• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Fired for smoking? Constitutional?

Is it Constitutional to fire people for smoking

  • It's Constitutional to ban people from smoking

    Votes: 12 44.4%
  • It's Un-Constitutional

    Votes: 9 33.3%
  • It's Constitutional but Un-American

    Votes: 5 18.5%
  • It's Un-Constitutionl but that should be changed.

    Votes: 1 3.7%

  • Total voters
    27

Blind man

Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
77
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=14f4c1db-80a7-418a-865c-46b8c329cbcc&f=copy

Scott's Miracle Gro hs given a majority of its employees year to quit smoking. If they don't? They get fired. This isn't saying, "you cnt smoke on company time." This isn't sying "you can't smoke on company property." This is saying "you can't smoke ANYTIME, not even in the privacy of your own home on your day off."

Is such a ruling constitutional?

Another company in a different state has said "workers cannot enter work while smelling of smoke." This is becuse it is against the State constitution to fire people for smoking.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Is it because they're being stingy about insurance? Or are they just being pains in the arses?
 

Stace

Boobie Jubilee
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
7,255
Reaction score
364
Location
Clarksville, TN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
They're banning smoking in SO many places now, it's unreal. I mean, who wants to go to a bar if they can't smoke? A lot of people are social smokers when they drink....it's just not right, I tell ya!

I'm not sure about the Constitutionality of this one, though.....I remember seeing something about this on the news a couple of months ago, and I think it's asinine for an employer to expect all of his employees to completely quit smoking....I'm sure we'll have a ton of rulings on it before too long....
 

Stu Ghatze

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
531
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Blind man said:
http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=14f4c1db-80a7-418a-865c-46b8c329cbcc&f=copy

Scott's Miracle Gro hs given a majority of its employees year to quit smoking. If they don't? They get fired. This isn't saying, "you cnt smoke on company time." This isn't sying "you can't smoke on company property." This is saying "you can't smoke ANYTIME, not even in the privacy of your own home on your day off."

Is such a ruling constitutional?

Another company in a different state has said "workers cannot enter work while smelling of smoke." This is becuse it is against the State constitution to fire people for smoking.




IMO, ..it is unconstitutional period IF you are confining it within the bounds of your own home.

This is the result of the politically correct people forcing their ideology upon everybody else.

What about the smell pf alcohol on ones breath, ..or perhaps if somebody is eating too many fried foods, ..or too much injestion of animal fat in their diet?

How about a person who engages in homosexuality? It is A HEALTH RISK for HIV infection, & the cost of medical treatment of HIV is out of site?

If they are concerned about their insurance rates going up due to somebody's personal lifestyle, ..they better include ALL risks!
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Stu Ghatze said:
This is the result of the politically correct people forcing their ideology upon everybody else.
Bloody freaking hell, why is everything the fault of "polticial correctness"?! I never hear anyone on the left mention political correctness, I've never heard someone say "Oh, (insert thing here) isn't PC enough!"

I'm starting to think the right made it up.
 

Stace

Boobie Jubilee
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
7,255
Reaction score
364
Location
Clarksville, TN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Stu Ghatze said:
How about a person who engages in homosexuality? It is A HEALTH RISK for HIV infection, & the cost of medical treatment of HIV is out of site?
ANYBODY having unprotected sex with partners that they're not 100% sure about (and let's face it, you can never be 100% sure about that sort of thing) is at a risk for HIV. ANYBODY that shares needles is at a risk for HIV. There are dozens of ways for someone to contract HIV, so simply limiting it to "persons who engage in homosexuality" is being very narrow minded.
 

Stace

Boobie Jubilee
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
7,255
Reaction score
364
Location
Clarksville, TN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
vergiss said:
Bloody freaking hell, why is everything the fault of "polticial correctness"?! I never hear anyone on the left mention political correctness, I've never heard someone say "Oh, (insert thing here) isn't PC enough!"

I'm starting to think the right made it up.
But don't you know? We don't bring it up because we're the ones that made it up, so of course we don't have a problem with it!! :roll:

I think "political correctness" is a bunch of BS. Some people just happen to be more polite than others is all. Some of us are sensitive to the thoughts and feelings of others. And it has nothing to do with being on the left or the right. :mrgreen:
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
It's constitutional. There's nothing in the Constitution that says a private company can't hire and fire whomever it wants, for whatever reason it wants. What's unconstitutional are all of the federal laws that say otherwise.
 

imprtnrd

Active member
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
270
Reaction score
8
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
My place of employment I have been "written up" for being caught smoking inside the building----a warehouse. It is an insurance thing there, not that they want you to quit. They say "take it outside". Our insurance company has smoking cessation program if a person wants to quit. But 3 "write-ups" in 9 months time for the same thing and they can fire you. Still I think it is stupid. Not much can catch fire on a concrete floor.:roll:
 

Blind man

Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
77
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Kandahar said:
It's constitutional. There's nothing in the Constitution that says a private company can't hire and fire whomever it wants, for whatever reason it wants. What's unconstitutional are all of the federal laws that say otherwise.
Wow, your right. I guess if those laws were to be tested in the supreme court they would have to be deemed un-Constitutional. I guess it's wierd how they've been around so long and have never been officilly interpreted by SCOTUS.
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Blind man said:
http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=14f4c1db-80a7-418a-865c-46b8c329cbcc&f=copy

Scott's Miracle Gro hs given a majority of its employees year to quit smoking. If they don't? They get fired. This isn't saying, "you cnt smoke on company time." This isn't sying "you can't smoke on company property." This is saying "you can't smoke ANYTIME, not even in the privacy of your own home on your day off."

Is such a ruling constitutional?

Another company in a different state has said "workers cannot enter work while smelling of smoke." This is becuse it is against the State constitution to fire people for smoking.
It's not constitutional as I see it as it pervades a person's private life.
All other arguments aside, does anyone else notice the irony of a huge chemical corporation banning smoking? Hell, they'll probably die of some other carcinogen anyway!!!
 
T

The Real McCoy

ngdawg said:
It's not constitutional as I see it as it pervades a person's private life.All other arguments aside, does anyone else notice the irony of a huge chemical corporation banning smoking? Hell, they'll probably die of some other carcinogen anyway!!!
Companies who drug test invade on people's private lives.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
ngdawg said:
It's not constitutional as I see it as it pervades a person's private life.
All other arguments aside, does anyone else notice the irony of a huge chemical corporation banning smoking? Hell, they'll probably die of some other carcinogen anyway!!!
It's a private company. They can do whatever the hell they want.
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Kelzie said:
It's a private company. They can do whatever the hell they want.
Can they force you to eat red meat?:roll:
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Deegan said:
Can they force you to eat red meat?:roll:
No. I would quit. But they could try.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
ngdawg said:
It's not constitutional as I see it as it pervades a person's private life.
All other arguments aside, does anyone else notice the irony of a huge chemical corporation banning smoking? Hell, they'll probably die of some other carcinogen anyway!!!
Its fine for an employer to ban smoking. The Constitution has nothing to do with it. Smoking is detrimental to the health of the smoker, and therefore affects health insurance rates paid by the company. Smokers need excessive breaks during the workday, which affects their production. Smokers stink.

Any of these issues is grounds for firing an employee, and none of them are un-Constitutional. Is smoking an unalienable right? Since when is an addiction a Constitutionally protected right?

A company can't fire you because of race, religion, gender, and other important basic issues which can't be changed by an individual. Smoking doesn't fit into this category, and is not protected, because it is only a bad habit which can be dropped. Don't drink, smoke, or curse while at work. Don't burp loudly. Don't wear blue jeans. Don't be a jackass.

Drinking after hours shouldn't be compared to smoking, as long as one is not an alcoholic. A person can have a drink or two after work and come in the next morning with no ill effect and all alcohol out of his bloodstream. Smoking doesn't work this way. Who has one or two cigarettes of an evening, and that's it? It doesn't work that way. There is no social cigarette smoker as far as I know.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Deegan said:
But you believe they have that right?:confused:
It's got nothing to do with rights. Besides the fact that smoking isn't a right, a private company can implement whatever hiring and firing policy it wants. Provided it doesn't break the law of course. Even if it is considered crazy by some, although I myself have no problem with them banning smoking, the employees are free to find another job that allows it if smoking is so important to them. Nobody's forcing them to work there.
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
tryreading said:
Its fine for an employer to ban smoking. The Constitution has nothing to do with it. Smoking is detrimental to the health of the smoker, and therefore affects health insurance rates paid by the company. Smokers need excessive breaks during the workday, which affects their production. Smokers stink.

Any of these issues is grounds for firing an employee, and none of them are un-Constitutional. Is smoking an unalienable right? Since when is an addiction a Constitutionally protected right?

A company can't fire you because of race, religion, gender, and other important basic issues which can't be changed by an individual. Smoking doesn't fit into this category, and is not protected, because it is only a bad habit which can be dropped. Don't drink, smoke, or curse while at work. Don't burp loudly. Don't wear blue jeans. Don't be a jackass.

Drinking after hours shouldn't be compared to smoking, as long as one is not an alcoholic. A person can have a drink or two after work and come in the next morning with no ill effect and all alcohol out of his bloodstream. Smoking doesn't work this way. Who has one or two cigarettes of an evening, and that's it? It doesn't work that way. There is no social cigarette smoker as far as I know.
So in your slippery slope argument, what's stopping them from telling you what to eat, drink, or even believe? God knows that just as many people die of unhealthy eating habits, and can lead to heart disease, diabetes, etc. Drinking is the same, should they be able to monitor your liver enzymes? You made yourself very clear, "smokers stink", this says it all, you hate smokers! I happen to be disgusted by some of my employees, some are very over weight, some drink too much, but I would never fire them for anything but failure to do the job I ask they do, end of story. I happen to be a social smoker, cigars, and they do stink to some, even my wife, but I enjoy the aroma, and anyone who does not like the fact that I prefer to enjoy a cigar on occasion, can kiss my a$$. So you're wrong, there are social smokers, and even cigar bars, designed to cater to these very people.

So how do you explain these points, and what is next for all of us in the working world?:confused:
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Deegan said:
So in your slippery slope argument, what's stopping them from telling you what to eat, drink, or even believe? God knows that just as many people die of unhealthy eating habits, and can lead to heart disease, diabetes, etc. Drinking is the same, should they be able to monitor your liver enzymes? You made yourself very clear, "smokers stink", this says it all, you hate smokers! I happen to be disgusted by some of my employees, some are very over weight, some drink too much, but I would never fire them for anything but failure to do the job I ask they do, end of story. I happen to be a social smoker, cigars, and they do stink to some, even my wife, but I enjoy the aroma, and anyone who does not like the fact that I prefer to enjoy a cigar on occasion, can kiss my a$$. So you're wrong, there are social smokers, and even cigar bars, designed to cater to these very people.

So how do you explain these points, and what is next for all of us in the working world?:confused:
Cigars are a different story. I know people who enjoy a cigar once a month, myself included, and do not smoke them daily. Most things enjoyed in moderation are not harmful.

But anyone addicted to cigars should be treated as a cigarette smoker. If a company has a no smoking policy it should be applied to addicts who smoke daily, no matter what they smoke.

Heavy smokers are at a much higher risk for lung cancer and heart disease than average. They are more prone to emphysema, bronchitis and other illnesses. These ailments result in higher absence from work than the norm. If I owned a company, smokers would be declined a job there for these reasons and others, and the fact that they literally stink like an ash tray. I don't hate them at all, but the smoking has to go, or they can get a job somewhere else.

Heavy drinkers are also an employment problem. They have very bad mornings, and typically miss days due to hangovers. They destroy their health. Their thinking process and production are damaged. When discovered after becoming an employee they and the smokers should be offered treatment, if covered by health insurance. They should be given a chance, then fired if there is no improvement. But if you are hiring and you know an applicant has one of these addictions, move on to the next guy.

You mentioned food. If hiring, and an obese person applied, I would probably not employ him. Clinical obesity is different, like any clinical illness, and can't be helped. But virtually all fat people get that way from overeating, and are more at risk for heart disease, diabetes, and other maladies. It would be very hard to tell an employee what to eat. Guidelines could be posted, but enforcement would be impossible. Smoking is different. It is easily detectable, and should be discouraged.
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Deegan said:
So in your slippery slope argument, what's stopping them from telling you what to eat, drink, or even believe? God knows that just as many people die of unhealthy eating habits, and can lead to heart disease, diabetes, etc. Drinking is the same, should they be able to monitor your liver enzymes? You made yourself very clear, "smokers stink", this says it all, you hate smokers! I happen to be disgusted by some of my employees, some are very over weight, some drink too much, but I would never fire them for anything but failure to do the job I ask they do, end of story. I happen to be a social smoker, cigars, and they do stink to some, even my wife, but I enjoy the aroma, and anyone who does not like the fact that I prefer to enjoy a cigar on occasion, can kiss my a$$. So you're wrong, there are social smokers, and even cigar bars, designed to cater to these very people.

So how do you explain these points, and what is next for all of us in the working world?:confused:
What? Cigars are entirely different from cigarettes. Cigarettes really cannot be enjoyed "socially", as the vast majority of people that use them become hopelessly addicted (as long as they don't try to quit). I believe that the companies, while being a tad overbearing on their employees, have every right to be concerned about their employees smoking. Smoking is a very, very dangerous activity that is the #1 cause of preventable death; when companies have to pay for health insurance, something that is so blatantly harmful to their employees is indeed something to be concerned about.

That being said, I don't really agree with it, but companies are private and smoking is not a "protected" activity.
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
tryreading said:
Cigars are a different story. I know people who enjoy a cigar once a month, myself included, and do not smoke them daily. Most things enjoyed in moderation are not harmful.

But anyone addicted to cigars should be treated as a cigarette smoker. If a company has a no smoking policy it should be applied to addicts who smoke daily, no matter what they smoke.

Heavy smokers are at a much higher risk for lung cancer and heart disease than average. They are more prone to emphysema, bronchitis and other illnesses. These ailments result in higher absence from work than the norm. If I owned a company, smokers would be declined a job there for these reasons and others, and the fact that they literally stink like an ash tray. I don't hate them at all, but the smoking has to go, or they can get a job somewhere else.

Heavy drinkers are also an employment problem. They have very bad mornings, and typically miss days due to hangovers. They destroy their health. Their thinking process and production are damaged. When discovered after becoming an employee they and the smokers should be offered treatment, if covered by health insurance. They should be given a chance, then fired if there is no improvement. But if you are hiring and you know an applicant has one of these addictions, move on to the next guy.

You mentioned food. If hiring, and an obese person applied, I would probably not employ him. Clinical obesity is different, like any clinical illness, and can't be helped. But virtually all fat people get that way from overeating, and are more at risk for heart disease, diabetes, and other maladies. It would be very hard to tell an employee what to eat. Guidelines could be posted, but enforcement would be impossible. Smoking is different. It is easily detectable, and should be discouraged.
But you still have not answered the question, should they also be told what not to eat, or drink? You suggest that IF it becomes a problem, or if there is a problem with job performance, but not the same standard with smoking, that is just wrong, and without question. Should we really enter down this slippery slope, and what is stopping employers from firing for these habits as well? I don't believe so, first, smoking takes decades to effect someones health, especially in the case of their daily working abilities, or lack there of. It is ridiculous to suggest that one will be worse then another, or that one can see a difference in a smoker working at his desk, or a non-smoker at his/hers. My grandfather smoked for 70 years, he died at the age of 83, I would suggest he worked till the day he died, and only when cancer took hold, did he let up one bit. So to suggest that this will save the company money, or help them find more effective help, is one that can be argued with much vigor to the contrary.

This is nothing more then a new bias, one that is sweeping the nation, attack the smoker, and take his right to smoke, now even at home, and on ones own time. I would fight this if I smoked or not, as I see a real problem with this general idea, and can see it getting out of control quickly.
 
H

hipsterdufus

Well, if "Tobacco" Blunt becomes the new permanently takes over for Delay as Speaker of The House - I'm sure he will get on this. Remember Blunt's the one who's family - wife and little brother are both tobacco lobbyists. Blunt is also the one who tried to sneak a provision into the Homeland Security Department that would have aided Philip Morris.
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
hipsterdufus said:
Well, if "Tobacco" Blunt becomes the new permanently takes over for Delay as Speaker of The House - I'm sure he will get on this. Remember Blunt's the one who's family - wife and little brother are both tobacco lobbyists. Blunt is also the one who tried to sneak a provision into the Homeland Security Department that would have aided Philip Morris.
Can you ever get past partisan politics, and just honestly, objectively, and rationally address an issue professor?:confused:
 
Top Bottom