Fired for smoking? Constitutional?

[Kandahar]

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.

Dang, you beat me to it.

 

[Deegan]

Great, so you all agree, let's protect these morons from themselves, just as we have with color, gender, etc!

I am so glad we have settled this once and for all, now I must go watch the Bears game, GO BEARS!!!!!!!:lol:

 

[Kelzie]

Dang, you beat me to it.

:shrug: Great minds think alike I guess.

 

[Kelzie]

Great, so you all agree, let's protect these morons from themselves, just as we have with color, gender, etc!

I am so glad we have settled this once and for all, now I must go watch the Bears game, GO BEARS!!!!!!!:lol:

Noo...see color and gender are things that people can't change. They are protected under the law. A person's habits are not.

 

[MSgt]

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



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

This is bullshit. Medical expenses come from insuranced money. The more money spent, the higher insurance goes. Smokers are seen medically for all sorts of "smoke" causing diseases.

How much is your car insurance? Imagine someone else paying it for you. Now go cause a couple accidents.

 

[Picaro]

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.

there is no such thing as a 'free market', and never has been. Nor is there such a thing as a 'private company'.

'AKA Capitalism' is a generalization that covers a lot of territory, like Stalinism and Nazism, to name two. It makes for great hyperbole when one runs out of reasonable arguments, though; it has a certain ring to it, eh? Some of the more reactionary elements wrongly attempt to associate the term with free enterprise and individualism, when it has nothing to do with either. It's like invoking Magical Spirits by shaking rattles and dancing around a meteorite in the desert somewhere.

 

[Kelzie]

there is no such thing as a 'free market', and never has been. Nor is there such a thing as a 'private company'.

'AKA Capitalism' is a generalization that covers a lot of territory, like Stalinism and Nazism, to name two. It makes for great hyperbole when one runs out of reasonable arguments, though; it has a certain ring to it, eh? Some of the more reactionary elements wrongly attempt to associate the term with free enterprise and individualism, when it has nothing to do with either. It's like invoking Magical Spirits by shaking rattles and dancing around a meteorite in the desert somewhere.

And you say I've run out of reasonable arguments. :roll: Did you have a point about smoking or did you just want to take a minute and rant against capitalism?

 

[MSgt]

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.

What's next? I tire of this argument.

Let's not protect the flag from burners, because...........what's next?
Let's not conduct stem cell research, because..............what's next?
Let's not spy on selected Americans, because...............what's next?
Let's not allow rape victims to have abortions, because...what's next?

The problem with "what's next" is that it makes us impotent to do anything.

 

[Picaro]

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.

What's next is getting paid in company scrip instead of money, good only at company approved or owned stores at whatever price they feel like charging you, having to live in company approved houses, what church you have to attend, whether you can have children, who you can marry, etc., of course. after all, you're free to starve if you don't like it, right?

Ford Motor Company actually had a company dept. that went around inspecting employee's houses at random for christ's sake. 1984 isn't going to come from 'librals' and government, it's going to come from CEO's and ass kissing toadies.

 

[Picaro]

And you say I've run out of reasonable arguments. :roll: Did you have a point about smoking or did you just want to take a minute and rant against capitalism?

you injected the pointless ranting junk into the thread, I didn't. Do you have a point?

 

[Kelzie]

you injected the pointless ranting junk into the thread, I didn't. Do you have a point?

Only that your delusions that the private company is a myth has nothing to do with smoking not being allowed. But, as long as you accept that, carry on.

 

[Engimo]

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!

You're aware of the fact that, ironically, the very "Slippery Slope" that you are talking about is a textbook example of a logical fallacy?


Either way, aren't you going against individual rights by asserting that companies (presumably run by individuals) should not be able to fire/hire whom they please?

 

[Kelzie]

What's next is getting paid in company scrip instead of money, good only at company approved or owned stores at whatever price they feel like charging you, having to live in company approved houses, what church you have to attend, whether you can have children, who you can marry, etc., of course. after all, you're free to starve if you don't like it, right?

Ford Motor Company actually had a company dept. that went around inspecting employee's houses at random for christ's sake. 1984 isn't going to come from 'librals' and government, it's going to come from CEO's and ass kissing toadies.

Well, if a company wants to try it, they are more that free to. Although, I have a feeling it would be hard to operate a business with no employees, which is exactly what that would cause.

 

[Kelzie]

You're aware of the fact that, ironically, the very "Slippery Slope" that you are talking about is a textbook example of a logical fallacy?


Either way, aren't you going against individual rights by asserting that companies (presumably run by individuals) should not be able to fire/hire whom they please?

Now, come on Engimo. Slippery slope is the only thing these poor people have. Without it, we'd just be getting a whole bunch of "Well because I say so!" And that's just annoying.

 

[Deegan]

You're aware of the fact that, ironically, the very "Slippery Slope" that you are talking about is a textbook example of a logical fallacy?


Either way, aren't you going against individual rights by asserting that companies (presumably run by individuals) should not be able to fire/hire whom they please?

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!

 

[Kelzie]

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!

Short game. You lose already? :mrgreen:

And if the government can prove you are descriminating against Jews and Mexicans, you will pay the penalty. Because it is illegal to do that.

 

[Picaro]

You're aware of the fact that, ironically, the very "Slippery Slope" that you are talking about is a textbook example of a logical fallacy?


Either way, aren't you going against individual rights by asserting that companies (presumably run by individuals) should not be able to fire/hire whom they please?

It's only a fallacy if it isn't true, and as history has proven over and over, it is very much a fact that aristocrats, companies and corporations do indeed want to micromanage every aspect of their employees' lives if they can get away with it. In fact this what this thread is about, employers and businesses micromanaging employees' behavior on their own time.

It's interesting nobody among the radical liberals wants to put the blame on the insurance companies; this is mere spinelessness on the part of business owners themselves.

 

[Thorgasm]

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.

 

[Kelzie]

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.

No it isn't. If companies start going nuts and firing people for living unhealthy lives, there's going to be a huge number of companies that will start up to pick up the excess work force. It's just like if companies start charging too much for a product, some person's going to realize that they can charge less and take over the market. That's how the free market works. Labor is a commodity, just like anything else.

 

[Engimo]

It's only a fallacy if it isn't true, and as history has proven over and over, it is very much a fact that aristocrats, companies and corporations do indeed want to micromanage every aspect of their employees' lives if they can get away with it. In fact this what this thread is about, employers and businesses micromanaging employees' behavior on their own time.

It's interesting nobody among the radical liberals wants to put the blame on the insurance companies; this is mere spinelessness on the part of business owners themselves.

The thing I don't understand is that Kelzie and I, the liberals, are taking the side of businesses that are intentionally discriminating against their workers. The thing is, even if we don't agree with it, the answer to the fundamental question of this thread (Is firing an employee for smoking unconstitutional?) is a resounding no. It's not even illegal.

Listen, private organizations are not affected by much of the Constitution (i.e. the 1st Amendment only applies to the government), and smoking is not a protected activity under any anti-discrimination acts. In fact, the ones out there specifically go out of their way to say that smoking and other addictions are not protected. While it may be bad policy on the part of the company to fire its smoking employees, it is in no way unconstitutional and trying to liken it to racial discrimination is nonsensical.

 

[mixedmedia]

The thing I don't understand is that Kelzie and I, the liberals, are taking the side of businesses that are intentionally discriminating against their workers. The thing is, even if we don't agree with it, the answer to the fundamental question of this thread (Is firing an employee for smoking unconstitutional?) is a resounding no. It's not even illegal.

Listen, private organizations are not affected by much of the Constitution (i.e. the 1st Amendment only applies to the government), and smoking is not a protected activity under any anti-discrimination acts. In fact, the ones out there specifically go out of their way to say that smoking and other addictions are not protected. While it may be bad policy on the part of the company to fire its smoking employees, it is in no way unconstitutional and trying to liken it to racial discrimination is nonsensical.

I agree with you both, too. That makes three.

 

[Picaro]

Double post

 

[Picaro]

No it isn't. If companies start going nuts and firing people for living unhealthy lives, there's going to be a huge number of companies that will start up to pick up the excess work force. It's just like if companies start charging too much for a product, some person's going to realize that they can charge less and take over the market. That's how the free market works. Labor is a commodity, just like anything else.

great post. You've just justified treating the entire human race as the equivilence of Krispy Creme donuts.

 

[Kelzie]

great post. You've just justified treating the entire human race as the equivilence of Krispy Creme donuts.

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.

 

[Kandahar]

It's only a fallacy if it isn't true, and as history has proven over and over, it is very much a fact that aristocrats, companies and corporations do indeed want to micromanage every aspect of their employees' lives if they can get away with it.

History has proven that over and over? Do you have examples of this from throughout history? Keep in mind that the free market has only even existed for a few hundred years. The only time in history that even comes to close to what you're describing was the two decades or so before WWI, and even then the employers didn't really care what their employees did as long as they weren't hurting the company.

In reality, the opposite is true. Corporations are concerned with making as much money as possible, and they simply aren't interested in wasting stockholder's money on trivial micromanagement of their employees' lives.

It's interesting nobody among the radical liberals wants to put the blame on the insurance companies; this is mere spinelessness on the part of business owners themselves.

Even if it was the insurance company's "fault" that the costs for smokers were higher than the costs for nonsmokers (which it's not), what do you expect the company to do about it? Stop paying for health insurance? You'd be even MORE mad if they did that. In this company's opinion, firing smokers will cut the costs of health benefits. The ethics and/or logic behind this is a separate argument from whether or not it's legal.