- Joined
- Oct 8, 2005
- Messages
- 4,809
- Reaction score
- 764
- Location
- Central Florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
independent_thinker2002 said:Addiction is an illness recognized by the AMA.
independent_thinker2002 said:He was responding to you, lol, you admit you were burned.
Deegan said:And you debunked that assumption, remind me to take you off my Christmas list!
independent_thinker2002 said:Addiction is an illness recognized by the AMA.
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.
Blind man said: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.
jamesrage said:I do not think smoking a is constitutional right.In my opinion if a company has to pay for insurance then they can demand that their employees to be some what healthy.
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.
independent_thinker2002 said:Then it will be no Twinkies, saturated fats, or alcohol either. This is a slippery slope. What exactly is "somewhat healthy"?
jamesrage said:What ever the insurance company will insure you for the cheapest.
In my example using Pete Lien, off-hour smoking hindered one's on-hour job performance by reducing or eliminating their ability to use a resporator, and increased one's risks of lung infection due to the work environment.Stace said:I can understand a company having a no smoking policy during work hours, but what someone does on their own time is their own business. If anything, the employer should simply raise that employee's monthly insurance rates if they have that big of a problem with it. But I certainly wouldn't want to work for someone that tried to dictate what I do when I'm not at work.
independent_thinker2002 said:I notice we are talking about the insurance company, what does that have to do with firing someone?
Stace said:Let me ask you something: Have you ever smoked? I'm guessing no. There IS such a thing as a social smoker - I was one four years ago. I was able to stop at will, rarely ever even bought my own cigarettes because I'd just bum them off of my friends. I didn't start becoming a serious smoker until my husband was sent to Iraq for the first time.
Now, how often do you drink alcohol? You are aware that alcohol can become an addiction as well, right? Alcoholism is just as serious as being a smoker. My father in law was given only a couple of years to live if he didn't lay off of the alcohol. He's been trying, and he does so wonderfully for a few months, but something inevitably happens that sends him right back to the bottle. He's got to go in and have his next checkup soon, and we're all terrified of what they're going to find.
Smokers do not need any more breaks than any other employee is granted. When I was in the Air Force, my primary workcenter's supervisors allowed us smokers to go out whenever we wanted as long as our work was getting accomplished. When I transferred to a new workcenter, my supervisor only allowed me to go out once for 15 minutes in the mornings and once for 15 minutes in the afternoons. Quite a drastic change, but if I could manage it, anyone could.
I can understand a company having a no smoking policy during work hours, but what someone does on their own time is their own business. If anything, the employer should simply raise that employee's monthly insurance rates if they have that big of a problem with it. But I certainly wouldn't want to work for someone that tried to dictate what I do when I'm not at work.
independent_thinker2002 said:I notice we are talking about the insurance company, what does that have to do with firing someone? If we want to talk about what is cheapest, people with kids have more insurance claims. Perhaps you should be fired for procreating. Only single people who live in a bubble can work. :rofl
Busta said:In my example using Pete Lien, off-hour smoking hindered one's on-hour job performance by reducing or eliminating their ability to use a resporator, and increased one's risks of lung infection due to the work environment.
Hm, point taken.Stace said:But that's not a very common occurence. Sure, that particular company obviously has occupational safety reasons for requiring their employees to be non smokers, but I would assume that they are told up front about it, and wouldn't take the job if they couldn't handle it. It's obviously quite different when there are no occupational hazards associated with smoking, AND when an employer just up and decides he doesn't want any smokers working for him.
Busta said:Hm, point taken.
Yes, we were told about that policy and had to agree to it as a condition of employment.
So then, do you believe that employers should be allowed to not higher a smoker if said employer could show just caws?
On the other hand, since the act of smoking is not a protected class, as tryreading has illustrated, then why shouldn't any privet business owner have the ability too just say no to smokers?
Why should the government stick it's nose in someone's privet business, given that no law is being violated?
Stace said:But that's not a very common occurence. Sure, that particular company obviously has occupational safety reasons for requiring their employees to be non smokers, but I would assume that they are told up front about it, and wouldn't take the job if they couldn't handle it. It's obviously quite different when there are no occupational hazards associated with smoking, AND when an employer just up and decides he doesn't want any smokers working for him.
Picaro said:The argument 'it's a private company' is just too ridiculous to respond to; it is a clear indication of naivete.
Gardener said:Rather than naivete, it may represent a lack of basic empathy and/or a lack of intellectual honesty. Those who would reduce others to the status of chattel are displaying a contempt so deep that what seems more clear to me is that the person making the statement has either not really placed themself in the same position, or have somehow fooled themselves into thinking they would react in a way quite different than the way they most certainly would react.
No amount of sophistry a person might offer could convince me that they would not resent being fired from a job for having brown hair or wearing glasses or liking ice cream, for instance, and the lack of recognition that there are limits to the degree with which an employer can control an employee does not show me much. It is such an extreme position to take that it is inherently hyprocritical.
Picaro said:Yes, what Gardener said.
The issue isn't about smoking, it's about fundementals. 'Health care costs' as a 'reason' is bogus, as smokers are already paying a premium that exceeds their supposed higher health costs; insurance companies are just charging extra as a windfall, basically. 'Productivity' is not an issue, either, as there is plenty of evidence otherwise.
If 'health care costs' were a real issue, then companies will refuse to hire people who drive cars, and insurance companies will charge higher premium for automobile commuters. The whole 'higher health care costs' excuse is false, anyway; insurance companies are charging more because they can, and are doing so to cover losses in other bad investments in real estate and hotel and casino speculations, mainly.
There is also no 'right to not be offended' anywhere in the Constitution, either.
Picaro said:Yes, what Gardener said.
The issue isn't about smoking, it's about fundementals. 'Health care costs' as a 'reason' is bogus, as smokers are already paying a premium that exceeds their supposed higher health costs; insurance companies are just charging extra as a windfall, basically. 'Productivity' is not an issue, either, as there is plenty of evidence otherwise.
Picaro said:If 'health care costs' were a real issue, then companies will refuse to hire people who drive cars, and insurance companies will charge higher premium for automobile commuters.
Picaro said:The whole 'higher health care costs' excuse is false, anyway; insurance companies are charging more because they can,
Picaro said:and are doing so to cover losses in other bad investments in real estate and hotel and casino speculations, mainly.
Picaro said:There is also no 'right to not be offended' anywhere in the Constitution, either.
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?