Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Evgeny Kuznetsov in some trouble maybe...(re-updated suspended for 3 games)

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

Hmmm, not necessarily.  EAP was sort of developed on the concept that people are human beings and, therefore, will have "issues".  And most companies will provide opportunity for assistance in order to resolve the issues and be a better employee/person.

 

Hockey is like any other profession, in that, he should be offered help to overcome any drug issues he may have and then the expectation is that he follows that path.

All true.  However most private companies are small.  Should they have to carry an employee who’s drug addiction hurts their business, when they can’t afford to?  Even is sports there comes a time when a guy’s contract runs out, and no team wants him because his addiction issues out-way his value to the team’s success.  

Yes, people need support for sure.  However there comes a point where, because of the size of the company or the employee no longer having a contract, where said employee is not extended.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Alflives said:

All true.  However most private companies are small.  Should they have to carry an employee who’s drug addiction hurts their business, when they can’t afford to?  Even is sports there comes a time when a guy’s contract runs out, and no team wants him because his addiction issues out-way his value to the team’s success.  

Yes, people need support for sure.  However there comes a point where, because of the size of the company or the employee no longer having a contract, where said employee is not extended.  

The "there comes a point" is the point.

 

First strike?  Get help.

 

After that?   You're jeopardizing our future, not just your own.

 

We have to value human beings above all else - drug addiction is a sickness and should be treated as such.  The definition of being an addict is continuing to use if the substance is creating problems in your life.  This would fall under that. 

 

If it's a guy out partying and this isn't his usual behaviour, he'll likely use it as a wake up call and not want to risk it further.  If he continues after the fact, he's got a problem.  And it's up to him whether or not he accepts any offers of help extended to him.  

 

But I don't just feel that you should write people off because they got caught using drugs.  Give them an opportunity to adjust and if they don't then it's their deal.  Good luck and see ya later.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

The "there comes a point" is the point.

 

First strike?  Get help.

 

After that?   You're jeopardizing our future, not just your own.

 

We have to value human beings above all else - drug addiction is a sickness and should be treated as such.  The definition of being an addict is continuing to use if the substance is creating problems in your life.  This would fall under that. 

 

If it's a guy out partying and this isn't his usual behaviour, he'll likely use it as a wake up call and not want to risk it further.  If he continues after the fact, he's got a problem.  And it's up to him whether or not he accepts any offers of help extended to him.  

 

But I don't just feel that you should write people off because they got caught using drugs.  Give them an opportunity to adjust and if they don't then it's their deal.  Good luck and see ya later.  

Private business has a bottom line.  They must make a profit to survive.  There are other employees who depend on those jobs to consider too.  Huge companies can afford insurance costs for rehabilitation programs.  Small companies, which make up the vast majority, can’t.  No one should be tossed “to the curb”.  However, that safety net might be a government thing.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alflives said:

All true.  However most private companies are small.  Should they have to carry an employee who’s drug addiction hurts their business, when they can’t afford to?  Even is sports there comes a time when a guy’s contract runs out, and no team wants him because his addiction issues out-way his value to the team’s success.  

Yes, people need support for sure.  However there comes a point where, because of the size of the company or the employee no longer having a contract, where said employee is not extended.  

Standard is they need to help until it causes undue hardship.  That would be really difficult for an NHL team to prove.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...