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 07:39:46 AM

Earpj: RockofAges:
Smokers actually tend to die pretty quickly.

My dad smoked for more than 50 years. 2 packs a day. He died at 71. Not super quickly. 
In the sense of age and illness. He was pretty healthy, till the last few years.


Sorry about your dad. I did use "tend", and all situations are contextual. Smokers do die fairly quickly, on average, when they enter a terminal trajectory. Especially compared to most other risk groups, particularly the obese and diabetics.
 
2013-03-07 07:40:28 AM

CokeBear: Dirty little secret of labor law is that you can discriminate against anyone for any reason, even prohibited reasons, just DON'T TELL ANYONE!


That's what I was thinking. You don't have to give a reason for hiring someone else.
 
2013-03-07 07:40:30 AM

Psylence: tinfoil-hat maggie: Esroc: 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.

I know the feeling I've quit tobacco so many times and end up going back too it. That wild wood weed was always just for fun and I never had a problem in dry spells.
/Don't smoke it any more although I might be happier if I did.

You'd better served by switching from one to the other. Your lungs will thank you!


I know, unfortunately I have this thing where I really want a cig after I smoke and well I've heard it's the same for drinkers but ...
In a perfect world.
 
2013-03-07 07:41:17 AM
Orlando Health will study applicants' levels of cotinine to determine if they are smokers or if they have simply been exposed to secondhand smoke.

Sense, this policy makes none.

Just another bullshiat way to make employees afraid of their employers.
 
2013-03-07 07:42:00 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: Psylence: tinfoil-hat maggie: Esroc: 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.

I know the feeling I've quit tobacco so many times and end up going back too it. That wild wood weed was always just for fun and I never had a problem in dry spells.
/Don't smoke it any more although I might be happier if I did.

You'd better served by switching from one to the other. Your lungs will thank you!

I know, unfortunately I have this thing where I really want a cig after I smoke and well I've heard it's the same for drinkers but ...
In a perfect world.


Try mixing both and rolling your own, and slowly cutting back the pinch you put in with the green. A relative of mine quit in this fashion, slowly, over a year.
 
2013-03-07 07:42:01 AM

Earpj: RockofAges:
Smokers actually tend to die pretty quickly.

My dad smoked for more than 50 years. 2 packs a day. He died at 71. Not super quickly. 
In the sense of age and illness. He was pretty healthy, till the last few years.


he could have lived to be 81 by not smoking at all

on the other hand he could have been unlucky like me, to get lung cancer at the age of 32 after smoking for 2 years.
 
2013-03-07 07:43:31 AM
How about we just make a list of what you're allowed to consider instead.  Want to consider another parameter?  I'm sorry, it can't be done.  Granted, this is a different way of looking at it than the "protected X" method, but I think it will take the focus off of "can't" and shift it to "use this."
 
2013-03-07 07:43:49 AM

Thudfark: radiobiz: So what you are saying is if the job application asks if you smoke, you lie and say no.

No, you sue their asses for asking questions they have no business asking on an application.


In Amerika it doesn't work that way. They can even force you to take a blood test to see if you have nicotine in your system. Or anything else.
/Land of the free ya know....
 
2013-03-07 07:44:02 AM
RockofAges:
Sorry about your dad. I did use "tend", and all situations are contextual. Smokers do die fairly quickly, on average, when they enter a terminal trajectory. Especially compared to most other risk groups, particularly the obese and diabetics.

I suppose. 
I think what upsets me more, is that my mom, who never smoked, is dying of colon cancer. The ONLY thing she has on the list of "causes" is living with my dad, and his smoke, for 47 years. 

Oh well, what ya gonna do? They were from an age where his MRE's had cigarettes in them.
 
2013-03-07 07:44:27 AM

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


"I see on your resume that you're an avid meth user..."
"Uh yeah, so?"
"I'm sorry, we don't hire drug users"
"What?! That's not fair! You can't dictate what i do outside of the work place!!"
"Oh, well, when you put it that way... You're hired. Welcome to Rising Shine Daycare..."
 
2013-03-07 07:44:36 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: Thudfark: radiobiz: So what you are saying is if the job application asks if you smoke, you lie and say no.

No, you sue their asses for asking questions they have no business asking on an application.

In Amerika it doesn't work that way. They can even force you to take a blood test to see if you have nicotine in your system. Or anything else.
/Land of the free ya know....


what about crack are you allowed to use crack
 
2013-03-07 07:45:39 AM

Dracolich: How about we just make a list of what you're allowed to consider instead.  Want to consider another parameter?  I'm sorry, it can't be done.  Granted, this is a different way of looking at it than the "protected X" method, but I think it will take the focus off of "can't" and shift it to "use this."


It's dangerous to go alone! Take this! (Even the image title is hysterical ;).)

ivn.us
 
2013-03-07 07:45:49 AM

MythDragon: To be fair, I wouldn't hire a smoker either
[i1200.photobucket.com image 500x500]
/though I'd take one over a boomer.
//and I'd hire a witch in a second....just need to work on her attitude problem.


Damn it, now I have to reinstall and play it again...
 
2013-03-07 07:46:15 AM

RockofAges: Try mixing both and rolling your own, and slowly cutting back the pinch you put in with the green. A relative of mine quit in this fashion, slowly, over a year.


Hmmm, interesting : )
 
2013-03-07 07:46:29 AM
Jon iz teh kewl:
he could have lived to be 81 by not smoking at all

on the other hand he could have been unlucky like me, to get lung cancer at the age of 32 after smoking for 2 years.


This is also very true. Hell, he wasn't even diagnosed with lung cancer till a week before he passed. He had 25% lung apacity and used oxygen for a few years before that. 
I'm 2 states over, and my mom is GREAT at keeping stuff to herself. I never knew he was in the hospital, till he was already back home.
 
2013-03-07 07:46:55 AM

Phil Moskowitz: What about raging alcoholics? I need to sue someone..


Yes, what about them? We need to ban them next. 

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

You end up being a cancerous mess on their time.

No more pop and chips in the snack machine (bowel disease, obesity, diabetes). No more burgers for you on your off time (cholesteral, previous reasons).

If a company wants to mandate that, they're free to. Not many people would seek employment there.

Smokers actually tend to die pretty quickly. Wanna talk about drains on society? What's the average BMI on fark, do you think? ;)

I'm not talking about society, I'm talking about the company. They like to reduce risk, in terms of down time. Smoking is the low hanging fruit, the most obvious and easiest target to deal with. It's a numbers game and smokers lose no matter how you work the math.

Uh, what? In terms of short term productivity, the obese and the heavy drinker, as well as "women in general" (think: maternity, sick leave, etc) would beat out the smoker. How many smokers call in with "uhhhghh I think I smoked too much last night?".

Your answer is literally nonsensical. If you mean that smoking lowers the immune system and smokers get sicker, maybe. But fatties get way sicker, way more often, than most smokers. Not seeing your argument.


Women with children. They have to be out 2x as much as other employees to take care of children that they chose to have on their own personal time. I don't see why the company should have to lose productivity because of their life choices.

/ducks and runs
 
2013-03-07 07:47:07 AM

Jon iz teh kewl: Earpj: RockofAges:
Smokers actually tend to die pretty quickly.

My dad smoked for more than 50 years. 2 packs a day. He died at 71. Not super quickly.
In the sense of age and illness. He was pretty healthy, till the last few years.

he could have lived to be 81 by not smoking at all

on the other hand he could have been unlucky like me, to get lung cancer at the age of 32 after smoking for 2 years.


comes down to....
image.made-in-china.com
 
2013-03-07 07:47:37 AM

Jon iz teh kewl: tinfoil-hat maggie: Thudfark: radiobiz: So what you are saying is if the job application asks if you smoke, you lie and say no.

No, you sue their asses for asking questions they have no business asking on an application.

In Amerika it doesn't work that way. They can even force you to take a blood test to see if you have nicotine in your system. Or anything else.
/Land of the free ya know....

what about crack are you allowed to use crack


You are but that's only because you're special ; )
 
2013-03-07 07:49:37 AM

Earpj: RockofAges:
Sorry about your dad. I did use "tend", and all situations are contextual. Smokers do die fairly quickly, on average, when they enter a terminal trajectory. Especially compared to most other risk groups, particularly the obese and diabetics.

I suppose. 
I think what upsets me more, is that my mom, who never smoked, is dying of colon cancer. The ONLY thing she has on the list of "causes" is living with my dad, and his smoke, for 47 years. 

Oh well, what ya gonna do? They were from an age where his MRE's had cigarettes in them.


Earp, this is not a comment on your personal circumstances, which are trying. However, in life, I have found nowadays that everyone needs a "cause" for every medical problem they encounter. Some things just develop, for a variety of reasons. People are living WAY longer than they used to, far longer than what our biology would naturally dictate in most cases. Cancer is nature's answer, so far, it would seem. And a horrible answer that we are trying to fight.

But old people get cancer. A lot. Age is the primary "cause" of cancer. Simple age. You live longer, your risk of getting a cancer somewhere due to any number of aggravating factors from eating certain foods to standing close to the microwave.

I personally think it's fairly conclusive that a 2 pack a day smoker might develop lung cancer, for sure. The other case? No way to rationally determine, but colon cancer from secondhand smoke does not seem as likely as simple age or dietary / stress conditions. Not a doctor though.
 
2013-03-07 07:49:42 AM
HindiDiscoMonster:
comes down to....
[image.made-in-china.com image 500x327]


I was sitting here:
"ass"? "Looking over your shoulder"? "Whoever that lady is? Should I know her? She does look kinda familiar.."
OH! Jeans.
 
2013-03-07 07:49:44 AM

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

"I see on your resume that you're an avid meth user..."
"Uh yeah, so?"
"I'm sorry, we don't hire drug users"
"What?! That's not fair! You can't dictate what i do outside of the work place!!"
"Oh, well, when you put it that way... You're hired. Welcome to Rising Shine Daycare..."


i76.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-07 07:51:05 AM

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

"I see on your resume that you're an avid meth user..."
"Uh yeah, so?"
"I'm sorry, we don't hire drug users"
"What?! That's not fair! You can't dictate what i do outside of the work place!!"
"Oh, well, when you put it that way... You're hired. Welcome to Rising Shine Daycare..."

[i76.photobucket.com image 350x350]


Also, false equivalence / apples to oranges comparison.
 
2013-03-07 07:51:14 AM

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

You end up being a cancerous mess on their time.

No more pop and chips in the snack machine (bowel disease, obesity, diabetes). No more burgers for you on your off time (cholesteral, previous reasons).

If a company wants to mandate that, they're free to. Not many people would seek employment there.

Smokers actually tend to die pretty quickly. Wanna talk about drains on society? What's the average BMI on fark, do you think? ;)

I'm not talking about society, I'm talking about the company. They like to reduce risk, in terms of down time. Smoking is the low hanging fruit, the most obvious and easiest target to deal with. It's a numbers game and smokers lose no matter how you work the math.

Uh, what? In terms of short term productivity, the obese and the heavy drinker, as well as "women in general" (think: maternity, sick leave, etc) would beat out the smoker. How many smokers call in with "uhhhghh I think I smoked too much last night?".


Yeah I already told you a company is free to put restrictions on hiring obese alcoholics as well. There aren't as many smokers as there are fat people, so companies can safely reduce their exposure to the labor pool of smokers. There's little to lose. Everything is by the numbers, you can't fight it.

Your answer is literally nonsensical. If you mean that smoking lowers the immune system and smokers get sicker, maybe. But fatties get way sicker, way more often, than most smokers. Not seeing your argument.

Smoker in my office just died of lung cancer a few months ago. He was gone for a year and drawing pay. His department suffered tremendously while things were sorted out. It sucks, he had even quit years ago, but just overindulged in his youth and it caught up to him.

This does happen, and smoking does cause cancer. Smokers are a risk, and risk is to be minimized.
 
2013-03-07 07:51:29 AM

Earpj: HindiDiscoMonster:
comes down to....
[image.made-in-china.com image 500x327]

I was sitting here:
"ass"? "Looking over your shoulder"? "Whoever that lady is? Should I know her? She does look kinda familiar.."
OH! Jeans.


yup... trying to tie in some nice pics to the thread...

/my work is done
 
2013-03-07 07:52:18 AM

RockofAges: s, which are trying. However, in life, I have found nowadays that everyone needs a "cause" for every medical problem they encounter. Some things just develop, for a variety of reasons. People are living WAY longer than they used to, far longer than what our biology would naturally dictate in most cases. Cancer is nature's answer, so far, it would seem. And a horrible answer that we are trying to fight.

But old people get cancer. A lot. Age is the primary "cause" of cancer. Simple age. You live longer, your risk of getting a cancer somewhere due to any number of aggravating factors from eating certain foods to standing close to the microwave.

I personally think it's fairly conclusive that a 2 pack a day smoker might develop lung cancer, for sure. The other case? No way to rationally determine, but colon cancer from secondhand smoke does not seem as likely as simple age or dietary / stress conditions. Not a doctor though.


Very true, too. We'll never know. I do know that she was sick for, at least, a year before my brother forced her to go to the doctor. 
Life is a mystery. 

/Get your check-ups.
 
2013-03-07 07:52:20 AM

feckingmorons: Smokers are not a protected class.


Some are more equal than others
 
2013-03-07 07:53:59 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Smoker in my office just died of lung cancer a few months ago. He was gone for a year and drawing pay. His department suffered tremendously while things were sorted out. It sucks, he had even quit years ago, but just overindulged in his youth and it caught up to him.

This does happen, and smoking does cause cancer. Smokers are a risk, and risk is to be minimized.



It's a good thing he was never productive as other people during those years, or it might have been a real mess...

/oh wait...
 
2013-03-07 07:54:13 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: Thudfark: radiobiz: So what you are saying is if the job application asks if you smoke, you lie and say no.

No, you sue their asses for asking questions they have no business asking on an application.

In Amerika it doesn't work that way. They can even force you to take a blood test to see if you have nicotine in your system. Or anything else.
/Land of the free ya know....


No they can't, it's entirely voluntary.
 
2013-03-07 07:54:31 AM
i1129.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-07 07:54:57 AM

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


I couldn't agree more.
 
2013-03-07 07:55:04 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: HotWingConspiracy: Smoker in my office just died of lung cancer a few months ago. He was gone for a year and drawing pay. His department suffered tremendously while things were sorted out. It sucks, he had even quit years ago, but just overindulged in his youth and it caught up to him.

This does happen, and smoking does cause cancer. Smokers are a risk, and risk is to be minimized.


It's a good thing he was never productive as other people during those years, or it might have been a real mess...

/oh wait...


what
 
2013-03-07 07:55:37 AM

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

You end up being a cancerous mess on their time.

No more pop and chips in the snack machine (bowel disease, obesity, diabetes). No more burgers for you on your off time (cholesteral, previous reasons).

If a company wants to mandate that, they're free to. Not many people would seek employment there.

Smokers actually tend to die pretty quickly. Wanna talk about drains on society? What's the average BMI on fark, do you think? ;)

I'm not talking about society, I'm talking about the company. They like to reduce risk, in terms of down time. Smoking is the low hanging fruit, the most obvious and easiest target to deal with. It's a numbers game and smokers lose no matter how you work the math.

Uh, what? In terms of short term productivity, the obese and the heavy drinker, as well as "women in general" (think: maternity, sick leave, etc) would beat out the smoker. How many smokers call in with "uhhhghh I think I smoked too much last night?".

Yeah I already told you a company is free to put restrictions on hiring obese alcoholics as well. There aren't as many smokers as there are fat people, so companies can safely reduce their exposure to the labor pool of smokers. There's little to lose. Everything is by the numbers, you can't fight it.

Your answer is literally nonsensical. If you mean that smoking lowers the immune system and smokers get sicker, maybe. But fatties get way sicker, way more often, than most smokers. Not seeing your argument.

Smoker in my office just died of lung cancer a few months ago. He was gone for a year and drawing pay. His department suffered tremendously while things were sorted out. It sucks, he had even quit years ago, but just overindulged in his youth and it caught up to him.

This does happen, and smoking does cause cancer. Smokers are a risk, and risk is to be minimized.


It only took a year? Hell, standard maternity leave is 9 months. End of life care for chronic illness related to obesity / diabetes could put your workplace out for an LTD / pension claim that lasts 20-40 years.

Also, nobody is debating that smoking causes cancer. Guess what? Poor food choices are actually the epidemic facing America and American productivity -- not smoking. If you want to act all "macroeconomics trump personal liberties and interpersonal equality", go ahead, but let's target the actual problem, shall we.

So no more fatty foods at all, for any employees, on or off shift.

Americans ARE fat, and fatness DOES cause cancer (amongst a HUGE variety of other comorbid illnesses, both physical, emotional, and mental). Fatness, unlike smoking, also DIRECTLY impedes cognitive function AND physical productivity.

Fatties are a risk to workplaces, public coffers, public health, pensions, and economic stability. Risks need to be minimized.

(or, you could be like me, and simply suggest healthful food subsidies, and let people eat the burgers they damn well please in the interim, because I'm not a micromanaging, self-righteous ninny who wants to legislate your behaviour because it doesn't match my personal standards of "moral").
 
2013-03-07 07:57:06 AM

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


^          ^         ^          ^        ^
 
2013-03-07 07:57:16 AM

HotWingConspiracy: tinfoil-hat maggie: Thudfark: radiobiz: So what you are saying is if the job application asks if you smoke, you lie and say no.

No, you sue their asses for asking questions they have no business asking on an application.

In Amerika it doesn't work that way. They can even force you to take a blood test to see if you have nicotine in your system. Or anything else.
/Land of the free ya know....

No they can't, it's entirely voluntary.


Well of course it is and if you refuse....Heh, right.
 
2013-03-07 07:58:09 AM

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

^          ^         ^          ^        ^


And fat people, not suffering from a chemical addiction to fatness, could stop being fat.

But this is America, and you are thankfully free to be fat, and to smoke. Even if being fat is worse for everyone. ;)
 
2013-03-07 08:02:44 AM

RockofAges: It only took a year? Hell, standard maternity leave is 9 months. End of life care for chronic illness related to obesity / diabetes could put your workplace out for an LTD / pension claim that lasts 20-40 years.


Ok, so you don't understand or don't care to understand how risk works.

Also, nobody is debating that smoking causes cancer. Guess what? Poor food choices are actually the epidemic facing America and American productivity -- not smoking. If you want to act all "macroeconomics trump personal liberties and interpersonal equality", go ahead, but let's target the actual problem, shall we.

So no more fatty foods at all, for any employees, on or off shift.

Americans ARE fat, and fatness DOES cause cancer (amongst a HUGE variety of other comorbid illnesses, both physical, emotional, and mental). Fatness, unlike smoking, also DIRECTLY impedes cognitive function AND physical productivity.

Fatties are a risk to workplaces, public coffers, public health, pensions, and economic stability. Risks need to be minimized.


Yeah I already told you a company is free to put restrictions on hiring obese people. I also told you why they don't.

(or, you could be like me, and simply suggest healthful food subsidies, and let people eat the burgers they damn well please in the interim, because I'm not a micromanaging, self-righteous ninny who wants to legislate your behaviour because it doesn't match my personal standards of "moral").

Cool, start your own company and be the hero that Gotham needs.
 
2013-03-07 08:02:54 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.


You sound..... white.
 
2013-03-07 08:05:24 AM

dr_blasto: 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.


I should be able to fire people that wear cologne, scented hair stuff, and perfume. I don't work with teens, the average age is about 32-35, but man walk into the office and wow. They stink far worse than I ever did as a smoker.

I have a "sensitive" nose, helps with cooking. I refused to go into many stores (Bed, Bath, and Bodyworks? Like a giant stink bomb, a flowery one, but still) and walking into the office some days was nearly as bad.

So I walk into the office and want to retch. Can I have a rule that allows me to fire anyone wearing cologne, perfume, or scented hair products?
 
2013-03-07 08:06:19 AM
If I am interviewing 2 people for the same job and both are about equally qualified but one smokes the job goes to the non smoker.

Smokers take more sick days
Smokers take break throughout the day interrupting work
Smokers can really stink up smaller areas like a lab

I don't care if my employee gay marries a dog in a satanic ritual and then smokes crack all weekend as long as they can perform while at work but smokers can be disruptive at work during work hours.
 
2013-03-07 08:06:38 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: HotWingConspiracy: tinfoil-hat maggie: Thudfark: radiobiz: So what you are saying is if the job application asks if you smoke, you lie and say no.

No, you sue their asses for asking questions they have no business asking on an application.

In Amerika it doesn't work that way. They can even force you to take a blood test to see if you have nicotine in your system. Or anything else.
/Land of the free ya know....

No they can't, it's entirely voluntary.

Well of course it is and if you refuse....Heh, right.


Yes, you wouldn't get the job. If you're applying for a job where you need to be drug free, refusing a test to demonstrate that isn't going to look good to an employer. But they cannot "force" you to do anything.
 
2013-03-07 08:06:42 AM
Popular Opinion: obviously one attribute is a matter of choice.

religion is not?   why is it not ok to discriminate against people with "religious" unfounded wacky beliefs that affect their judgement but it is ok to discriminate againt, say, people who you feel don't have the necessary critical thinking skills for a job based on having a business degree from florida state?
 
2013-03-07 08:08:14 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.

see you at the next White Citizens Council meeting, bro!
 
2013-03-07 08:08:24 AM

HotWingConspiracy: RockofAges: It only took a year? Hell, standard maternity leave is 9 months. End of life care for chronic illness related to obesity / diabetes could put your workplace out for an LTD / pension claim that lasts 20-40 years.

Ok, so you don't understand or don't care to understand how risk works.

Also, nobody is debating that smoking causes cancer. Guess what? Poor food choices are actually the epidemic facing America and American productivity -- not smoking. If you want to act all "macroeconomics trump personal liberties and interpersonal equality", go ahead, but let's target the actual problem, shall we.

So no more fatty foods at all, for any employees, on or off shift.

Americans ARE fat, and fatness DOES cause cancer (amongst a HUGE variety of other comorbid illnesses, both physical, emotional, and mental). Fatness, unlike smoking, also DIRECTLY impedes cognitive function AND physical productivity.

Fatties are a risk to workplaces, public coffers, public health, pensions, and economic stability. Risks need to be minimized.

Yeah I already told you a company is free to put restrictions on hiring obese people. I also told you why they don't.

(or, you could be like me, and simply suggest healthful food subsidies, and let people eat the burgers they damn well please in the interim, because I'm not a micromanaging, self-righteous ninny who wants to legislate your behaviour because it doesn't match my personal standards of "moral").

Cool, start your own company and be the hero that Gotham needs.


Sooooo.... you're drawing a blank, then?

The reason they "don't" put restrictions on obese people is because the public outcry (primarily populted by judgmental authoritarian personalities like yourself) is currently gathering around the:

"It's totally okay to be whatever shape you want to be, honey!"

concurrently stating to smokers

"You are filthy, smelly, weakminded users".

If there were EVER a system of rules put in place that started to "denormalize" fat individuals (ie. demonize them), mass media and the public (and you, since you are a follower of opinion rather than a man who creates his own) would be first on the outrage train, defending these poor, abused, helpless victims of "big bonedness and thyroid problems".

It's so blatantly hypocritical that, even as a non smoker, it irritates me.

OBESITY IS THE MAJOR HEALTH EPIDEMIC FACING AMERICA, AMERICAN WORKPLACES, AMERICAN PRODUCTIVITY, and AMERICAN HEALTH CARE.

Smoking is such a hinterland issue nowadays because, precisely, the target group has been successfully demonized by the mob well enough that it has become a shameful practice.

Now, let's make hamburgers, chips, pop, alcohol shameful. And see how Farkers react then.

If you are honest, you'll see precisely how much of a double standard exists here.
 
2013-03-07 08:08:49 AM

inglixthemad: So I walk into the office and want to retch. Can I have a rule that allows me to fire anyone wearing cologne, perfume, or scented hair products?



You tell me. If you tried that do you think you would get sued? What law would you be breaking?
 
2013-03-07 08:09:46 AM

Earpj: radiobiz: So what you are saying is if the job application asks if you smoke, you lie and say no.

They'll smell you at the interview. Cigarette smoke is distinctive.


You can smell it on the person and clothes. You can see it on the lips, teeth, and fingers of one hand. A moderate to heavy smoker is pretty easy to spot.

And if that same smoker just lied to me they ain't gettin the jerb.
 
2013-03-07 08:10:04 AM
I just hire talented people. Smoking is a legal thing...if you take more breaks but work later to make sure your work is done, I don't care if you can write a good headline, gin out code accurately and quickly or make client relationships that lead to a more profitable company.  I guess were down to about 15% of our workers (smallish company) who smoke any to speak of except for maybe a cigar after the Christmas party, but you're an idiot if you hire a weaker candidate for your company because a potential employee engages in a perfectly legal practice. You're the kind of guy I want to compete with.
 
2013-03-07 08:10:48 AM

Thudfark: radiobiz: So what you are saying is if the job application asks if you smoke, you lie and say no.

No, you sue their asses for asking questions they have no business asking on an application.


You can ask. Smokers are not a protected class.

But it's easier just to sniff as you shake hands.
 
2013-03-07 08:11:53 AM

SpectroBoy: Thudfark: radiobiz: So what you are saying is if the job application asks if you smoke, you lie and say no.

No, you sue their asses for asking questions they have no business asking on an application.

You can ask. Smokers are not a protected class.

But it's easier just to sniff as you shake hands.


"Why yes, I did just wipe my ass!"
 
2013-03-07 08:12:30 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

my company has been inching towards that
last year we were offered a "rebate" on our insurance contributions if we took a voluntary health screening (height, wt, bp, cholesterol, etc)
this year they are tacking on a $600 "surcharge" if you don't take it
I took mine and it gave me some suggestions to reduce risks (lose weight, reduce choleserol, duh)
next year?  we're guessing it becomes mandatory, and over the next few years you'll have obligations to reduce your risks if you want preferred rates, or insurance at all

don't like it, but I am free to change jobs or get my own insurance
companies are paying through the nose for insurance, I can't really fault them form wanting to reduce those costs and making employees accountable for behaviors that increase their risk of expensive medical care, well...
 
2013-03-07 08:12:59 AM

jaybeezey: 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


I thought that was a new or regional slang term. It seemed to fit the context.
 
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