Fired for smoking? Constitutional?

[Thorgasm]

No I haven't. And enough with the emotional rhetoric. At the root of this issue is economics and the free market. And human labor is a major part of it. That in no way means that all people are worth is labor, only in the economic sense.

The thing is that someone spends 20 or 30 years at a company and then they change the rules and fire them. They really are not a commodity that has much value in the market. I can understand the hiring practices, just not the firing. Now I remember why labor unions came into existence.

 

[Kelzie]

The thing is that someone spends 20 or 30 years at a company and then they change the rules and fire them. They really are not a commodity that has much value in the market. I can understand the hiring practices, just not the firing. Now I remember why labor unions came into existence.

Everyone takes that risk when they work for a private company that they don't own. If their job means that much to them, they could quit smoking. They have an entire year to do it.

 

[Kandahar]

The thing is that someone spends 20 or 30 years at a company and then they change the rules and fire them.

That's a risk you take when you join ANY company. It's far from certain that a given company will even still exist in 20 or 30 years, let alone expect exactly the same things from its employees. Those people can either adapt to the new rules or find a new job.

 

[Kelzie]

That's a risk you take when you join ANY company. It's far from certain that a given company will even still exist in 20 or 30 years, let alone expect exactly the same things from its employees. Those people can either adapt to the new rules or find a new job.

Dude, stop copying me. :mrgreen:

 

[Thorgasm]

If their job means that much to them, they could quit smoking. They have an entire year to do it.

Spoken like a non-smoker. If it were only that easy.

 

[Kelzie]

Spoken like a non-smoker. If it were only that easy.

Spoken like somebody who doesn't know me. :roll: I do smoke occasionally, thanks. And it used to be more than occasionally. It's not that hard. It sucks, I agree. But so does losing your job. These people just have to decide what sucks worse.

 

[Thorgasm]

Spoken like somebody who doesn't know me. :roll: I do smoke occasionally, thanks. And it used to be more than occasionally. It's not that hard. It sucks, I agree. But so does losing your job. These people just have to decide what sucks worse.

Smoking occasionally is not the same as someone who has smoked regularly for many years.:roll: It is like comparing someone who recreationally uses heroin to a full blown junkie.

 

[Kelzie]

Smoking occasionally is not the same as someone who has smoked regularly for many years.:roll: It is like comparing someone who recreationally uses heroin to a full blown junkie.

I used to smoke regularly. That's not really the point. If it's too hard for these people, they can quit their job. They're only working there at the whim of their employer.

 

[Thorgasm]

I used to smoke regularly. That's not really the point. If it's too hard for these people, they can quit their job. They're only working there at the whim of their employer.

Where's NavyPride at, liberals are siding with big business! lol

I kid, I see your point. I am being emotional instead of logical on this issue.

 

[tryreading]

Sure, I am certainly doing that, I am doing that very thing!

I don't like Jews, so I hire only Italians, I don't like Mexicans, so I only hire Spaniards, etc, etc, etc!

You don't have many rights as far as discrimination goes, and that is why I love this country!

I proved to you before that smokers are not protected from discrimination. Jews, Italians, Mexicans, and Spaniards are.

 

[tryreading]

The thing is that someone spends 20 or 30 years at a company and then they change the rules and fire them. They really are not a commodity that has much value in the market. I can understand the hiring practices, just not the firing. Now I remember why labor unions came into existence.

Not necessarily related to this issue, but you bring up a point that all of us should be aware of, which is to fund your own private retirement fund. You can't trust the company to do this any more. Look at Enron.

And don't invest your retirement money in the stock of the company you work for.

 

[Gardener]

Where's NavyPride at, liberals are siding with big business! lol

I kid, I see your point. I am being emotional instead of logical on this issue.

anti labor "liberals"

Eugene Debs must be rolling in his grave.

 

[tryreading]

I am also on the slippery slope side of this discussion. Yes, it is a logic fallacy. This is a reasonable one though, IMO. It very well could lead to firing people for other health risk behaviors. Let's say that people are given a year to lose wieght or be fired. How about people being fired for not driving with their headlights on at all times because that will cut your chances of being in a car accident (number one cause of accidents, "I didn't see them")? We could go on and on with this. Insurance companies have all kinds of stats regarding "high risk". Married people are healthier. Women are less likely to be in an accident (I don't buy this one). Insurance companies are not interested in rights or ethics. They are only interested in profits. This is why HMOs need to be called before a degree carrying physician can do anything. They don't have a clue about what is needed. They only know about cost-effectiveness.

You can't discriminate legally against people for selected issues when hiring. You can discriminate legally for other reasons.

About the weight issue, its legal to refuse to hire an obese person, unless they are clinically obese, which is rare.

Family status is protected.

Gender is protected.

The headlight issue is not protected. Smoking is not protected

 

[Kandahar]

anti labor "liberals"

Eugene Debs must be rolling in his grave.

Eugene Debs wasn't a liberal, he was an authoritarian statist. And there's nothing "liberal" about forcing someone to continue paying you money for a service that they no longer want.

 

[Deegan]

I proved to you before that smokers are not protected from discrimination. Jews, Italians, Mexicans, and Spaniards are.

You have done no such thing, it is only now become an issue, and as such, must be handled in a court of law, and made right. I believe this is wrong, and a total invasion of privacy, and will be seen as such when and if it comes before a judge or jury. Some of you are dismissing this as just an "emotional issue" of course it is, how do you think a lawyer convinces a judge or jury, by simply sticking to the letter of the law? Of course not, don't be ridiculous, or naive enough to allow yourself to be fooled, this will be decided on emotion, just as gender, color, sexual preference, etc were decided. This is all just opinion at this point, but don't go thinking any of you have won, or lost this argument, it's not played it's self out yet. Still, if I had to sit on the opposite side of you cold hearted, unfeeling individuals, I feel I would have a very good chance at convincing a jury to side with my client, a very good chance indeed.

 

[Thorgasm]

You have done no such thing, it is only now become an issue, and as such, must be handled in a court of law, and made right. I believe this is wrong, and a total invasion of privacy, and will be seen as such when and if it comes before a judge or jury. Some of you are dismissing this as just an "emotional issue" of course it is, how do you think a lawyer convinces a judge or jury, by simply sticking to the letter of the law? Of course not, don't be ridiculous, or naive enough to allow yourself to be fooled, this will be decided on emotion, just as gender, color, sexual preference, etc were decided. This is all just opinion at this point, but don't go thinking any of you have won, or lost this argument, it's not played it's self out yet. Still, if I had to sit on the opposite side of you cold hearted, unfeeling individuals, I feel I would have a very good chance at convincing a jury to side with my client, a very good chance indeed.

I have to agree. I can't believe the ACLU hasn't jumped all over this.

 

[Kandahar]

I have to agree. I can't believe the ACLU hasn't jumped all over this.

The ACLU hasn't jumped all over this because it isn't a civil liberties issue. If the government was telling you that you weren't allowed to smoke, you might have a point. But you're perfectly free to opt out of these regulations.

 

[Thorgasm]

The ACLU hasn't jumped all over this because it isn't a civil liberties issue. If the government was telling you that you weren't allowed to smoke, you might have a point. But you're perfectly free to opt out of these regulations.

It is a privacy issue, they are employers, not slave owners. What you do on your own time is your own business. The employer doesn't have to give health benefits. That is their problem.

 

[Kandahar]

The employer doesn't have to give health benefits.

They also don't have to employ you at all.

 

[Thorgasm]

They also don't have to employ you at all.

They don't have the right to tell me how to live, so long as it is doesn't involve breaking laws.

 

[Kandahar]

They don't have the right to tell me how to live, so long as it is doesn't involve breaking laws.

Yes they do. If Bob wants to hire Tom to do a job, Bob has the right to specify the terms of the agreement. Tom has the right to refuse the job, or make a counteroffer, or agree to Bob's terms. As long as both people agree on the terms of the contract, no tort or crime exists. Now if Bob hired Tom for a specified period of time with the guarantee that the terms wouldn't change, that's a different matter.

 

[Thorgasm]

Yes they do. If Bob wants to hire Tom to do a job, Bob has the right to specify the terms of the agreement. Tom has the right to refuse the job, or make a counteroffer, or agree to Bob's terms. As long as both people agree on the terms of the contract, no tort or crime exists. Now if Bob hired Tom for a specified period of time with the guarantee that the terms wouldn't change, that's a different matter.

Big brother is big brother no matter what uniform he wears, whether it be governmental or corporate. They have no right to invade privacy, that is what this is about, not about contract law. Would you think it is ok for a NBC employee to be fired because he happened to watch CBS news?

 

[jamesrage]

Big brother is big brother no matter what uniform he wears, whether it be governmental or corporate. They have no right to invade privacy, that is what this is about, not about contract law. Would you think it is ok for a NBC employee to be fired because he happened to watch CBS news?

So employers are wrong when they drug test employees?

 

[Vandeervecken]

The Constitution limits what the government can do, not private business. Private business can do anything it wants to inside statutory law. Smokers are not a protected class, nor should they be.

Smokers cost far more in insurance, use far more sick days, and have in general much poorer health. They also constantly want breaks to indulge their addiction. While I doubt I'd ever set such a policy in my business, it is perfectly within the rights of a business to do so.

BTW I smoked on and off for over two decades, and fully support the rights of people to smoke if they so choose. I also fully support the right of people not hiring smokers because of the extra problems addicts entail. Just as I do not think you should have to employ alcoholics or heroin addicts if you so choose.

 

[Thorgasm]

So employers are wrong when they drug test employees?

My personal belief is yes. It is a waste of money. But that is for another thread. The difference is that the employee is breaking the law. I don't think it has anything to do with infringing on an employee's right to privacy.