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 292
    More: Interesting, BusinessNewsDaily, TechMediaNetwork, lesbians, nationalities, tobacco products  
•       •       •

7773 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»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 07:49:42 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 07:51:14 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 07:57:06 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 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 08:08:49 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 08:12:30 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.
 
2013-03-07 08:14:03 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.


Was about to post the same thing.

They are ASKING you to take a drug test.
You are ASKING them to hire you.
There is no force. You don't have to take the test and they don't have to hire people who refuse.
 
2013-03-07 08:15:34 AM  
A FILTHY, FILTHY SMOKER!
i224.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-07 08:16:27 AM  

Popular Opinion: obviously one attribute is a matter of choice.
somebody cares...
somebody


Being a lesbian isn't an issue though, and a lot of guys DO care, depending on the hotness level of the lesbian.
 
2013-03-07 08:16:59 AM  
America - where a cigarette is scarier than a loaded gun.
 
2013-03-07 08:17:38 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?


Imagine that; my employee is already placing smokers in higher premium insurance plans whether they want to or not, and are going to do the same for overweight employees as well in the future. It wouldn't surprise me if later there are thresholds of cholesterol levels that also trigger being put in the higher premium insurance plans, etc, etc.
 
2013-03-07 08:19:16 AM  

Bomb Head Mohammed: 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?


You just blew my mind. (of course I have not had coffee yet).

Religion does seem (to me) like a minor mental illness. It certainly calls in to question a person's ability to use logic or science to decide what to believe.

Why is it illegal to hire based on the question "Does you have any invisible friends with super powers?"
 
2013-03-07 08:19:18 AM  

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


No.

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

You're such a drama queen. Smokers represent a smaller pool of labor than the obese. You can safely exclude them along with the risk they introduce and not worry too much about missing talent. Not so true for the obese. Numbers.

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


COMPANIES ARE FREE TO DRAFT POLICY DISCOURAGING HIRING THE OBESE. They don't because they need access to that large (no pun intended) labor pool. Numbers.

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.


It's just numbers, it's just business. You want it to be about morals, but it isn't.
 
2013-03-07 08:20:02 AM  

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



It isn't that smoking is "shameful" it is that it stinks.
 
2013-03-07 08:21:06 AM  

RockofAges: 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!"


I am not advocating sniffing someone's hand. You don't need to be very close to smell smoke.

And I don't hire people who refuse to wash their hands after taking a crap either.
 
2013-03-07 08:21:07 AM  

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.


Seriously, go to Madvapes.com, get a Gripper box, two 18650 IMR rechargeable batteries, two Vision Vivi Novas in the color of your choice, a battery charger, and a supply of liquid in the flavor of your choice at 24 mg strength to start. Thank me later, when you've been cigarette-free for three months and you get over hating people with poor hygiene because you can smell their funk again.
 
2013-03-07 08:21:16 AM  
Work output of addicts is low.   It is tough to tell how much they are under the influence and there is no way to get back lost customer money.  Worker production is also lower in the time up to breaks, as they start thinking about the fix to their addiction.  Addicts take up every last second of breaks, if not taking longer breaks.

Non addicted people simply get up to get a snack or a drink, and perhaps chat it up with the hot new secretary.

the real time waster... sports fantasy pools, and fark.
 
2013-03-07 08:22:44 AM  

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


So it's ok if you engage in hazardous activities like free base mountain climbing, or skydiving, or deep sea diving, or rodeo bull riding, or any of a list of fairly dangerous hobbies, if they are paying for your health insurance? What if you've got an alcohol problem, is it your employer's business if they pay for your frequent trips to the doctor? How about if you've got HIV? Or if you are a hemophiliac? Or have a long term cancer problem, or your family has a history of having cancer or heart disease, or diabetes?

We're already going down the slippery slope; it's just a matter of time before we find out how far everything slides down it...
 
2013-03-07 08:23:38 AM  

SpectroBoy: 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.

Was about to post the same thing.

They are ASKING you to take a drug test.
You are ASKING them to hire you.
There is no force. You don't have to take the test and they don't have to hire people who refuse.


What other things would you not mind being asked to do before you could get a job?
/I'm just asking questions
 
2013-03-07 08:23:40 AM  

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


Does that mean it's OK that I don't hire fat people?
 
2013-03-07 08:24:02 AM  

Shadowknight: 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.


I take offense that smoking and physicality are exclusive. Smoking or not (before my accident) I ran in marathons and had a rough BMI of 22.8 (better than my 23.2 now) and could bench press 1.25 times my body weight without straining.

Your correlation and causation are false. My friend (a skinny non-smoker then and today) wouldn't have ever been able to run a marathon in a decent time. Actually, the running part would have been less than 3 miles for him. He's never smoked, and I've been in better shape than him for twenty years, and we both go to the gym.

The truth is that many smokers we identify as "unhealthy" are that in MANY other ways.

I think "fat" people are more offensive (and costly according to my BiL, a doctor) than most smokers. Can we declare a jihad on calorie laden, unhealthy, "food" and have it regulated like tobacco?
 
2013-03-07 08:24:14 AM  
Where does something like this stop? Next step will be weight. Next after that will be liquor. What happens after that? What you watch on TV becuase it may make you undesireable? Who you sleep with?

/never smoked
//dont drink
 
2013-03-07 08:25:19 AM  

Horsebolt McStabledoor: don't like it, but I am free to change jobs or get my own insurance


I think things liek this need to be handled carefully, but I fully support steps that reward peopel who make healthy choices for eating and exercising.
 
2013-03-07 08:26:08 AM  

Jim from Saint Paul: Where does something like this stop? Next step will be weight. Next after that will be liquor. What happens after that? What you watch on TV becuase it may make you undesireable? Who you sleep with?

/never smoked
//dont drink


If you don't go to the company gym enough well sorry here's your termination.
 
2013-03-07 08:26:17 AM  

Jim from Saint Paul: Where does something like this stop? Next step will be weight. Next after that will be liquor. What happens after that? What you watch on TV becuase it may make you undesireable? Who you sleep with?

/never smoked
//dont drink


You sound fat.
 
2013-03-07 08:27:09 AM  

RockofAges: colon cancer from secondhand smoke does not seem as likely


If it was the cause, I think they were up to some really kinky shiat in the bedroom...
 
2013-03-07 08:27:28 AM  

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).

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


Fatties die quicker.  Fatties and smokers should get discounted rates because they arent sitting around in old age, using up medicare expenses.
 
Displayed 50 of 292 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report