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  
•       •       •

7766 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 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 08:54:35 AM

Horsebolt McStabledoor: 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 rea ...


Once again, no, it's not your fault. I'm glad you don't like it. There's nothing wrong with playing by the rules when you need the job. I already made that clear in the initial post, which I was careful to add that "you have to understand the situation even if you don't like it".

And yea, getting healthy isn't exactly oppressive, but it's not about that really. They don't care how healthy you are. They care about you "paying into the pot, and hopefully never taking from the pot". Because insurance is, bottom line, about maximizing profits by bringing as many suckers to the show as possible, and denying as many poor bastards as possible when time comes to honour their end of the bargain. This mandatory activity is not for your benefit, but another way to try and screw those who "opt out" ("WELL, YOU DIDN'T PARTICIPATE IN OUR INTERNAL HEALTHSMART PROGRAM SOOOOOO....) while simultaneously marginally dropping your pay-in rates (still quite profitable) while forcing you into a position (healthy or not, remember, they don't actually care except what risk you pose to them -- how far does this forcing extend into your life? now? 10 years later after the platform is "the way it is"?) of minimal risk to them.

So yea, good on you. I'm glad you can recognize how thin the veneer of liberty is in your country at the current time. That's not your fault (truly).
 
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 08:55:44 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.


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.
 
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 08:58:47 AM

FLMountainMan: 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.


Yet another instance of superficial thinking. You actually deflated your own point within your own sentence. Kudos. Corporate hegemony is a bad thing, not the concept of a corporation as theoretically imagined by Smith. Also, using the tools created by an entity you disagree with does not, in any way, deflect criticism of their ethical standing as a business, particularly when an environment where nearly all market products are in some way standardized and engage with the same networks. ie. One can take a pill which may save their life, while simultaneously recognizing that the pharmaceutical company distributing this pill engages in highly unethical practices.

Thanks for giving me a punching bag today, though.
 
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 09:01:32 AM

tlenon: It used to be about freedom in this country. Now its about how you show up on the balance sheet.

be well...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZCypUOH8js

"Land of the free..."

images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
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 09:17:56 AM

Robert Farker: 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.


Ah yes. Corporations ARE people, my friends.

You are not a man at all, but one of Thoreau's movable forts, men of dust. Continue shilling and get back to practicing your bowing and scraping, it's shameless after all.
 
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 09:20:15 AM

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 meet certain cri ...


True. Snake Plissken did have the right to elect for summary electrocution if he didn't want to be exported to LA. So he DID still retain his freedom. Just like if you don't like how the business atmosphere is developing across the entire (what's little remaining) of the white collar industries (and blue collar is long gone, so you can always "choose" retail!) just pack it up and "freedom of choice" it over to the nearest McD's (until they start testing and regulating too).
 
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...
 
2013-03-07 10:00:36 AM
If you are going to control my private life and actions then you better pay me more.
 
2013-03-07 10:00:58 AM
Well, it's always necessary to have at least one group of people which we can unashamedly discriminate against. Fatties, you're on deck!
 
2013-03-07 10:11:53 AM

Tenatra: 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.


I say, don't waste your money.

hfkjja.sn2.livefilestore.com
Get 2 batteries and 2 chargers. Then start trying out juices.

Root beer!
 
2013-03-07 10:19:29 AM

neomunk: 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.


I love how you seem to think this is a liberal/conservative thing.

/liberal
//what people do on their own time, that has no after effects that affect job performance on company time, is no one else's business
///marginal increased risk of health problems is far too tenuous to clear the "after effects" bar
 
2013-03-07 10:23:21 AM

Technoir: African-American
Lesbian
Muslim
Smoker


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


True, religious faith has killed more people and brain cells than any of the other "demographics", and they don't even have a chemical addiction to explain it away with.
 
2013-03-07 10:29:00 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.


A thousand times this.
Why is this not defended? Because lazy ass thinkers don't like smoking so it's easy. Your day will come geniuses.
/don't smoke
 
2013-03-07 10:30:20 AM

dready zim: 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


In which case they can fire you for having poor performance and interacting badly with coworkers. They still have no business dictating what you do outside work.
 
2013-03-07 10:31:43 AM

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


Hmmmmmm..... what happens if they find genetic predispositions? There's a whole bunch of research that indicates that a whole bunch of behaviors (gayness, pedophilia, alcoholism, predisposition to all kinds of drugs) are due to brain wiring issues. So why not nicotine?
 
2013-03-07 10:34:37 AM

Mithiwithi: neomunk: 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.

I love how you seem to think this is a liberal/conservative thing.

/liberal
//what people do on their own time, that has no after effects that affect job performance on company time, is no one else's business
///marginal increased risk of health problems is far too tenuous to clear the "after effects" bar


Agreed. Anti-smoking is not a liberal or conservative thing. It is the product of a public health initiative started by the Reagan USPHS. Both libs and conservatives climbed on the bandwagon. Kids were taught to revile smokers as nasty and even dangerous and to challenge them. Now, add in the second-hand smoke BS and voila!, you have the means to start banning smoking almost everywhere.

Some people think the same approach should be used on obese people today.

These sorts of bans will not hold up. Many people are switching to e-cigs, which deliver nicotine, so non-smokers will have cotinine in their system. So, if they want to ascertain if someone smokes, they need to test for both cotinine and exhaled carbon monoxide. But I don't expect that this silliness will become widespread. Few companies conduct drug tests anymore because they found them to be a waste of time and money. And when the job market turns around, such testing will be a liability, since many people - like myself - will not willingly work for a company who invades an employees private life for the sake of political correctness.
 
2013-03-07 10:35:41 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.


Other smokers aren't responsible for your self hatred. Quit already and shut up about it.
 
2013-03-07 10:36:47 AM

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


Guess what? Taking a 5 minute physically active break every hour makes you more productive.
 
2013-03-07 10:38:44 AM
Came for pictures of the African Muslim Lesbian, leaving disappointed.
 
2013-03-07 10:42:12 AM
Mithiwithi:
I love how you seem to think this is a liberal/conservative thing.

/liberal


Just so you know, I'm a liberal too.

You're right, it does come across as very definitive while being stereotypical, and for that I apologize.  I will hold firm on the point however that this is an area where many liberals (who should know better) start evincing an attitude of chuckling at others misfortune under authoritarian rule.

You see, when I come on fark and see American Conservatives cheering on punitive social engineering at the hands of employers through restrictive hiring practices, I know that all is right with the world.  It's not the greatest outcome, but much like how many animals eat their young, it's where biology has brought us, so you nod your head and accept it.  When I see American Liberals doing that same thing, it disturbs me, and makes me feel a bit ashamed.  It causes an adverse reaction in me that your average Fark Independent (conservative) just can't.  I reacted emotionally, in frustration at normally more clear sighted folks, and posted wrongly.

Thanks for pointing out my too generalist rhetoric, I need to learn to stop posting while I have that certain look on my face.
 
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 archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report