Workplaces ban not only smoking, but smokers themselves
- Thread starter thejavaman
- Start date
opeyes:
hdroadglide
BoM x 2, BoY 2011
i think i heard today there are 29 states that don't allow this.
Fourtotheflush
BoM Apr 12'
sounds like prohibition on tobacco.
Alcohol kills too!
Alcohol kills too!
javajunkie
BoM July '12
"We're trying to promote a complete culture of wellness," this gives me a major bad feeling. too close to a lyfestyle-based eugenics.
"What's next? Are you not going to hire overly-caffeinated people?" :timebomb:
"What's next? Are you not going to hire overly-caffeinated people?" :timebomb:
Yeah but their lobbyists are better....
I mean I see and hear 3 commercials a day at least about Stop Smoking, Tobacco Kills...then right behind it, a half naked chic drinking bud light....hmmmmmm Have we not heard of cirrhosis of the liver?
I mean seriously there are more commercials on radio and tv about stop smoking tobacco then they are about stop smoking meth....seriously? what is worse?
What is the government going to do when/if every one does stop using tobacco? Lose the millions in taxes every year they have imposed on the plant, put hard working Americans out of jobs, close shops, online stores, etc.
My issue is first and foremost the discrimination.
I read about a hospital doing random nicotine tests. I would think it short sighted of a hospital to not hire the worlds best [whatever] doctor because he/she smokes cigarettes/cigars.
Whats next will my employer fire me because I eat McDonalds or drive a fast car or put lots of salt on my food?
I read about a hospital doing random nicotine tests. I would think it short sighted of a hospital to not hire the worlds best [whatever] doctor because he/she smokes cigarettes/cigars.
Whats next will my employer fire me because I eat McDonalds or drive a fast car or put lots of salt on my food?
My wife works for a hospital, she's going to be pissed! I would have no doubt that IL hospitals will start doing this in the next 3yrs my wife is going to have to stop smoking cigarettes. This is fine by me though as I don't think she should be smoking cigarettes, maybe she can partake in an occassional cigar with me.
This is by ANY & ALL means nothing short of reprehensible, repugnant, blatant discrimination! & should therefore be ILLEGAL!!!
I understand testing for illegal substances & denial of employment based on that but tobacco??? WTF right does my employer have to tell me what I can & cannot do in the privacy of my own home, on my own time???
I understand that most of the companies that condone these practices have won their lawsuits & subsequently "have the right" to do so because they absorb all the costs of their employees insurance premiums. Keep in mind I'm referring to the "legal right" because they sure as hell still do not have the intrinsic right 2 do so.
IMO they may (stress "possibly" NOT "absolutely") have the right to deny u insurance or regulate what u may do on ur break, if remaining on their property or if breaks r paid; however, they should absolutely NOT have the right to regulate what perfectly legal activities u may or may not partake in during the rest of ur life. U do NOT belong to them simply because u r employed by them & this is disgustingly socialist!
I pay taxes... I vote... & I should in no way be denied a job that I am qualified for simply because of which particular LEGAL vice I choose to succumb to in my own privacy & right!!! We need to stand up for our rights b4 we lose even the right to do that!!!
I understand testing for illegal substances & denial of employment based on that but tobacco??? WTF right does my employer have to tell me what I can & cannot do in the privacy of my own home, on my own time???
I understand that most of the companies that condone these practices have won their lawsuits & subsequently "have the right" to do so because they absorb all the costs of their employees insurance premiums. Keep in mind I'm referring to the "legal right" because they sure as hell still do not have the intrinsic right 2 do so.
IMO they may (stress "possibly" NOT "absolutely") have the right to deny u insurance or regulate what u may do on ur break, if remaining on their property or if breaks r paid; however, they should absolutely NOT have the right to regulate what perfectly legal activities u may or may not partake in during the rest of ur life. U do NOT belong to them simply because u r employed by them & this is disgustingly socialist!
I pay taxes... I vote... & I should in no way be denied a job that I am qualified for simply because of which particular LEGAL vice I choose to succumb to in my own privacy & right!!! We need to stand up for our rights b4 we lose even the right to do that!!!
hdroadglide
BoM x 2, BoY 2011
when does it become discrimination, oh lawyered one?
While I don't like the thought of me being discriminated against for being a smoker, it's definitely up to the employer to decide who to hire. My fear here though, is there does the line get drawn?
Does it get drawn at smokers? Drinkers? People who eat fast food? People who don't exercise?
thejavaman
BoM December 2012
I agree to a certain extent, but telling someone what they can/can't do while at work as opposed to while they're outside of the workplace is two totally different things to me. Like others have said, where is the line drawn? What about being overweight? Not exercising? Having kids? On & on....
EDIT: iCraig & I posted at the same time & he basically makes the same points as I was trying to
Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk
javajunkie
BoM July '12
would it be acceptable for private business holders to only hire males? caucasians? heterosexuals? under fourty?
i am with you that private enterprise should be private, and self controlled, but this is a BAD argument to let things slip on.
I'll Milton Friedman answer this for me, per wiki:
In a pure capitalist society, it costs money to discriminate and is very difficult, given the impersonal nature of market transactions. However, the government should not make fair employment practices laws (eventually embodied in the Civil Rights Act of 1964), as these inhibit the freedom to employ someone based on whatever qualifications the employer wishes to use. For the same reason, right-to-work laws should be abolished.
I don't know where I come down on what the law should be, but it's certainly stupid on the part of employers, and offensively invasive. The overall quality of a company's workforce will fall by enforcing arbitrary requirements not related to job performance.
Yes, yes it should be acceptable.
But before you accuse me of being racist, sexist, or ageist, at least call me a capitalist first.
I'm all for capitalism, I just don't particularly like the idea of what I do (legally) on my own time outside of work affecting whether or not I'm employed by a company or not.
At the same time I do feel that companies should be allowed to hire whomever they want.
Well, shit. Guess I fall in the undecided category for this one. It's a tough situation and I think one hard to argue for and against.
At the same time I do feel that companies should be allowed to hire whomever they want.
Well, shit. Guess I fall in the undecided category for this one. It's a tough situation and I think one hard to argue for and against.
Yes, it is. I certainly don't have the answer, either.
