If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Nature Network)   It's illegal to not hire somebody because she is an African Muslim lesbian in a wheelchair. But nobody cares if the only reason you don't get a job is because you're a smoker   (mnn.com) divider line 343
    More: Interesting, BusinessNewsDaily, TechMediaNetwork, lesbians, nationalities, tobacco products  
•       •       •

7761 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Mar 2013 at 6:50 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



343 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-07 01:12:25 AM
That's because you could stop being a smoker.
 
2013-03-07 01:14:25 AM
and because you stink.
 
2013-03-07 01:23:23 AM
False equivalence is false.
 
2013-03-07 01:45:45 AM
Smokers are not a protected class.
 
2013-03-07 01:56:58 AM
obviously one attribute is a matter of choice.
somebody cares...
somebody
 
2013-03-07 02:14:28 AM
If a company wants to regulate smoking on their premises I can understand that.  If they want to make a regulation that employees can not be at the workplace smelling of smoke, I can understand that too.

Restricting employees from engaging in a legal activity outside of the workplace just seems way over the line.

Part of me wonders if this isn't at least in part due to corporations seeing the tide turning towards marijuana legalization and wanting to set precedent now that will allow them to fire/not-hire marijuana users who partake outside of the workplace if it is legalized.
 
2013-03-07 02:52:19 AM

TuteTibiImperes: If a company wants to regulate smoking on their premises I can understand that.  If they want to make a regulation that employees can not be at the workplace smelling of smoke, I can understand that too.

Restricting employees from engaging in a legal activity outside of the workplace just seems way over the line.

Part of me wonders if this isn't at least in part due to corporations seeing the tide turning towards marijuana legalization and wanting to set precedent now that will allow them to fire/not-hire marijuana users who partake outside of the workplace if it is legalized.


Thats an interesting perspective.  Mine was more along the lines of insurance costs.
 
2013-03-07 02:55:09 AM

Frederick: TuteTibiImperes: If a company wants to regulate smoking on their premises I can understand that.  If they want to make a regulation that employees can not be at the workplace smelling of smoke, I can understand that too.

Restricting employees from engaging in a legal activity outside of the workplace just seems way over the line.

Part of me wonders if this isn't at least in part due to corporations seeing the tide turning towards marijuana legalization and wanting to set precedent now that will allow them to fire/not-hire marijuana users who partake outside of the workplace if it is legalized.

Thats an interesting perspective.  Mine was more along the lines of insurance costs.


I'm sure that plays into it as well, and that's another slipper slope.  What's next, mandatory cholesterol screenings and workplace mandated dieting  if your readings are too high?  Hair testing to see how often you have a drink at night and mandatory alcohol counseling if it isn't within your employer's (or insurer's) guidelines?
 
2013-03-07 02:55:34 AM
I loved, loved, LOVED smoking.  I recently quit for health reasons, but barring that I'd dearly love to be smoking right now.

Nobody should be forced to put up with it, though.  Smoking is a personal choice.  Being African, female, or lesbian is not.  Being Muslim kind of is, but that involves freedom of speech and religion, which should be encouraged if for no other reason than your personal right to laugh at Muslims if you want to.
 
2013-03-07 03:01:40 AM

TuteTibiImperes: Frederick: TuteTibiImperes: If a company wants to regulate smoking on their premises I can understand that.  If they want to make a regulation that employees can not be at the workplace smelling of smoke, I can understand that too.

Restricting employees from engaging in a legal activity outside of the workplace just seems way over the line.

Part of me wonders if this isn't at least in part due to corporations seeing the tide turning towards marijuana legalization and wanting to set precedent now that will allow them to fire/not-hire marijuana users who partake outside of the workplace if it is legalized.

Thats an interesting perspective.  Mine was more along the lines of insurance costs.

I'm sure that plays into it as well, and that's another slipper slope.  What's next, mandatory cholesterol screenings and workplace mandated dieting  if your readings are too high?  Hair testing to see how often you have a drink at night and mandatory alcohol counseling if it isn't within your employer's (or insurer's) guidelines?


Yes; that slippery slope.  And it's exactly the possibility of that slippery slope being realized that I feel the need to be sensitive on such issues and push back when appropriate.  Glad others are just as sensitive.
 
2013-03-07 06:31:56 AM
Put me on the jury and nobody would be convicted of discriminating against anybody for any reason. Freedom of association is a basic right.
 
2013-03-07 06:53:30 AM
If you get the right e-cig, the switch-over will work.  I smoked for 20 years.

Time to let it go.
 
2013-03-07 06:53:56 AM
what if you STOP smoking 2 months before the job
is that ok
or does it have to be 3
 
2013-03-07 06:54:31 AM

wildcardjack: That's because you could stop being a smoker.


And we are done in one.
 
2013-03-07 06:54:44 AM
Corporations can and should be allowed to ban smoking on their premises. They can and should be allowed to prohibit or fire people who smell of cigarettes at work.

They should not be allowed to prohibit activities their employees engage in while not at work at all, unless it somehow affects their performance or presence at work. Alcoholics coming in hung over and sweating out their binge from the night prior are just as bad or worse. But regardless of whether your activity was legal (smoking, drinking, gorging on three pounds of bacon) or illegal (8-ball, few bongloads), they have no valid interest in your activities and shouldn't go poking their nose around your private life.
 
2013-03-07 06:55:31 AM

Jon iz teh kewl: what if you STOP smoking 2 months minutes before the job
is that ok
or does it have to be 3


Does this still work?
 
2013-03-07 06:55:57 AM
Your employer shouldn't be able to dictate what you do outside work on your personal time.
 
2013-03-07 06:57:08 AM
Nicotine addiction, like alcoholism, is a disease. If the employer is willing to ignore the rights of the sick, I'm happy to just as well take my business somewhere else.

I'm no smoker. I can't stand the smell of tobacco. But it's a pretty low person who will make it a policy to discriminate against someone because of a disease.
 
2013-03-07 06:58:26 AM
People still smoke?
 
2013-03-07 06:58:49 AM
I'll post a comment later right now I need to step outside with the other smokers and shoot the shiat and inhale nicotine for 15 minutes.
 
2013-03-07 07:01:14 AM
African Muslim lesbian in a wheelchair

I have that DVD
 
2013-03-07 07:02:29 AM
Smokers in my experience take more breaks than others I manage. They also have more upper respiratory infections and potentially get cancer, raising health insurance rates for everyone. And they stink.
 
2013-03-07 07:02:34 AM

kid_icarus: Your employer shouldn't be able to dictate what you do outside work on your personal time.


I agree ...if you can come into work and not stink of smoke, who cares?

What stinks tho, is when my coworkers come back into the building after chaining a few outside in their car. Gah.
 
2013-03-07 07:03:26 AM

Rufus Lee King: What if they say they're no longer going to hire beer drinkers? Most of us FARK types would be out of work.


it's just one company, you could always just be a cop
or work for Google
 
2013-03-07 07:03:43 AM

TuteTibiImperes: If a company wants to regulate smoking on their premises I can understand that.  If they want to make a regulation that employees can not be at the workplace smelling of smoke, I can understand that too.

Restricting employees from engaging in a legal activity outside of the workplace just seems way over the line.

Part of me wonders if this isn't at least in part due to corporations seeing the tide turning towards marijuana legalization and wanting to set precedent now that will allow them to fire/not-hire marijuana users who partake outside of the workplace if it is legalized.


Exactly.  It's legal.  What you do (legally) on your own time should not be penalized because of some small-minded douches who think they have the right to control your life.  If you think this does not pertain to you because you do not smoke, just wait.  After they're finished dictating personal rights for smokers, it'll be on for eaters, and then who's next?

Keep letting d*cks strip away your rights and eventually it'll come around to whatever it is you like to do.
 
2013-03-07 07:05:22 AM
I'm a smoker, but I understand this. It makes you smell and you need a break every hour so you're not as productive.
 
2013-03-07 07:06:23 AM

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: kid_icarus: Your employer shouldn't be able to dictate what you do outside work on your personal time.

I agree ...if you can come into work and not stink of smoke, who cares?

What stinks tho, is when my coworkers come back into the building after chaining a few outside in their car. Gah.


I agree as long as you apply the same logic to perfume/cologne/perfumed deodorant/etc.

/you do not have the right to not be offended.
 
2013-03-07 07:06:25 AM

NobleHam: I'm a smoker, but I understand this. It makes you smell and you need a break every hour so you're not as productive.


i'm more productive cause i close me eyes on my breaks
 
2013-03-07 07:06:48 AM

skantea: If you get the right e-cig, the switch-over will work.  I smoked for 20 years.

Time to let it go.


What e-cig do you use? I've tried the V2 e-cigs and well I should have known from the historical name it wouldn't really work.
 
2013-03-07 07:07:43 AM
How is this news? Companies have long had the right to avoid hiring drug addicts. It isn't fair to businesses to deal with the low productivity and health costs. As long as you know the rules when you hire in there it shouldn't be an issue.
 
2013-03-07 07:07:58 AM
I can understand this.  Smokers have a lot more insurance costs to deal with, take a lot more breaks during work that cut into productivity time, and are generally unpleasant to be around to us non-smokers.  They smell (yes, you do, you just can't smell it anymore) and have a tendency toward crankiness and drama should they not get their bi-hourly cigarette break).

That said, I don't  agreewith it.  What you do in your spare time is none of your employer's business, so long as it's not illegal or unsafe while on the job. I mean, I wasn't allowed to be a smoker on or off duty as a police officer and now as a paramedic, But both those jobs lent to physicality that smoking was detrimental to.  I can see them banning smoking during work hours, and maybe making them pay more in insurance (doesn't that already happen?), but banning off-time activity seems a bit odd if it doesn't have an impact on the job.
 
2013-03-07 07:08:19 AM

TuteTibiImperes: If a company wants to regulate smoking on their premises I can understand that.  If they want to make a regulation that employees can not be at the workplace smelling of smoke, I can understand that too.

Restricting employees from engaging in a legal activity outside of the workplace just seems way over the line.

Part of me wonders if this isn't at least in part due to corporations seeing the tide turning towards marijuana legalization and wanting to set precedent now that will allow them to fire/not-hire marijuana users who partake outside of the workplace if it is legalized.


Corporations are adopting the good conduct policies most schools have now. If you do something they don't like on your own time and off their property you still get in trouble.
 
2013-03-07 07:09:06 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: skantea: If you get the right e-cig, the switch-over will work.  I smoked for 20 years.

Time to let it go.

What e-cig do you use? I've tried the V2 e-cigs and well I should have known from the historical name it wouldn't really work.


isn't the only reason people buy e-cigs is to vaporize MDPV in them?
so they can puff puff and then strip off all their clothes
 
2013-03-07 07:09:09 AM
Honestly, where we all these anti-smoking nannies up until big government decided to "denormalize" (ie. actively stigmatize and encourage others to demonize / pile on as well) smoking? Where they smoking themselves during the 50's 60's 70's and 80's, or where they just too timid to make their stand without having the mob opinion / big bro on their side?

To me it's just straight hilarious, because I'm not a pansy and I basically don't complain whatsoever about the lifestyle choices of others (because I expect the same latitude). My response to people who complain about people smoking outside in the snow by the doors? Hold your damn breath for two seconds. If you seriously caterwaul about inhaling about 2 seconds of cigarette smoke indirectly and it's the WORST THING EVAR in your life, you are representative of the soft, unworked, babied contingent of our society and frankly you've not enough perspective on what's really hard in life for me to even value your opinion.

In short, anti-smoking-drones make me lol both due to their mass conformity, oversensitive hysterics, and general plaintiveness. Meanwhile, you'll never hear them loudly cough theatrically as rigs, trucks, and cars pass by them on the sidewalk. I avoid drama queens.
 
2013-03-07 07:10:29 AM
By the way, I don't smoke cigarettes, and I have never smoked at work in my life.
 
2013-03-07 07:10:30 AM
For every job, depending on who's numbers you use, there are 70 applicants for each available position. HR departments are looking for any reason to screen you out. Personally, as a hiring manager, if all other things were equal and I had two candidates of equal merit, I would also pick the non-smoker.
 
2013-03-07 07:11:17 AM

Frederick: TuteTibiImperes: If a company wants to regulate smoking on their premises I can understand that.  If they want to make a regulation that employees can not be at the workplace smelling of smoke, I can understand that too.

Restricting employees from engaging in a legal activity outside of the workplace just seems way over the line.

Part of me wonders if this isn't at least in part due to corporations seeing the tide turning towards marijuana legalization and wanting to set precedent now that will allow them to fire/not-hire marijuana users who partake outside of the workplace if it is legalized.

Thats an interesting perspective.  Mine was more along the lines of insurance costs.


On the nose.

Smokers have a higher chance of pasting the insurance premiums.
 
IPS
2013-03-07 07:11:18 AM
And when they finally do something about the alcoholics and drinking away from the job and won't hire you if you indulge in anything alcoholic, only then will you idiots care.

Slippery slope and all that.  We're headed back to corporate feudalism.  Save your money for the corporate store everyone!
 
2013-03-07 07:11:24 AM

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: kid_icarus: Your employer shouldn't be able to dictate what you do outside work on your personal time.

I agree ...if you can come into work and not stink of smoke, who cares?

What stinks tho, is when my coworkers come back into the building after chaining a few outside in their car. Gah.


I may have gone back to that nasty habit but I do not smoke in cars or building even if it is allowed. Smoking inside something seems even more wrong than smoking.
/Quitting again soon
//It's not easy, sure the first month or two easy. More than a year and beyond very difficult.
 
2013-03-07 07:12:00 AM

Macular Degenerate: For every job, depending on who's numbers you use, there are 70 applicants for each available position. HR departments are looking for any reason to screen you out. Personally, as a hiring manager, if all other things were equal and I had two candidates of equal merit, I would also pick the non-smoker.


Yes, this happens all the time. Have you ever actually sat on a serious hiring committee?

"Sir, identical humans with identical personalities, references, educations, histories, and personalities have applied! They even have the exact same birthday and appearance and method of personal fashion and style!"

"Does one of 'em smoke?"
 
2013-03-07 07:12:04 AM

jaybeezey: Frederick: TuteTibiImperes: If a company wants to regulate smoking on their premises I can understand that.  If they want to make a regulation that employees can not be at the workplace smelling of smoke, I can understand that too.

Restricting employees from engaging in a legal activity outside of the workplace just seems way over the line.

Part of me wonders if this isn't at least in part due to corporations seeing the tide turning towards marijuana legalization and wanting to set precedent now that will allow them to fire/not-hire marijuana users who partake outside of the workplace if it is legalized.

Thats an interesting perspective.  Mine was more along the lines of insurance costs.

On the nose.

Smokers have a higher chance of pasting the insurance premiums.


FAt fingered it:

Pasting = impacting
 
2013-03-07 07:12:44 AM

Pharmdawg: Smokers in my experience take more breaks than others I manage. They also have more upper respiratory infections and potentially get cancer, raising health insurance rates for everyone. And they stink.


We have one dude in my department who smokes. He is never sick. There's two fat guys, however, that use up all their sick time in the first three or four months of the year, then start having to use their vacation time. They are also not as productive, spending a good two hours every day sitting around in the break room watching TV and BSing.

It's all anecdotal. There's another guy, a bodybuilder, who is sick all the damn time too.
 
2013-03-07 07:13:39 AM

Pharmdawg: Smokers in my experience take more breaks than others I manage. They also have more upper respiratory infections and potentially get cancer, raising health insurance rates for everyone. And they stink.


This is true - and since you will not be insuring this person for their entire lifetime, you will not get the "early death" payoff. The fact that a smoker costs less to insure over the course of their entire life doesn't help you one bit, because they will be sicker during the time you have to cover their insurance.
 
2013-03-07 07:13:45 AM

RockofAges: Honestly, where we all these anti-smoking nannies up until big government decided to "denormalize" (ie. actively stigmatize and encourage others to demonize / pile on as well) smoking? Where they smoking themselves during the 50's 60's 70's and 80's, or where they just too timid to make their stand without having the mob opinion / big bro on their side?

To me it's just straight hilarious, because I'm not a pansy and I basically don't complain whatsoever about the lifestyle choices of others (because I expect the same latitude). My response to people who complain about people smoking outside in the snow by the doors? Hold your damn breath for two seconds. If you seriously caterwaul about inhaling about 2 seconds of cigarette smoke indirectly and it's the WORST THING EVAR in your life, you are representative of the soft, unworked, babied contingent of our society and frankly you've not enough perspective on what's really hard in life for me to even value your opinion.

In short, anti-smoking-drones make me lol both due to their mass conformity, oversensitive hysterics, and general plaintiveness. Meanwhile, you'll never hear them loudly cough theatrically as rigs, trucks, and cars pass by them on the sidewalk. I avoid drama queens.


so much this there is not enough this in "this" to express the this-ness.
 
2013-03-07 07:13:59 AM

IPS: And when they finally do something about the alcoholics and drinking away from the job and won't hire you if you indulge in anything alcoholic, only then will you idiots care.

Slippery slope and all that.  We're headed back to corporate feudalism.  Save your money for the corporate store everyone!


Drinkers are dangerous to society, drug addicted losers who could crash the carpool vehicle, or make a rash decision at work while they had the DTs.

Best not to hire anyone who tests positive for alchohol. I mean, only weak idiots poison themselves, make themselves fat and bloated, and endanger our children on the roadway.

-- Authoritarian conformist, a person whom easily accepts rationales for excluding "nongroup" members so long as it doesn't include their personal habits.
 
2013-03-07 07:14:08 AM
I'm a smoker and I support this. Smoking is a disgusting habit and I hate myself every time I light up. I can fully understand the people saying this violates your rights because smoking is legal, and it's really none of the company's business. But I can also say, from experience, that smoking needs to stop. And anything that can be done to do it is worth it.

We live in a country that makes it a crime to own one harmless plant that just gets you a little high, but makes it legal to own one that slowly kills you while simultaneously convincing you that it's totally worth it.

/Bah, now I have to go flush my cigs again. 100th times the charm.
 
j4x
2013-03-07 07:14:51 AM

Pharmdawg: Smokers in my experience take more breaks than others I manage. They also have more upper respiratory infections and potentially get cancer, raising health insurance rates for everyone. And they stink.


Cool.

When can we start not hiring fat people??
 
2013-03-07 07:15:28 AM
Studies have shown that smokers take 40% more breaks than non-smokers.
 
2013-03-07 07:15:39 AM

DrPainMD: Put me on the jury and nobody would be convicted of discriminating against anybody for any reason. Freedom of association is a basic right.


What if you work for, say the DMV, or other essential government services?
 
2013-03-07 07:16:04 AM

feckingmorons: Smokers are not a protected class.


This is all that needs to be said.
 
Displayed 50 of 343 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report