Fired for smoking? Constitutional?

[Picaro]

If you have a problem with this policy then DON'T WORK FOR THE COMPANY. It's that simple.

Bogus argument. If business owners are so 'Private' and 'free', they would not let insurance companies dictate who they can hire and how they run their companies. It's all about vested corporate interests buying freedom from risk while forcing as many people out of jobs and onto blacklists as possible. It's that simple.

 

[Picaro]

Who are you to decide that the premium for smokers is too high?

Who are you to decide that the premium is too low? ...

What? How does driving a car negatively impact your health anywhere close to the degree that smoking does?

You don't know? Car wrecks are the leading category of health care costs and death in the U.S. Pretty simple; automobile drivers as a group are the leading cause of higher insurance premiums and hospitalization. They also put out a lot of smog and pollution, a hell of lot more than smokers do. Ban them, and fire them if they persist in this nasty habit.

Have you weighed the higher health costs of smokers versus the higher premiums,

Yes. So have a lot of think tank studies, academics, etc ...

or are you just making **** up?

Am I your Daddy, and responsible for your ignorance? Okay, then, go to your room and do your homework, Son ...

That's what business do. If people are willing to pay for it, that's what it's worth.

Okay. You're worth more as soap than as an employee, so as your employer I can sell you to a soap factory, if there's a profit in it ... Thanks, I need a new toupee ...

Your view of corporate economics is certainly...interesting...

Insurance company economics is not that mystical. Their coverage costs have not gone up, their losses in their other financial speculations have risen. You think they collect premiums and sit on them? They are in the insurance business to raise money for other ventures.

What?

What What?

 

[jamesrage]

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.

I think it is rather asinine to compare a very harmful drug habit to physical traits such hair color and corective lenses or even what one eats.

 

[Picaro]

It doesn't matter, though. The thing is, here, we're debating the constitutionality of this sort of practice - not the justifiability or ethics of firing smokers.

Slavery was also legal under the Constitution, so was bribery, murdering Indians by individuals. Ethics and intent is the whole basis for law, so I disagree there.


I think the right to an individual's privacy is a major Constitutional issue, so I also disagree with your next paragraph. There is no actual Constitutional right for employers to fire people for smoking on their own time, either. A 'private entity'' telling another private entity it can't work is arbitrarily limiting a person's right to make a living who is otherwise qualified. This is clearly overstepping some bounds, in any case, and while smokers aren't specifically legally protected, they shouldn't be denied a livlihood for a legal practice of smoking. Smokingis legal protected, they are for sale in every state of the Union, at a whole lot of outlets.

 

[Gardener]

The Constitution sets limitations on the powers that government has over its citizens, not what private companies can require of their employees. Arguments like the above are heavy on emotion, and light on reason.

You may not like the company's decision to require its employees not to smoke; that doesn't mean that it is illegal or that it should be illegal. If you have a problem with this policy then DON'T WORK FOR THE COMPANY. It's that simple.

Hypocricy is not the expression of reason but the lack thereof. The lack of reason lies in the creation of the sort of double standard necessary to hold views towards others that you would find anathema were they to be applied to you due to the schism thus created. If your employer fired you arbitrarily, you would *not* be a happy camper, and especially if you were fired for something you did in the privacy of your own home.

Now, I realize you may find some comfort in calling me emotional as well as your oversimplification of the issue, but the nature of the emplyer/employee relationship is not so simple as you make out. You did not distinguish between requirements established before a person is hired and those imposed as an afterthought, for instanse, nor between requirements that are job related and requirements that are not, and most importantly, you did not distinguish between behavior while actually at work and behavior while not at work. Rather than being the product of reason, such simplification avoids it by reducing the complexity of a situation to levels that fail to address the real issues in regards to privacy and control.

 

[Engimo]

Slavery was also legal under the Constitution, so was bribery, murdering Indians by individuals. Ethics and intent is the whole basis for law, so I disagree there.

That's a poor comparison, but I'll let you have it. Firing for smoking is not presently interpreted by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional. Happy?

I think the right to an indivudual's privacy is a major Constitutional issue, so I also disagree with your next paragraph. There is no actual Constitutional right for employers to fire people for smoking on their own time, either.

You're aware of the fact that employers making demands that violate the privacy of private citizens is not unconstitutional, right? Those sort of things only apply to the government. They may be illegal, but not unconstitutional.

 

[mixedmedia]

Hypocricy is not the expression of reason but the lack thereof. The lack of reason lies in the creation of the sort of double standard necessary to hold views towards others that you would find anathema were they to be applied to you due to the schism thus created. If your employer fired you arbitrarily, you would *not* be a happy camper, and especially if you were fired for something you did in the privacy of your own home.

Now, I realize you may find some comfort in calling me emotional as well as your oversimplification of the issue, but the nature of the emplyer/employee relationship is not so simple as you make out. You did not distinguish between requirements established before a person is hired and those imposed as an afterthought, for instanse, nor between requirements that are job related and requirements that are not, and most importantly, you did not distinguish between behavior while actually at work and behavior while not at work. Rather than being the product of reason, such simplification avoids it by reducing the complexity of a situation to levels that fail to address the real issues in regards to privacy and control.

This is assuming the decision is arbitrary. You and others here are not taking into account that this is a company in the fertilizer industry that manufactures dangerous chemical substances. And since Busta supplied the valid example of a chemical company that he has been employed by with the same stipulation placed on its employees, it is not a situation without precedent. A fact everyone on the reactionary side of this issue is conveniently ignoring.

 

[Picaro]

That's a poor comparison, but I'll let you have it. Firing for smoking is not presently interpreted by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional. Happy?

The Supreme Court changes it's opinion constantly, and always has. Actually it's a valid comparison. I'm always 'happy' ...

You're aware of the fact that employers making demands that violate the privacy of private citizens is not unconstitutional, right? Those sort of things only apply to the government. They may be illegal, but not unconstitutional.

Since the Supreme Court has ruled that companies and corporations are indeed 'people' under the laws, way back there in the 1890's or so, this means a 'person' has no right to restrict or violate another 'persons' right to participate or indulge in a legal activity. I.E., I have no right to cause you economic damage and harm, just because I don't like people who eat broccoli on their own time and in their houses.

 

[Gardener]

This is assuming the decision is arbitrary. You and others here are not taking into account that this is a company in the fertilizer industry that manufactures dangerous chemical substances. And since Busta supplied the valid example of a chemical company that he has been employed by with the same stipulation placed on its employees, it is not a situation without precedent. A fact everyone on the reactionary side of this issue is conveniently ignoring.

Since nobody here has come up with real evidence that actually justifies being fired, I would say that the burdon of proof falls upon those who are supporting the action. Sounds to me like the smoker is guilty until proven innocent.

If a company *does* have a valid stipulation, this stipulation should be a requirement right up front rather than imposed retroactively, don't you think? Again, there are distinctions between stipulations for getting a job and stipulations enacted after the fact.

Until somebody actually supplies a rational argument as to *why* the person should be fired according to some real criteria, I will continue to fall within the "reactionary" category. I'm supporting the liberal point of view on this and if that looks reactionary, so be it. In order for this firing to be justified in any way and avoid being arbitrary, though, you or anybody else here needs to supply the reasoning as to how this person's smoking makes him or her unqualifird for the job. It has to be job related, as otherwise it is just the stuff of discrimination.

 

[jamesrage]

Since nobody here has come up with real evidence that actually justifies being fired, I would say that the burdon of proof falls upon those who are supporting the action. Sounds to me like the smoker is guilty until proven innocent.

I was smoker.

If a comapny does not want to hire you because you smoke that is there business.Business have a right to hire who ever the hell they want.If a christian book store does not want to hire a cross dressing homosexual with 20 piercings and satanic tatoos all over his body than that is thier business.You can not tell them who they can and can not hire.Smoking is not right.

If a company *does* have a valid stipulation, this stipulation should be a requirement right up front rather than imposed retroactively, don't you think? Again, there are distinctions between stipulations for getting a job and stipulations enacted after the fact.

The company is changing it's policy and they are giving their employees a year to quit smoking or to find another job.

 

[Picaro]

Since nobody here has come up with real evidence that actually justifies being fired, I would say that the burdon of proof falls upon those who are supporting the action. Sounds to me like the smoker is guilty until proven innocent.

If a company *does* have a valid stipulation, this stipulation should be a requirement right up front rather than imposed retroactively, don't you think? Again, there are distinctions between stipulations for getting a job and stipulations enacted after the fact.

Until somebody actually supplies a rational argument as to *why* the person should be fired according to some real criteria, I will continue to fall within the "reactionary" category. I'm supporting the liberal point of view on this and if that looks reactionary, so be it. In order for this firing to be justified in any way and avoid being arbitrary, though, you or anybody else here needs to supply the reasoning as to how this person's smoking makes him or her unqualifird for the job. It has to be job related, as otherwise it is just the stuff of discrimination.

Actually you're supporting the conservative side of the discussion. The reactionaries are those who think corporations have some sort of special unrestricted legal privileges and freedoms that allows them to deny people the right to make a living based on petty and baseless personal whims.

 

[Kandahar]

Hypocricy is not the expression of reason but the lack thereof. The lack of reason lies in the creation of the sort of double standard necessary to hold views towards others that you would find anathema were they to be applied to you due to the schism thus created. If your employer fired you arbitrarily, you would *not* be a happy camper, and especially if you were fired for something you did in the privacy of your own home.

I wouldn't be happy about it, but that's no reason to make it illegal. And it's certainly no reason to creatively "interpret" (ignore) the Constitution to say it's unconstitutional.

What double standard exists here? I don't think it's unconstitutional for a private employer to fire an employee for any reason, even if that employee is myself.

Now, I realize you may find some comfort in calling me emotional as well as your oversimplification of the issue, but the nature of the emplyer/employee relationship is not so simple as you make out. You did not distinguish between requirements established before a person is hired and those imposed as an afterthought, for instanse, nor between requirements that are job related and requirements that are not, and most importantly, you did not distinguish between behavior while actually at work and behavior while not at work.

OK, allow me to respond to those distinctions now:

Requirements established before a person is hired and those imposed as an afterthought: Unless the terms of the employee's contract are being changed, no tort exists. Certainly no crime exists. And even more certainly, no constitutional infraction exists. Otherwise, what's the difference whether an employer tells new employees that they can't smoke, versus telling present employees that they can't smoke?

Requirements that are job-related and requirements that are not: It's completely arbitrary what you consider to be "job-related" and what you don't. The employer could easily make the argument that rising health costs mean that the employer can't continue paying for health insurance for employees that smoke. Furthermore, the employer is under no obligation to recognize any such distinction at all.

Behavior while at work and behavior while not at work: Again, the employer has no obligation to recognize this distinction. You're employed at the discretion of the company. And the same argument above applies: the employer can say that smoking DOES affect your work, if it's costing the employer more money in health premiums.

Rather than being the product of reason, such simplification avoids it by reducing the complexity of a situation to levels that fail to address the real issues in regards to privacy and control.

If you feel your privacy is being invaded or you're being controlled, you can go work for another company. In a free market, companies that place unreasonable restrictions on their employees will find themselves with a worker shortage as their competitors take many of their former employees.

 

[Kandahar]

Since nobody here has come up with real evidence that actually justifies being fired, I would say that the burdon of proof falls upon those who are supporting the action. Sounds to me like the smoker is guilty until proven innocent.

No, the burden of proof falls upon those who want to deny an individual or company the right to hire and fire whomever he wants. It doesn't matter whether there's evidence or justification to support the firings; the employer is within his rights. The government should not be in the business of asking people to justify every action they take, and arrest/sue them if they don't.

If a company *does* have a valid stipulation, this stipulation should be a requirement right up front rather than imposed retroactively, don't you think? Again, there are distinctions between stipulations for getting a job and stipulations enacted after the fact.

It would probably be the wisest business policy to make employees aware of this stipulation when they take the job, yes. However it's not a legal requirement unless the terms of the contract are being changed.

Until somebody actually supplies a rational argument as to *why* the person should be fired according to some real criteria, I will continue to fall within the "reactionary" category.

You're going to be waiting a while, because that's not what this thread is asking. All I can say is that, once again, a company's seemingly irrational decision is not a reason to make their actions illegal.

I'm supporting the liberal point of view on this and if that looks reactionary, so be it. In order for this firing to be justified in any way and avoid being arbitrary, though, you or anybody else here needs to supply the reasoning as to how this person's smoking makes him or her unqualifird for the job. It has to be job related, as otherwise it is just the stuff of discrimination.

I would assume that the company would argue that the employee's actions are unnecessarily driving up the expenses for the company, just like breaking an expensive piece of machinery would. Whether or not you agree with that argument is irrelevant to the legality.

 

[MSgt]

It's not a constitutional issue, the liberal left will always seek out ways to rally for "Civil Rights" and for ways to re-interpret the Constitution to suit the needs of the abusive.

The issue is the employer and his medical insurance bill to his employees. Why should an employer pay extra money to cover self-inflicted wounds and the wounds that come from second hand smoke?

Fire 'em all.

Is it "constitutional" to say obscenities in public? Should an employer tolerate it at work? The point is..nobody say's you can't smoke....you just can't smoke here or under my medical insurance policy for which I am paying.

 

[Deegan]

I have read this entire thread, and I have come to one conclusion, some here want this nation to go backwards, and for a reason so small, and so inconsequential, and that is sad. If you can not see the slippery slope involved in this scenario, you either A: don't care, or B: just want to win an argument, despite the obvious outcome, which will be an invasion of privacy, and a bias of ones personal choice. I choose personal freedoms, and until someone submits an intelligent reason to the contrary, I will remain on the side of rights, and it is a right!

 

[Deegan]

It's not a constitutional issue, the liberal left will always seek out ways to rally for "Civil Rights" and for ways to re-interpret the Constitution to suit the needs of the abusive.

The issue is the employer and his medical insurance bill to his employees. Why should an employer pay extra money to cover self-inflicted wounds and the wounds that come from second hand smoke?

Fire 'em all.

I expect you to fight and die for my rights sir, you have, and I respect that, but you are dead wrong on this one, and I am disappointed in your stance on this issue. That said, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and have certainly earned that right, I just don't think you are considering all the angles to this difficult issue.

 

[MSgt]

I expect you to fight and die for my rights sir, you have, and I respect that, but you are dead wrong on this one, and I am disappointed in your stance on this issue. That said, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and have certainly earned that right, I just don't think you are considering all the angles to this difficult issue.

The issue is my money paying for medical insurance. It is a call that employers should be allowed to make. The medical insurance that I would provide an employee should not cover wounds that occur from his own design. Should I pay for what he does to himself with a knife or a gun? Why should I pay for lung cancer or heart disease from smoking that he has been poisining himself with for years? Because I have allowed for his "constitutional rights" I now have to pay for any damage non-smokers have sustained from second hand smoke. Like I said..this is not about "Constitutional Rights" unless we are willing to protect any "Constitutional Right" an employer has. I don't know if you've noticed, but our Constitution isn't exactly designed to make everyone happy.

I'm a big fan in snubbing self-inflicted wounds.

 

[Kandahar]

I have read this entire thread, and I have come to one conclusion, some here want this nation to go backwards, and for a reason so small, and so inconsequential, and that is sad. If you can not see the slippery slope involved in this scenario, you either A: don't care, or B: just want to win an argument, despite the obvious outcome, which will be an invasion of privacy, and a bias of ones personal choice. I choose personal freedoms, and until someone submits an intelligent reason to the contrary, I will remain on the side of rights, and it is a right!

It is NOT a right or a personal freedom to force someone to continue paying you wages/benefits who does not want to do so.

What about the slippery slope involved in interpreting/ignoring the Constitution to bias YOUR personal choice? Just because you might not LIKE a company's decision to fire people for smoking doesn't mean it's a damn law. What is so difficult to understand about this?

 

[Picaro]

I would assume that the company would argue that the employee's actions are unnecessarily driving up the expenses for the company, just like breaking an expensive piece of machinery would. Whether or not you agree with that argument is irrelevant to the legality.

Let's be honest and truthful here. The employee is not driving up company expenses; the insurance companies are. It's not even remotely just like breaking an expensive piece of machinery or incompetence.

 

[Deegan]

And as I have always said here, WHAT'S NEXT?

Will it be a healthy meal plan, and a guide as to what to drink, and how much per hour, per day? Where will it stop, where will the control end, no sex after midnight, it may weaken the knees? It's ridiculous, and nothing even resembling the America I know, that makes me very angry, and very sad.

 

[Kelzie]

Let's be honest and truthful here. The employee is not driving up company expenses; the insurance companies are. It's not even remotely just like breaking an expensive piece of machinery or incompetence.

It DOES NOT matter if smokers cost more. It wouldn't matter if non smokers cost more and the company was losing money by getting rid of all the smokers. It is a private company. They can institute any legal requirements they want for working there. If their employees decide the requirements aren't worth their salary, they'll go else where. I like to call it the free market. Aka capitalism.

 

[Picaro]

The issue is my money paying for medical insurance.

Correct. Smokers aren't costing you a thing in increased rates. They are paying for it themselves.

The medical insurance that I would provide an employee should not cover wounds that occur from his own design.

Well you're in luck, because it doesn't, which makes the rest of your post superfluous.

 

[Kandahar]

Let's be honest and truthful here. The employee is not driving up company expenses; the insurance companies are. It's not even remotely just like breaking an expensive piece of machinery or incompetence.

By that same logic, the machine repairman is driving up the costs for the company, not the guy who broke the machine. Who is to "blame" for the increased expenses is really irrelevant from the company's perspective. The fact is that the employer's expenses are higher with smokers on the payroll than they would be without smokers on the payroll.

Not that any of this has the slightest bearing on the constitutionality of this...

 

[Kelzie]

And as I have always said here, WHAT'S NEXT?

Will it be a healthy meal plan, and a guide as to what to drink, and how much per hour, per day? Where will it stop, where will the control end, no sex after midnight, it may weaken the knees? It's ridiculous, and nothing even resembling the America I know, that makes me very angry, and very sad.

So the employees will leave, the company will go out of business, all the other companies with less requirements will shake their heads and think "morons" and life will go on. Except, of course for the fact that no company would require all that if they want to stay in business.

 

[Kandahar]

And as I have always said here, WHAT'S NEXT?

Will it be a healthy meal plan, and a guide as to what to drink, and how much per hour, per day? Where will it stop, where will the control end, no sex after midnight, it may weaken the knees? It's ridiculous, and nothing even resembling the America I know, that makes me very angry, and very sad.

Any company that instituted such restrictions on its employees would be an unbearable place to work. As a result, they'd have to pay their workers a lot more than any of their competitors or they wouldn't have workers. And then they'd go out of business because their expenses were too high.

The free market is great at weeding out stupid business policies like that.