do I do that when my boss (and his lawyers) have every right to let me go for any reason, and give satisfactory reasons?
Posted 12 December 2012 - 05:12 PM
it works in practice when there is proof. a pharmacist proving he is not doing his job because of his religious beliefs does nothing towards incriminalizing the pharmacy owner.
Posted 12 December 2012 - 05:12 PM
Posted 12 December 2012 - 05:15 PM
deadheadskier, on 12 December 2012 - 12:00 PM, said:Joker, on 12 December 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:
Posted 12 December 2012 - 05:15 PM
AGAIN. The question is the law. Not how easy it is to circumvent the law. Forget about whether the pharmacist has to prove it. The law says he can not be fired for it.Again, the pharmacist would have a very very hard time proving that refuaing to fill scripts = loss of job, because the boss will create an entire host of other reasons in court. How do you draw the line from point a to point b, if your boss argues the point?
Posted 12 December 2012 - 05:24 PM
Posted 12 December 2012 - 05:25 PM
If it's their business they should be able to decide how they operate and what they will and will not do. If they're not breaking any laws, I don't see any problem with it.So you're OK with pharmacists refusing to dispense or transfer prescriptions, as long as that particular drug is not "necessary" in order to survive?
Like blood pressure medications.
People have lived to ripe old ages with high blood pressure, so that particular medication may not be "necessary" in order to survive.
Posted 12 December 2012 - 05:27 PM
Posted 12 December 2012 - 05:29 PM
Read the thread. A fourth grader could figure it out.got it. Birth Control pills aren't necessary for a women's survival. You've said it several times. A fourth grader knows it's not necessary for survival.
So, what was your point in bringing it up?
Posted 12 December 2012 - 05:30 PM
If it's their business they should be able to decide how they operate and what they will and will not do. If they're not breaking any laws, I don't see any problem with it.
Posted 12 December 2012 - 05:34 PM
Say a fourth graders mother goes to the same pharmacy every month to pick up her pills. Been doing it for years.Read the thread. A fourth grader could figure it out.
Posted 12 December 2012 - 05:42 PM
"I've never seen you here before. Are you new?"
"Yes. Can I help you?"
"No, I'll come back later. When is your shift over?"
Posted 12 December 2012 - 05:42 PM
Ok Lets break it down.
The law says the pharmacist can't be fired for refusing to fill script.
There. broken down to it's lowest leval.
That is the law. I'm not asking how you get by this law. I'm not asking how you might be able to break this law.
I'm asking about the LAW.
Posted 12 December 2012 - 05:44 PM
Say Walmart has 10,000 pharmacists. Out of the 10,000, say 500 refuse to fill scripts. Now Walmart fires them, because of body odor, or no reason at all. and the other 9500 keep their jobs.
Now along comes a Lawyer who says he can help...
Posted 12 December 2012 - 05:49 PM
We are at a road block here. YES there is a law on the federal level protecting this man from being fired for refusing to fill BC scripts I got that. In what way is this law being broken if the reason given for termination has nothing to do with not filling BC scripts? Just because the fired employee claims violation does NOT mean that there was a violation. The person claiming that rights were violated would have to prove that their refusal to fill resulted in their termination.
Therefore, it might be very hard to prove that rights were violated in this case, because there are MANY MANY valisd reasons for termination, especially in the present economy. I am positive that not filling BC scripts would result in a much lower profit for the owner, which could be shown as a reason he had to lay off employees. Do you see my point here?
Posted 12 December 2012 - 05:50 PM
Maybe I should post in english.
It doesnt matter what reason the business owner gives, or whether he gets sued or not. The law is there to protect the employee from being fired. This is a state by state law, not federal.
My question, which has NO ROADBLOCKS is why have this law?
I am NOT asking whether it is easy for the business owner to lie.
I am not asking whether it is easy for the business owner to break the law and said he didn't.
I am not asking whether the burden of proof is on the employee.
I am asking why there is such a law.
You keep on saying that it would be easy for the business owner to fire the employee. Not my point at all. The point is that in 24 states, the employee is protected by law.
Posted 12 December 2012 - 05:57 PM
Say a fourth graders mother goes to the same pharmacy every month to pick up her pills. Been doing it for years.
Now one day she goes, and there is a new pharmacist working.
She hands the script.
He says " I refuse to fill this."
I would have a problem if he was filling the script for some women and not others
Now the fourth grader's mother is standing there embarrassed, and must either find a manager, or ask the the prescription be forwarded to another phamacy.
No manager on duty
Pharmacist refuses to forward the script to another pharmacy.
All perfectly legal in 24 states
Posted 12 December 2012 - 06:15 PM
Does the woman have a copy of the script? If so, I don't see what the problem would be other than being pissed off at the pharmacist enough to not go there again.
Posted 12 December 2012 - 06:18 PM
So it's ok for a pharmacist who owns the pharmacy, but not for the pharmacist who is just an employee?
That sounds right to me.
But that's not what the law says. It says the individual pharmacist may refuse.
So you're NOT ok with this law?
Posted 12 December 2012 - 06:23 PM
Does the woman have a copy of the script? If so, I don't see what the problem would be other than being pissed off at the pharmacist enough to not go there again.
Posted 12 December 2012 - 06:23 PM
Posted 12 December 2012 - 06:25 PM
If they had that technology earlier, Mr Gower wouldn't have slapped George in his bad ear...this human psychology issue can be solved with technology. The pharmacists could easily be replaced with a kiosk that scans your prescription (or receives it electronically) and dispenses your medication. The machine also won't complain about morals and other subjective stuff. You can have multiple kiosks and customers can FLY thru and not have to wait for a pharmacist. Just an idea!
Posted 12 December 2012 - 06:27 PM
this human psychology issue can be solved with technology. The pharmacists could easily be replaced with a kiosk that scans your prescription (or receives it electronically) and dispenses your medication. The machine also won't complain about morals and other subjective stuff. You can have multiple kiosks and customers can FLY thru and not have to wait for a pharmacist. Just an idea!
Posted 12 December 2012 - 06:32 PM
this human psychology issue can be solved with technology. The pharmacists could easily be replaced with a kiosk that scans your prescription (or receives it electronically) and dispenses your medication. The machine also won't complain about morals and other subjective stuff. You can have multiple kiosks and customers can FLY thru and not have to wait for a pharmacist. Just an idea!
Posted 12 December 2012 - 07:10 PM
I would have to see the law but I would say that no employee should be forced to do something that goes against their religious beliefs.But that's not what the law says. It says the individual pharmacist may refuse.
So you're NOT ok with this law?
