Fired for smoking? Constitutional?

[Kelzie]

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

You try again. :roll: Being arrested in no way affects your performance at work, so according to you, the company has no right to fire you for it.

 

[Deegan]

You try again. :roll: Being arrested in no way affects your performance at work, so according to you, the company has no right to fire you for it.

It most certainly does, depending on what you are arrested for, rape, murder, DUI, etc, try again miss, this time, use your head.

 

[tryreading]

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.

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?.

People who are addicted to nicotine cannot restrict their smoking to their house. They will smoke on the job and try to hide it.

 

[Kelzie]

It most certainly does, depending on what you are arrested for, rape, murder, DUI, etc, try again miss, this time, use your head.

I am, thanks. Don't try and blame your lack of comprehension on me. Being arrested does not affect your work performance. Going to prison would, but that's not what I said. Believe it or not, not all people who are arrested go to jail.

 

[Deegan]

People who are addicted to nicotine cannot restrict their smoking to their house. They will smoke on the job and try to hide it.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA, I would love to hear that argument before the SCOTUS, that would be worth televising the proceedings, just for that very argument!:rofl

 

[Kelzie]

People who are addicted to nicotine cannot restrict their smoking to their house. They will smoke on the job and try to hide it.

Now wait, hold on. I'm on your side and I don't even agree with this. I smoke the occasional cigarette and I know plenty of heavy smokers that go all day without smoking. Happens a lot in the restaurant business.

 

[Deegan]

I am, thanks. Don't try and blame your lack of comprehension on me. Being arrested does not affect your work performance. Going to prison would, but that's not what I said. Believe it or not, not all people who are arrested go to jail.

And smoking does, please do explain miss? We have only built a nation with people who smoked, now please, do enlighten all of us to this assumption?

 

[Kelzie]

And smoking does, please do explain miss? We have only built a nation with people who smoked, now please, do enlighten all of us to this assumption?

I never said it does. Although it does affect the medical bills the company has to pay, that is not what I'm arguing.

I'm assuming then, that you have no problem if a company fires an employee for getting arrested?

 

[Deegan]

I never said it does. Although it does affect the medical bills the company has to pay, that is not what I'm arguing.

I'm assuming then, that you have no problem if a company fires an employee for getting arrested?

Smokers pay more, and tell me one insurance company that will give them a break on cost, with their promise to not hire smokers?

As for the criminal charge, it certainly depends on the charge, NO, I would not hire a rapist, or keep a convicted one, any other questions?

 

[Kelzie]

Smokers pay more, and tell me one insurance company that will give them a break on cost, with their promise to not hire smokers?

Like I said, I am not argu)ng that.

As for the criminal charge, it certainly depends on the charge, NO, I would not hire a rapist, or keep a convicted one, any other questions?

Well, there you go. You are okay with discriminating against one personal choice that doesn't affect your work that people do in their private time (get arrested), but not another (smoking). Why is that, I wonder? Couldn't be because you're a smoker? I'm sure the people that feel arrested feel the same.

 

[Gardener]

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.

I'm wondering how you reconcile your attitudes here vrs. your stated political position as "very liberal?

I mean, since the labor movent has long been so integral to the liberal position as to almost define the very concept of liberality when it comes to American politics of the last century, your extremist conservative viewpoint here stands out due to it's diametrical opposition to what liberality is all about. In terms of relative power vis a vis employer and employee, your attitude that rests power in the hands of the employer to such a degree that they can even weild it in completely arbitrary ways -- well, that evokes a feudalistic society more than it does a 21st century, and is an archly regressive position rather than a progressive.

 

[Deegan]

Like I said, I am not arguing that.



Well, there you go. You are okay with discriminating against one personal choice that doesn't affect your work that people do in their private time (get arrested), but not another (smoking). Why is that, I wonder? Couldn't be because you're a smoker? I'm sure the people that feel arrested feel the same.

Being a rapist does not affect your work, or the workers around you?, I think I have made myself quite clear where I draw the line miss, nice try though, try once again!

I could not care less what a rapist feels after being arrested, or I should say, as I made clear, after being convicted.:roll:

 

[Kelzie]

I'm wondering how you reconcile your attitudes here vrs. your stated political position as "very liberal?

I don't have to be liberal on everything. I didn't sign any dotted line that says I have to follow in lock step with the liberal movement. I also don't support affirmative action, while we're on the subject.

I mean, since the labor movent has long been so integral to the liberal position as to almost define the very concept of liberality when it comes to American politics of the last century, your extremist conservative viewpoint here stands out due to it's diametrical opposition to what liberality is all about.

How in the world is thinking that private companies can hire and fire who they want "extreme conservatism"? It's capitalist maybe, but I wouldn't even go with extreme capitalism.

In terms of relative power vis a vis employer and employee, your attitude that rests power in the hands of the employer to such a degree that they can even weild it in completely arbitrary ways -- well, that evokes a feudalistic society more than it does a 21st century, and is an archly regressive position rather than a progressive.

I'm sorry, why are we talking about me? Can't debate the argument anymore? And it's not feudalism. It's capitalism. If they annoy their workers enough, they won't have any and the company will go belly up. I really don't think we need to worry about a mass of companies following this no smoking policy if it really doesn't save money.

 

[Deegan]

I'm wondering how you reconcile your attitudes here vrs. your stated political position as "very liberal?

I mean, since the labor movent has long been so integral to the liberal position as to almost define the very concept of liberality when it comes to American politics of the last century, your extremist conservative viewpoint here stands out due to it's diametrical opposition to what liberality is all about. In terms of relative power vis a vis employer and employee, your attitude that rests power in the hands of the employer to such a degree that they can even weild it in completely arbitrary ways -- well, that evokes a feudalistic society more than it does a 21st century, and is an archly regressive position rather than a progressive.

Well said, I often find myself considering the same thoughts, when conversing with Kelzie.

 

[tryreading]

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?

Here is another option to deal with the increased health insurance costs due to smokers:

Starting next year, the Grand Rapids-based grocery chain will begin charging its smoking employees an additional $25 a month for health care, Clark said. The company has 64,000 workers in 171 stores throughout the Midwest.

(This will also affect privates lives, but do you think the charge is okay?)


You didn't like the other numbers I posted. How about these, from the CDC?

It's the latest attack by businesses on a habit that costs an estimated $75.5 billion a year in health care costs and another $92 billion a year in lost productivity on the job, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051202/LIFESTYLE03/512020382/1040

 

[Kelzie]

Being a rapist does not affect your work, or the workers around you, I think I have made myself quite clear where I draw the line miss, nice try though, try once again!

I could not care less what a rapist feels after being arrested, or I should say, as I made clear, after being convicted.:roll:

What? Let me try to rephrase this.

Rapist: "I really don't understand why they have to fire me. What I do on my own time is none of the company's business. It's not like it affects my job performance or anything."

Smoker: "I really don't understand why they have to fire me. What I do on my own time is none of the company's business. It's not like it affects my job performance or anything."

I fail to see the difference, but you are saying it is okay to fire/not hire one and not the other. Why is that?

 

[Kelzie]

Well said, I often find myself considering the same thoughts, when conversing with Kelzie.

What same thoughts? Are you implying that I am a conservative in disguise? And might I remind you, Mr. Deegan, that you are on the wrong side in this debate too.

 

[Deegan]

Here is another option to deal with the increased health insurance costs due to smokers:

Starting next year, the Grand Rapids-based grocery chain will begin charging its smoking employees an additional $25 a month for health care, Clark said. The company has 64,000 workers in 171 stores throughout the Midwest.

(This will also affect privates lives, but do you think the charge is okay?)


You didn't like the other numbers I posted. How about these, from the CDC?

It's the latest attack by businesses on a habit that costs an estimated $75.5 billion a year in health care costs and another $92 billion a year in lost productivity on the job, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051202/LIFESTYLE03/512020382/1040

NO, I certainly do not have a problem with the increased cost, as it's the norm in most insurance policies. I do disagree with the numbers on you link, as cancer, especially that caused by smoking, attacks all at once, and has little to NO affect on their daily job responsibilities. Can we completely control the costs, I don't think so, and if we could, this certainly is not the way to go about it.

 

[Deegan]

What same thoughts? Are you implying that I am a conservative in disguise? And might I remind you, Mr. Deegan, that you are on the wrong side in this debate too.

I believe I am on the RIGHT side Kelzie, but point taken. I have never been one to walk in lock step, and I don't think you are either, but I think you're wrong on this one miss, respectfully.

 

[Kelzie]

I believe I am on the RIGHT side Kelzie, but point taken. I have never been one to walk in lock step, and I don't think you are either, but I think you're wrong on this one miss, respectfully.

Let me rephrase. I didn't mean to imply that you were on the incorrect side (even if you are ) only that you were taking a stance against that of your party.

 

[Deegan]

What? Let me try to rephrase this.

Rapist: "I really don't understand why they have to fire me. What I do on my own time is none of the company's business. It's not like it affects my job performance or anything."

Smoker: "I really don't understand why they have to fire me. What I do on my own time is none of the company's business. It's not like it affects my job performance or anything."

I fail to see the difference, but you are saying it is okay to fire/not hire one and not the other. Why is that?

Does a smoker disrupt the other workers? Does a convicted rapist disrupt the workers? Just answer the question miss, honestly. Hmmmm, is he going to force me in to the bathroom to smoke a cig, or is he going to force me in to the bathroom to rape me? I think this speaks for it's self, but I gave you a vauge example anyway, because I like, and respect you, just don't push me too far.

 

[Deegan]

Let me rephrase. I didn't mean to imply that you were on the incorrect side (even if you are ) only that you were taking a stance against that of your party.

And I said, point taken, take your time miss, no need to hurry.

 

[Kelzie]

Does a smoker disrupt the other workers? Does a convicted rapist disrupt the workers? Just answer the question miss, honestly. Hmmmm, is he going to force me in to the bathroom to smoke a cig, or is he going to force me in to the bathroom to rape me? I think this speaks for it's self, but I gave you a vauge example anyway, because I like, and respect you, just don't push me too far.

In theory, they wouldn't. Being a rapist has to disrupt your work as much as being a smoker has to. Which is to say that neither being a smoker nor a rapist leads to decreased productivity. That's not the point, and you know it. Answer the question. Why is firing one okay and not the other?

 

[Deegan]

In theory, they wouldn't. Being a rapist has to disrupt your work as much as being a smoker has to. Which is to say that neither being a smoker nor a rapist leads to decreased productivity. That's not the point, and you know it. Answer the question. Why is firing one okay and not the other?

Your work might not be affected, but the work of those around you most certainly would, capice?

 

[Kelzie]

And I said, point taken, take your time miss, no need to hurry.

Sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine when people say "ha you're wrong, you've lost the debate!" A debate's not over until both people agree. If you haven't managed to convince me, or I you, than nobody has won. So I felt I had to rephrase to make sure you knew that's not what I was doing. :lol: