Fired for smoking? Constitutional?

[hipsterdufus]

Can you ever get past partisan politics, and just honestly, objectively, and rationally address an issue professor?

I'll get back to you on that one.

 

[Deegan]

I'll get back to you on that one.

:rofl o.k :2wave:

 

[Picaro]

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.

It's part of the 'new wave' of creeping Fascism and relegalizing slavery. Some people think employees are somehow the personal private property of their employers, who has a right to control their personal lives 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

The real fact of life is smokers pay way more than enough taxes to cover their costs to the health system , and in fact are paying a substantial chunk of everybody else's health care as well. LOL

Does anybody really think those morons I see out jogging in the Los Angeles smog are somehow healthier than smokers? ROFL

 

[Deegan]

It's part of the 'new wave' of creeping Fascism and relegalizing slavery. Some people think employees are somehow the personal private property of their employers, who has a right to control their personal lives 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

The real fact of life is smokers pay way more than enough taxes to cover their costs to the health system , and in fact are paying a substantial chunk of everybody else's health care as well. LOL

Does anybody really think those morons I see out jogging in the Los Angeles smog are somehow healthier than smokers? ROFL

Very well put, I had forgotten the ever present "sin tax" thank you for reminding me of that.

 

[Kelzie]

It's part of the 'new wave' of creeping Fascism and relegalizing slavery. Some people think employees are somehow the personal private property of their employers, who has a right to control their personal lives 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

The real fact of life is smokers pay way more than enough taxes to cover their costs to the health system , and in fact are paying a substantial chunk of everybody else's health care as well. LOL

Does anybody really think those morons I see out jogging in the Los Angeles smog are somehow healthier than smokers? ROFL

By jove, you're right! Those evil, evil corporations are forcing their workers to quit smoking and...oh no wait. That's right. They can leave at any time if they don't like it. So much for fascism, eh? This is a PRIVATE company. They could require their employees to wear scuba gear all day if they wanted. Because it's PRIVATE. As in, nobody's forcing you to work there.

 

[tryreading]

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.

You are talking apples and oranges. Food is a necessity. Tobacco is not. And there is a bias among some of us against smokers, but that's okay. I would also have a bias against someone wearing a paisley suit, but that's my choice, and doesn't affect anybody's rights. I would also not hire anyone for a job who wore such a suit. They should choose different clothing. A smoker can and should stop his habit. Smoking is a choice.

Our government is biased against smokers, too. There is a very high and disproportionate tax on cigarettes. Of course its a voluntary tax.

 

[Deegan]

By jove, you're right! Those evil, evil corporations are forcing their workers to quit smoking and...oh no wait. That's right. They can leave at any time if they don't like it. So much for fascism, eh? This is a PRIVATE company. They could require their employees to wear scuba gear all day if they wanted. Because it's PRIVATE. As in, nobody's forcing you to work there.

Can they force you to give them oral sex, every morning at 8:00 AM, of course not, so don't pretend to give them so much power. If just being "private" gave them the power to, as you say, do what ever they want, you would be here vigorously debating many other issues that pertain, just not this one, as you agree.

 

[Deegan]

You are talking apples and oranges. Food is a necessity. Tobacco is not. And there is a bias among some of us against smokers, but that's okay. I would also have a bias against someone wearing a paisley suit, but that's my choice, and doesn't affect anybody's rights. I would also not hire anyone for a job who wore such a suit. They should choose different clothing. A smoker can and should stop his habit. Smoking is a choice.

Our government is biased against smokers, too. There is a very high and disproportionate tax on cigarettes. Of course its a voluntary tax.

Well greasy, unhealthy food is a choice as well, just as what you drink, you're not making a very good case sir, that is all I will say.

Now you are suggesting our government is "biased to smokers" do you now believe our government should be biased to it's citizens? OMG, this is leaning to the fascist state, and you people don't even see that!:shock:

 

[Kelzie]

Can they force you to give them oral sex, every morning at 8:00 AM, of course not, so don't pretend to give them so much power. If just being "private" gave them the power to, as you say, do what ever they want, you would be here vigorously debating many other issues that pertain, just not this one, as you agree.

No, because that is ILLEGAL. They can do whatever they want as long as it's legal. Which is also why they can't fire all the women because they're women.

 

[Deegan]

No, because that is ILLEGAL. They can do whatever they want as long as it's legal. Which is also why they can't fire all the women because they're women.

Smoking is legal, unless I missed something! I know you wish it was not, but it is, so how do you explain yourself miss?

 

[Engimo]

Smoking is legal, unless I missed something! I know you wish it was not, but it is, so how do you explain yourself miss?

Smoking is legal, and so is discriminating employees based on whether they smoke. Discriminating on the basis of gender or race, however, is not.

 

[Deegan]

Smoking is legal, and so is discriminating employees based on whether they smoke. Discriminating on the basis of gender or race, however, is not.

And I would argue that it is, very much an illegal practice, and discrimination must be taken very seriously, agree or not with the habit. We are going backwards IMO, and this concerns me, as I say, what is next for Gods sake?

 

[tryreading]

And I would argue that it is, very much an illegal practice, and discrimination must be taken very seriously, agree or not with the habit. We are going backwards IMO, and this concerns me, as I say, what is next for Gods sake?

Average state cigarette per pack cost and taxes:

Factory Price
$2.22
Federal Tax
$0.39
Mark Up
$0.60
State Tax
$0.917
Final Price
$4.32

Smoking Caused Costs
$8.70
(Annual Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lose, and
Economic Costs -- United States 1995-1999)

http://66.102.7.104/custom?q=cache:...es&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&client=pub-7786294391143372

By the way, legally you can discriminate on many issues. If you have long hair, and apply for a job with me, I can refuse to hire you, actually discriminate against you, because of your appearance. If you have tattoos showing, I can discriminate against you based on that, without breaking any laws. I can discriminate against a smoker, too. None of these are protected.

 

[Kelzie]

Smoking is legal, unless I missed something! I know you wish it was not, but it is, so how do you explain yourself miss?

Sure smoking is legal. Requiring employees to give oral sex however, is illegal. That's why it's not okay to require it. However, the legality of smoking matters little when companies are making policy. Like I said, they could just as easily require that everyone wear scuba outfits. A company can do whatever they want, as long as it's legal, like I've said before. Banning smoking is legal. Therefore, they can do it.

 

[Deegan]

Sure smoking is legal. Requiring employees to give oral sex however, is illegal. That's why it's not okay to require it. However, the legality of smoking matters little when companies are making policy. Like I said, they could just as easily require that everyone wear scuba outfits. A company can do whatever they want, as long as it's legal, like I've said before. Banning smoking is legal. Therefore, they can do it.

Only because the issue is new, I trust that much will be done to change this discrimination, and soon, as it is an over reaching of a private companies requirements. As I have repeated, time and again, would you be o.k with them forcing you to not eat this or that, not drink, this or that, and how far should this issue go?

 

[Deegan]

Average state cigarette per pack cost and taxes:

Factory Price
$2.22
Federal Tax
$0.39
Mark Up
$0.60
State Tax
$0.917
Final Price
$4.32

Smoking Caused Costs
$8.70
(Annual Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lose, and
Economic Costs -- United States 1995-1999)

http://66.102.7.104/custom?q=cache:...es&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&client=pub-7786294391143372

By the way, legally you can discriminate on many issues. If you have long hair, and apply for a job with me, I can refuse to hire you, actually discriminate against you, because of your appearance. If you have tattoos showing, I can discriminate against you based on that, without breaking any laws. I can discriminate against a smoker, too. None of these are protected.

And is that 8.70 not personally funded, or are you suggesting that you, or tax payers pick up that cost? These can be very manipulative, and I think you know that, or do you?

 

[Kelzie]

Only because the issue is new, I trust that much will be done to change this discrimination, and soon, as it is an over reaching of a private companies requirements. As I have repeated, time and again, would you be o.k with them forcing you to not eat this or that, not drink, this or that, and how far should this issue go?

If they wanted to, they could. If I didn't like it, I'd quit. Look, what if I wanted to open a vegan grocery store? My one requirement might be that my employees were vegans. Right there, I'm telling my employees what to eat. If they weren't vegans, they wouldn't have to apply. If I changed to that policy after hiring them, they could either change eating habits, or quit. It's my store. As long as it's legal, I can ask them to do whatever I want. I might end up with no employees, but that's how the game's played.

 

[Deegan]

If they wanted to, they could. If I didn't like it, I'd quit. Look, what if I wanted to open a vegan grocery store? My one requirement might be that my employees were vegans. Right there, I'm telling my employees what to eat. If they weren't vegans, they wouldn't have to apply. If I changed to that policy after hiring them, they could either change eating habits, or quit. It's my store. As long as it's legal, I can ask them to do whatever I want. I might end up with no employees, but that's how the game's played.

And how is this different from gender, color, political choice, or anything that has been decided illegal discrimination. Sounds as if you support the glass ceiling, no women, I don't like them, it's my damn company. It's my damn company, I don't like Mexicans, or blacks, reds, or yellows, it is my company. You are willing to go backwards, and that is obvious, just because you agree with this particular issue, that says a whole lot about you.

 

[tryreading]

Only because the issue is new, I trust that much will be done to change this discrimination,

Discriminating against people based on cigarette smoking will never be illegal.

 

[Deegan]

Discriminating against people based on cigarette smoking will never be illegal.

That's what they said about gender, color, and many other things, we shall see.

 

[tryreading]

And how is this different from gender, color, political choice, or anything that has been decided illegal discrimination. Sounds as if you support the glass ceiling, no women, I don't like them, it's my damn company. It's my damn company, I don't like Mexicans, or blacks, reds, or yellows, it is my company. You are willing to go backwards, and that is obvious, just because you agree with this particular issue, that says a whole lot about you.

There are things you can't change, like your race, and things you should never be expexted to change, like your religion.

Smoking is a habit that you can stop, people do it every day. Don't you see the difference?

 

[Deegan]

There are things you can't change, like your race, and things you should never be expexted to change, like your religion.

Smoking is a habit that you can stop, people do it every day. Don't you see the difference?

And don't you see how this could steam roll in to your private life in other areas, this is precisely why we have these laws? Some people can't quit, they try, and they fail, are they now unemployable?

 

[Gardener]

I'm reminded suddenly of the classic "soup Nazi" episode on Seinfeld. I wonder why?

Oh, yeah -- it's the attitude that "It's my gig and I do what I want".



If it isn't unconstitutional to fire somebody for smoking in theiw home, it should be. The whole reason we need laws is to adjucate instances where one person's conduct conflicts with another, and not only conflicts, but damages that other person -- the old "My right to swing my fist ends at your nose" maxim. Here, though, the smoker isn't damaging anybody, because they are smoking at home rather than the workplace.

I can't stand inhaling cigarette smoke, myself, and support the elimination of smoking from shared indoor space because it *does* harm other people. I don't have that right to hit folks in the face, and I don't want smokers forcing me to inhale their fumes. Since nobody is forcing anybody to inhale something against their will here, though, I just don't see the point other than to punish them for something they are only doing to themselves. This sort of authoritarian attitude goes way too far IMO.

 

[Kelzie]

I'm reminded suddenly of the classic "soup Nazi" episode on Seinfeld. I wonder why?

Oh, yeah -- it's the attitude that "It's my gig and I do what I want".



If it isn't unconstitutional to fire somebody for smoking in theiw home, it should be. The whole reason we need laws is to adjucate instances where one person's conduct conflicts with another, and not only conflicts, but damages that other person -- the old "My right to swing my fist ends at your nose" maxim. Here, though, the smoker isn't damaging anybody, because they are smoking at home rather than the workplace.

I can't stand inhaling cigarette smoke, myself, and support the elimination of smoking from shared indoor space because it *does* harm other people. I don't have that right to hit folks in the face, and I don't want smokers forcing me to inhale their fumes. Since nobody is forcing anybody to inhale something against their will here, though, I just don't see the point other than to punish them for something they are only doing to themselves. This sort of authoritarian attitude goes way too far IMO.

Well, if the workers feel that way, they can quit. Nobody is making them work there. Nobody is making them quit smoking either. They just have to make a choice. There is no reason this should be made unconstitutional. A lot of employers require that their employees behave in a certain way outside of work. They can't get arrested for example. I went to a private school that would kick us out if we got in a fight off campus. As long as it's not illegal, private instiutions can require any sort of action they want, because nobody is forcing the workers to participate.

 

[Deegan]

Well, if the workers feel that way, they can quit. Nobody is making them work there. Nobody is making them quit smoking either. They just have to make a choice. There is no reason this should be made unconstitutional. A lot of employers require that their employees behave in a certain way outside of work. They can't get arrested for example. I went to a private school that would kick us out if we got in a fight off campus. As long as it's not illegal, private instiutions can require any sort of action they want, because nobody is forcing the workers to participate.

Bad example, getting arrested means you broke a law, try again.:roll: