Companies P-ssing on the little people

[SilentThief]

[quote]Originally posted by Iron Greasel:

If someone wants to smoke (or breathe water for fun, or walk on sharp pieces of glass, or trim their hair with gasolene or anything else dangerous) at home, let them.

Heck, I believe that its my god-given-right as someone with "free will" that I could drink Drano, if I wanted to (thats only IF... I do NOT want to). The world is SO full of people who think they have the right to tell you what to do. And to me, I think those people should just worry about themselves.

This might be the first step in a bunch that end up taking away your basic human freedoms. Scary stuff, to me.

SilentThief

[Ziroc]

Hey, lets not stop there!

Sunbathers can be fired--as you know, sun causes skin cancer, and that is a risk for the company!

Overweight? better slim down, or yer FIRED! Being overweight can cause high blood pressure an other health risks--and this is a risk to the 'company'


That 'Company' is run my Nazi's!

[RevRuby]

i agree that it is ridiculous to fire people because they could/would not quit, but not hiring smokers is just plain smart. and as far as i know there is no federal law stating disallowing smokers is discrimination. fighting the not "not hiring smokers" bit will just give smokers more rights to claim discrimination in other cases like california's no smoking in bars law.

also it will open doors for smokers to insist on companies to allow them a smokers place at work that is anywhere but outside especially during the high heat of summer and extreme cold winter.

smoking is a personal choice, and companies run on money, they lose money employing smokers, and the smokers choose to do it.

i agree being overweight causes many problems as bad as smoking, but employers and the gov't offer help in so many ways to people who want to lose weight, most everyone overweight doesn't want to be, but a large part of the smoking population doesn't want to quit.

btw did you know (in pa at least) if you get a dr's prescription for weight watchers or la weight loss the program fees are tax deductable?

[DBear]

This is bull****. Gays engage in far more 'health-endangering' behavior than smokers, and they're protected.

And I think these ********s' legal costs will more than make up for any health cost 'savings'. [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img]

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Actually, DBear, if you care to PM me with "health-endangering behavior" that gays engage in (and straights don't) I'll be happy to set you straight (as it were)... At any rate, you are mistaken. Smoking is much more dangerous than homosexual activity.

But I don't support this decision at all... How the hell is it the company's business?

[ 02-13-2005, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: Illumina Drathiran'ar ]

[Lox]

It's encouraging to me to see so many self-avowed smoking-haters to come out in opposition to this idea. There still is hope.

Smokers are becoming one of the most maligned groups. I can understand why though - smoking is one of the most digusting habits you can have. I should know, I've been smoking for about 10 years. I'm happy to sit outside and smoke my cigarettes so that others don't have to smell it. I try to not smoke around kids etc. But no one has the right to tell me I can't smoke a cigarette in my home.

The main thrust of the "for" argument is health care costs, right? Could any of our European brothers and sisters enlighten us Americans as to how it is handled over there? AFAIK, European countries (in general) have more smokers. Who pays for the health care costs? The government? Don't non-smoking tax-payers protest this?

[SilentThief]

Originally posted by Lox: It's encouraging to me to see so many self-avowed smoking-haters to come out in opposition to this idea. There still is hope.

It IS encouraging, becuz I am glad to see ppl aren't willing to just hand over ALL BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS to whomever happens to want to take them. Even if you detest smoking this should concern you.

As for how england handles this... I dunno. But Canada just throws the price (of healthcare for smokers) back on top of the price of cigarettes. This is why they cost like $8 dollars or so (not EXACTLY sure on the price, but they cost much more there) and there are so few smokers in Canada.

SilentThief

[Lucern]

Unfortunately, this isn't even really questionable in legal terms. For those who are unfamiliar with labor laws in the US (and I get the impression that this is most Americans; I had no idea until I took a sociology of labor class), I wish to share with you the reality of working under the "At Will" rule, aka Wood's rule. The At-Will Rule is a holdover from the era of "Robber-Barons" (or Captains of Industry - your call), that says: since the employee works voluntarily, and can leave at any time, the employer has the same freedom from unwanted employees. An employee can be fired for "Good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all." This does not apply to workers who have a contract (relatively few), including those in unions (which are dropping every year). The skinny is that you can be fired and it doesn't matter why. Period.

But, of course we can't be fired for certain things, and these are the slight erosions of the At-Will Rule. We can't be fired for our gender, age, or disabilities, and there are other exceptions and situations, as in arguing that the pamphlets given to new employees counts as a contract, that have worked in lawsuits. These erosions are slight though, considering that an employer does not even need a reason to fire you, and could supply a bad reason if they were pressed. The intent of the rule remains intact.

Yes, smoking is a choice, and it's hard to argue that it's a good one to choose. Being fired for it seems arbitrary and unjust by many of our sentiments here, and there are many examples of equally arbitrary and unjust practices. I think the sentiments I read are a signal that it's time to re-evaluate the at-will rule's place in our (US citizens) current situation, and I think the ACLU would do well to advocate for a new civil liberty in this case instead of always playing defense - the right to be fired for your incompetence, laziness or inability to work well with others - you know, the good reasons. There has to be a less one-sided solution to the apparent problem of unconditional employment.

Until then, I found some links that seem to correspond to my diatribe [img]smile.gif[/img]

http://www.smartagreements.com/bltopics/Bltopi57.html
(check out how this one is advice for employers in how to gain maximum protection from the At-Will rule)

http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articl...ymentlaw_1_469

(notable in that Georgia in the minority in that it has no specific exceptions to the At-Will rule, leaving only federal protections)