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  
•       •       •

7767 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 08:28:02 AM

RockofAges: HotWingConspiracy: 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.

"It's just business" is the biggest ethical cop out evar. If by "It's just business" you mean "Because I am engaged in capitalist enterprise in a society which no longer values camaraderie, empathy, or humanity but rather prays solely to the almighty profit margin by whatever means necessary, at the expense of the weaker party in this arrangement (with the weaker party outnumbering the rentier party by about 100:1 if not more) in every instance, I am allowed to arbitrarily impose ____X______ upon you and all like you" then yes. It's just business.

And what a sick, sad, and altogether perverse business it is, at odds with the service of life.


I never really said I liked it, I'm just trying to explain to you that it isn't some cartoonish coalition of busy bodies dreaming this stuff up. It's hard ass business.

I'll just leave you with I'm quite lucky to work for a European company that doesn't drug test. Though they do charge an extra 15% to smokers for insurance, and smoking isn't allowed anywhere on the office campus. Not even in your car in the parking lot. But in fairness, that came about due to our smokers being litter bugs.
 
2013-03-07 08:29:27 AM
All I know is, if an African Muslim lesbian in a wheelchair applies for a job at your company, you'd better hire her (regardless of her skills or competency), or hire yourself some good lawyers.
 
2013-03-07 08:31:01 AM

Nutsac_Jim: Fatties and smokers should get discounted rates because they arent sitting around in old age, using up medicare expenses.


No, they're lying in a hospital bed hooked up to a $100,000 a day machine that keeps them alive because "life is precious".
 
2013-03-07 08:31:11 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.


I work for a global company.  When California legalized medical marijuana, the legal department sent a notice out to all that marijuana use was still deemed illegal by the Federal government and as such you still be fired if it is found in your system (we are subject to random drug tests but I've never been nabbed.  Seems mostly folks that go to plants and other client facilities).  With the recent advent of personal use legalization, they have not sent another notice, but the policy they updated to reflect the medical use has not changed.  There are further restrictions if you work for the Federal government, directly or indirectly (and we do) to ensure a 'drug free' workplace.

The other side of the coin is that not only are employees encouraged to stop smoking, but also to be in better general health.  If you chose to participate in certain screenings and programs, you can significantly drop your the price of your health insurance premium.  No one has suggested that you will get fired if you do not, but it is not looked kindly upon if  you use insurance through them and do not participate.  None of it is officially tracked, but you know who is leaving for scheduled screenings or the weekly/monthly eating well groups and what not.  In the past 15 years what used to be an office full of smokers has really changed into a small group of people huddled in a corner of the parking garage.  It is nice to not have handle tar and nicotine stained computer innards anymore.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.  Employers are adopting more stringent codes of conduct so that what you do in off hours can certainly impact what happens at work.  Teachers have been facing this for some time and Facebook and other social media really highlights this.   The health care aspect also in my mind highlights the benefits of a single payer model where the employers don't have to worry about all these programs and can focus on work instead of employee benefits.
 
2013-03-07 08:32:22 AM

abhorrent1: dr_blasto: Pharmdawg: I smoke and have been with the same company for 13 years. I can count on one hand how many sick days I've taken in all that time. The fatties and people with kids on the other hand, can probably count on one hand the number of full weeks they've worked in their tenure.


Those kids will be paying your Medicare and Social Security benefits in thirty years.
 
2013-03-07 08:34:21 AM
Two things:
We should probably stop linking health insurance to employment (omg socializums).
It's funny to see the folks who are blind to corporate abuse 99% of the time suddenly become all worried about corporate abuse when smoking is the concern.
 
2013-03-07 08:34:33 AM

Nutsac_Jim: 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.


Get in line behind black people.
 
2013-03-07 08:35:35 AM

Cold_Sassy: 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?


They can certain do some quick math and figure out that fatties and smokers will dies sooner, taking more sick days in the process.  This leads to more frequent hires and the expenses required to hire and train someone.

Fatties are easy to identify, smokers not so much.  Same resulting problem though, employees that cost the company more money.  Why should a company not be allowed to discriminate on this.
 
2013-03-07 08:37:02 AM

SpectroBoy: 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.


Women (and guys that spray on cologne) DO stink up a large area all the time. Women quite often feel the need to reapply their stinkum at work. One place I worked at, to quote Jubal Harshaw, reeked like a Marseilles cat house.

Fat people take tons more sick time and snack / bathroom breaks. My BiL doesn't like either, but admits fat people are far more costly than smokers to insurance.

Coffee people get irritated easily when their coffee gets low and HAVE to go get more (more coffee breaks).

Women with kids (or pregnant) take tons of sick leave or demand special hours.

Want me to go on?

Smokers are no worse than any of these people. Society just says its ok to demonize them. Personally, as an ex-smoker, I'd rather they demonize fat than tobacco. Fat is far and away more expensive.
 
2013-03-07 08:37:29 AM
I don't smoke, I spend my full 12 hours at work at my desk.

The funny thing about this is, sitting in that chair for that extended amount of time may very well be WORSE for me than going outside and smoking.

Could you imagine if the FDA/Surgeon Gen/whatever came out and said it's healthier for you to be a smoker and to take frequent smoke breaks at work if the alternative is you sitting in your chair not taking a break?

Never mind that we can leave the whole smoking thing out of this scenario, because that's the funny part.

/secretly my brain thought that up to try and get me smoking again
//I do miss it
 
2013-03-07 08:39:18 AM

WhippingBoy: Nutsac_Jim: Fatties and smokers should get discounted rates because they arent sitting around in old age, using up medicare expenses.

No, they're lying in a hospital bed hooked up to a $100,000 a day machine that keeps them alive because "life is precious".


right.. and all that yucky healthcare cost for the next 20 years is avoided.
 
2013-03-07 08:40:03 AM

RockofAges: That's the problem with giving them even MORE power and MORE tools with which to ply their trade under some auspices of "moral or ethical correctness" in "reducing the smoking problem", a convenient excuse to find a math-mechanism to screw more people and make more money.


Well shiat, everyone can upend their entire plot by not smoking.
 
2013-03-07 08:40:45 AM

wingnut396: 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.

I work for a global company.  When California legalized medical marijuana, the legal department sent a notice out to all that marijuana use was still deemed illegal by the Federal government and as such you still be fired if it is found in your system (we are subject to random drug tests but I've never been nabbed.  Seems mostly folks that go to plants and other client facilities).  With the recent advent of personal use legalization, they have not sent another notice, but the policy they updated to reflect the medical use has not changed.  There are further restrictions if you work for the Federal government, directly or indirectly (and we do) to ensure a 'drug free' workplace.

The other side of the coin is that not only are employees encouraged to stop smoking, but also to be in better general health.  If you chose to participate in certain screenings and programs, you can significantly drop your the price of your health insurance premium.  No one has suggested that you will get fired if you do not, but it is not looked kindly upon if  you use insurance through them and do not participate.  None of it is officially tracked, but you know who is leaving for scheduled screenings or the weekly/monthly eating well groups and what not.  In the past 15 years what used to be an office full of smokers has really changed into a small group of people huddled in a corner of the park ...


Hope you never need workers comp, just saying : )
 
2013-03-07 08:42:28 AM
RockofAges: I mean, what a gracious favour your company and insurance partner are doing for you! Ensure their continued "defined benefit pension (ie. profit margin)" or lose your job. Ha ha! Glorious! Insurance companies are some of the scummiest operators in the current economy. Always there to take your money, always there with a team of lawyers to deny your claim. On your side!

Ain't THAT the truth?

Amen, brother.
 
2013-03-07 08:45:28 AM
Let's see what kind of society were building:

- You need a job to pay your Obamacare tax.

- But you can't get a job if you smoke.

- Since the government is deeply involved with everyone's "medical" condition, the government needs to be able to "do something" about people whose medical costs are higher.

- About 75% of all medical care costs originate with smoking, alcohol and drug abuse, or obesity (overeating and inactivity).

- Clearly, the only solution to this economic threat is to carefully monitor everyone, make their alcohol, diet, exercise and tobacco consumption a matter of "public policy."

- Maybe what "we" need to do is install a flat screen in everyone's living room, and "ask" them to check in every morning for calisthenics.

- Or, everyone can have an app installed on their cell phone, which collects information from various sensors installed throughout your body, and transmits this information wirelessly to a central government Health Information System.

- After all, if people's habits are going to affect us all economically, the government ought to have the ability to tell people what they can and can't do, right?
 
2013-03-07 08:45:57 AM

RockofAges: Horsebolt McStabledoor: 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...

If you believe and endorse this line as being ethical (of course, you must understand the reality of the ...


so this is all  my fault?  what would you have me do, hold my breath?  write a strongly worded letter?  take out a hit on the CEO? steal office supplies?

I said I don't like it.  I complain about it.  I'm not outraged enough yet to quit and look for a different job, although talking to all my friends most employers are doing the same thing.  My best move at this point is knuckle under and try to make myself healthier.  Maybe by not being a fatty I can feel better, not get heart disease, stroke or ass cancer.  The horror
 
2013-03-07 08:47:55 AM

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


last I checked,  you could stop being Muslim as well.  or christian, or jewish.   Protection  under the law is also based on choices, not  just genes.
 
2013-03-07 08:51:35 AM

RockofAges: ^^^^

In other words, we should "choose" to stop an activity before we are "shamed" and then "forced" to do so arbitrarily.

Because that's choice, and freedom, after all.


Oh sorry I thought you wanted to stymie the nefarious plot being perpetrated by moralizing busy bodies at the upper echelons of our society.
 
2013-03-07 08:52:40 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: What other things would you not mind being asked to do before you could get a job?
/I'm just asking questions


I do mind them asking. I simply weigh how much I mind vs how much I want that job. It's just business.
 
2013-03-07 08:52:50 AM
It's funny to see all the smokers in here bragging about how quickly they die.  And calling everyone else sheep.  Actually makes me chuckle.
 
2013-03-07 08:53:59 AM

Cold_Sassy: RockofAges: I mean, what a gracious favour your company and insurance partner are doing for you! Ensure their continued "defined benefit pension (ie. profit margin)" or lose your job. Ha ha! Glorious! Insurance companies are some of the scummiest operators in the current economy. Always there to take your money, always there with a team of lawyers to deny your claim. On your side!

Ain't THAT the truth?

Amen, brother.


Know the feeling....
 
2013-03-07 08:54:16 AM

FLMountainMan: It's funny to see all the smokers in here bragging about how quickly they die.  And calling everyone else sheep.  Actually makes me chuckle.


And calling everyone else a corporate slave, while they have to use a corporation's product every two hours.
 
2013-03-07 08:55:43 AM

WhippingBoy: 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.


Well obviously. I'm posting on Fark right?
 
2013-03-07 08:55:58 AM

Nutsac_Jim: Cold_Sassy: 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?

They can certain do some quick math and figure out that fatties and smokers will dies sooner, taking more sick days in the process.  This leads to more frequent hires and the expenses required to hire and train someone.


Fatties are easy to identify, smokers not so much.  Same resulting problem though, employees that cost the company more money.  Why should a company not be allowed to discriminate on this.



Well, I respect your opinion but you're missing the point:  It is about your personal iiberties.  Right now it is about smoking, obesity, alcoholism -- but after that has been eradicated, what will be the next 'right' that is selected to be eliminated (or added to) your lifestyle?  Why does somebody else get to dictate how you choose to live your life?  Would you like that to keep happening?  That is my point.


i403.photobucket.com">
 
2013-03-07 08:56:58 AM
I like where I work.  They don't care what I do as long as my assigned tasks done well.  There's a fridge of free soda and snacks in every kitchen for the fatties (me) and a nice covered area for smokers (also me).  Hell, if they were to fire the fatties and smokers here most of the IT department would be on the street.
 
2013-03-07 08:59:45 AM
It used to be about freedom in this country. Now its about how you show up on the balance sheet.

be well...
 
2013-03-07 09:03:56 AM
Oops, liberties, dammit!
 
2013-03-07 09:06:55 AM

RockofAges: "Land of the free..."


This isn't the governement. Businesses have freedoms too. You cant change that. Not even with all the sand in your vagina.
 
2013-03-07 09:09:15 AM

RockofAges: It's not the government you need to be watching. Government has been bled dry of power and revenue for decades now. Guess who has the money now? Guess who buys the votes now?

The private sector controls the public sector nowadays. Capitalism has led to authoritarian governance because those who benefit most from the current late-capitalist climate need to rig the law to favour their profit margins. Sure, patsies in the public sector get a neat payoff and the only remaining public sector defined benefits -- but who is controlling the wealth of the United States?

Politicians bought / lobbied by big business. Government is just the left-hand man at this point, and, honestly, the only one you can vote against.

When was the last time a boycott truly mattered to a telecom, insurance, or banking industry? You don't get to "vote" those guys out with your dollars, because nobody cares about your dollars. There are 400 million more where you came from, and 6+ billion on the internet who can replace you.


The distinction between those industries and the State is fairly meaningless.  Banks and insurance companies, most of all.  And the war contractors, of course.  And Big Media.  They are the real owners of what we euphemistically call "government," and the State is just the front men, the overseers.

Elections do not matter.  Do you think they really care which bubble you fill in on a piece of paper every few years?  Please.  Your options have been pre-screened and selected.  You are given the illusion of choice.  The Ballot Box is about as meaningful as the Suggestion Box at the DMV.

They've been doing this a very long time.  About 110 years ago, the AMA was given the quasi-governmental authority to "regulate" medical schools.  So, the AMA decided it would be a good idea to restrict the number of annual medical school graduates to something smaller than full market demand, thereby ensuring a constant shortage of doctors, thereby ensuring nice, fat incomes for ... doctors.

Obamacare is the same kind of thing, only about 10,000 times worse.  Businesses have been given quasi-governmental authority to collect money from you at the point of a gun, making us buy their crappy product, which only proves that they can't sell it on the voluntary market.  That power, in turn, will be used to control everything about the way you live your life.

Freedom of association?  Buy what you want to buy, and hire the people you want to hire?  Forget it.  You will do "business" with the officially-approved and designated vendors, employ (and be employed) in the manner they prescribe, and you will pay what the State says you will pay.
 
2013-03-07 09:09:32 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?


Blood pressure too high? You're fired!
 
2013-03-07 09:10:17 AM

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

 
2013-03-07 09:13:26 AM

RockofAges: FLMountainMan: It's funny to see all the smokers in here bragging about how quickly they die.  And calling everyone else sheep.  Actually makes me chuckle.

It's funny that some people post on Fark and yet lack the reading comprehension of a 7 year old child. I think I've made this point the most, and I don't smoke. Also, not everyone wants to live to be a wizened and demented old wizard. Though I do.


I can't wait untill my hips shatter.
 
2013-03-07 09:17:10 AM
I smoke.  I take smoke breaks.  I take my smoke breaks when I need to read something or study some chart or a bunch of numbers.  I can either sit ay my desk and read, or sit outside at the picnic table and smoke while I read.  My smoke breaks are not unproductive.

If it's just the smell of smokers they don't like, will this also include not hiring people with BO?
What about people on e-Cigs?  The article repeatedly says "tobacco".  There's zero tobacco in an e-Cig.  So I can e-Cig all day, pumping myself full of nicotine, and it shouldn't be a problem.
 
2013-03-07 09:17:56 AM

Cold_Sassy: Nutsac_Jim: Cold_Sassy: 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?
They can certain do some quick math and figure out that fatties and smokers will dies sooner, taking more sick days in the process.  This leads to more frequent hires and the expenses required to hire and train someone.
Fatties are easy to identify, smokers not so much.  Same resulting problem though, employees that cost the company more money.  Why should a company not be allowed to discriminate on this.

Well, I respect your opinion but you're missing the point:  It is about your personal iiberties.  Right now it is about smoking, obesity, alcoholism -- but after that has been eradicated, what will be the next 'right' that is selected to be eliminated (or added to) your lifestyle?  Why does somebody else get to dictate how you choose to live your life?  Would you like that to keep happening?  That is my point.
[i403.photobucket.com image 288x288]">


I could agree with you if this was a socialist government that also decided your job as well, but alas you have the right to pick a different occupation.  Personally, if I am dealing with someone from my health insurance, I would rather not smelling smoke or hearing a smoker's voice while they tell me ways I can improve my health for better coverage.  Now if they were trying to implement this rule with a commercial roofing or road crew that works with melted tar, I would laugh so hard.  I would laugh for so long because I don't have smokers' lung.  There has to be a balance of whose rights are going to win, the rights of potential employees or rights of the business owner who needs trained professionals that meet certain criterial.  It is freedom, if you want to live life a certain way, you have the right to find a job that will accept you.  Because if you want a world where no matter what choices you make that you should have the job that you want, then don't whine to me when your waitress feels it unnecessary to wash her hands ever.  She feels that she should have the right not to wash her hands and garnish your plate before bringing it to you.
 
2013-03-07 09:18:41 AM

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

You can stop being a Muslim.


These days you can stop being black and being female too. Becoming male would clear that lesbian thing right up, too.  Folks just don't want to expend any effort to change the parts of their lives that other people don't like.  My, how insensitive they are.  Don't they want to fit in?
 
2013-03-07 09:21:45 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.


You should give NJoy King's a shot, much better than they OneJoy disposable version. They run for $8.99 each but you can get a free one (just pay shipping and handling, $2.99, so the investment is minimal). link
If you like the burn of a real cigarette and the feel of a real lightweight cigarette then this is the closest you are going to find.


TuteTibiImperes: 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.


Smoking has been a hot issue for quite a few years now and the bans for customers and employees keep picking up more steam, I doubt marijuana is playing much of a roll in this matter.

In Kansas City I've personally seen places refuse smokers as far back as 2006.

Truman Medical Centers is committed to promoting and supporting a healthy community.  Because tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of disease and death in the United States , the use of tobacco products is prohibited.  Tobacco products include but are not limited to cigarettes, cigars, chewing tobacco and pipe smoking.  All Employees hired after February 15, 2006 must certify that they do not use tobacco products and will not use such products during their employment with Truman Medical Centers (on-duty and off-duty).  This condition of employment was established as a statement of our commitment to promoting and encouraging healthy lifestyles throughout our community.
 
2013-03-07 09:22:05 AM
I smell smoke.

Fired!
 
2013-03-07 09:24:20 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.


It took my colleague's sister-in-law 1 month.  They brought her in mid-February, pulled the plug on her last night.
 
2013-03-07 09:24:25 AM
doh!  roll role
 
2013-03-07 09:27:32 AM
In this thread I learned.....

smoking is to liberals what same-gender sexual relations are to conservatives; a convenient excuse to demonize people who don't fit their perception of proper.

You people sound like Westboro Baptists.

Also, letting companies that dump excessive amounts of horrible chemicals where you live and work tell you that your far FAR lesser (nearly nonexistent) effect on other people's health is unacceptable to corporate standards?   Sounds to me like helping position that boot on your own throat juuuust right.

But I guess that's all just the price to be paid for feeling superior to your peers.
 
2013-03-07 09:28:50 AM

RockofAges: lack of warmth: Cold_Sassy: Nutsac_Jim: Cold_Sassy: 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?
They can certain do some quick math and figure out that fatties and smokers will dies sooner, taking more sick days in the process.  This leads to more frequent hires and the expenses required to hire and train someone.
Fatties are easy to identify, smokers not so much.  Same resulting problem though, employees that cost the company more money.  Why should a company not be allowed to discriminate on this.

Well, I respect your opinion but you're missing the point:  It is about your personal iiberties.  Right now it is about smoking, obesity, alcoholism -- but after that has been eradicated, what will be the next 'right' that is selected to be eliminated (or added to) your lifestyle?  Why does somebody else get to dictate how you choose to live your life?  Would you like that to keep happening?  That is my point.
[i403.photobucket.com image 288x288]">

I could agree with you if this was a socialist government that also decided your job as well, but alas you have the right to pick a different occupation.  Personally, if I am dealing with someone from my health insurance, I would rather not smelling smoke or hearing a smoker's voice while they tell me ways I can improve my health for better coverage.  Now if they were trying to implement this rule with a commercial roofing or road crew that works with melted tar, I would laugh so hard.  I would laugh for so long because I don't have smokers' lung.  There has to be a balance of whose rights are going to win, the rights of potential employees or rights of the business owner who needs trained professionals that ...


You're now farkied as a cool guy.
/yea it's gotten a bit weird.
 
2013-03-07 09:29:00 AM

Franko: 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.

It took my colleague's sister-in-law 1 month.  They brought her in mid-February, pulled the plug on her last night.


A 1 month old shouldn't be smoking!!
 
2013-03-07 09:35:21 AM

stonicus: There's zero tobacco in an e-Cig.


Well, if the nicotine was extracted from tobacco, one could make the claim that there's still tobacco in them... It would be a somewhat ridiculous claim, but one that's apparently been successfully made...
 
2013-03-07 09:35:24 AM

stonicus: I smoke.  I take smoke breaks.  I take my smoke breaks when I need to read something or study some chart or a bunch of numbers.  I can either sit ay my desk and read, or sit outside at the picnic table and smoke while I read.  My smoke breaks are not unproductive.

If it's just the smell of smokers they don't like, will this also include not hiring people with BO?
What about people on e-Cigs?  The article repeatedly says "tobacco".  There's zero tobacco in an e-Cig.  So I can e-Cig all day, pumping myself full of nicotine, and it shouldn't be a problem.


Or fat people. They smell. They really do. I used to sit next to a girl who's chair used to reek of vagina. Used to make me gag.
 
2013-03-07 09:36:40 AM
Maybe we don't like the smell of your breath when you come back into the building after a smoke break. Your cigarette may be gone, but you're still exhaling that nastiness for the next couple hours. Being stuck in a room with someone who just smoked a cigarette is a horrible experience. So tough sh*t if you can't get hired. You're disgusting, and no one wants to be around you. Change or deal with it.
 
2013-03-07 09:38:16 AM
200+ posts and no one has mentioned that the business in question is a hospital operator?  It's not as if this is unrelated to their business.
 
2013-03-07 09:41:04 AM

The Dog Ate My Homework: Maybe we don't like the smell of your breath when you come back into the building after a smoke break. Your cigarette may be gone, but you're still exhaling that nastiness for the next couple hours. Being stuck in a room with someone who just smoked a cigarette is a horrible experience. So tough sh*t if you can't get hired. You're disgusting, and no one wants to be around you. Change or deal with it.


People with cats stink.  Their houses smell like cat shiat and urine and everything they own eventually smells like it, including their clothes.  So, if you own a cat, no job for you.
 
2013-03-07 09:53:06 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.




Yeah, but if it's the hot chick who wears that stripper perfume and you get on the elevator right after her....


yeeeeeaaaahhhhhh
 
2013-03-07 09:56:38 AM

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

Unless it affects your performance at work or your interactions with your other workers negatively.

FTFY
 
2013-03-07 09:57:50 AM
African-American
Lesbian
Muslim
Smoker


<singing> One of these things is not like the others...
 
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 »






Report