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.
Stu Ghatze said:This is the result of the politically correct people forcing their ideology upon everybody else.
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?
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.
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.
It's not constitutional as I see it as it pervades a person's private life.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.
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!!!
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!!!
Kelzie said:It's a private company. They can do whatever the hell they want.
Deegan said:Can they force you to eat red meat?:roll:
How about redd meat?...Kelzie said:No. I would quit. But they could try.
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!!!
Kelzie said:No. I would quit. But they could try.
Deegan said:But you believe they have that right?
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.
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$$. So you're wrong, there are social smokers, and even cigar bars, designed to cater to these very people.
So how do you explain these points, and what is next for all of us in the working world?
Deegan said:So in your slippery slope argument, what's stopping them from telling you what to eat, drink, or even believe? God knows that just as many people die of unhealthy eating habits, and can lead to heart disease, diabetes, etc. Drinking is the same, should they be able to monitor your liver enzymes? You made yourself very clear, "smokers stink", this says it all, you hate smokers! I happen to be disgusted by some of my employees, some are very over weight, some drink too much, but I would never fire them for anything but failure to do the job I ask they do, end of story. I happen to be a social smoker, cigars, and they do stink to some, even my wife, but I enjoy the aroma, and anyone who does not like the fact that I prefer to enjoy a cigar on occasion, can kiss my a$$. 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?
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?