Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Interesting, BusinessNewsDaily, TechMediaNetwork, lesbians, nationalities, tobacco products  
•       •       •

7789 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Mar 2013 at 6:50 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

Time to let it go.


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Time to let it go.

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


isn't the only reason people buy e-cigs is to vaporize MDPV in them?
so they can puff puff and then strip off all their clothes
 
2013-03-07 07:10:30 AM  
For every job, depending on who's numbers you use, there are 70 applicants for each available position. HR departments are looking for any reason to screen you out. Personally, as a hiring manager, if all other things were equal and I had two candidates of equal merit, I would also pick the non-smoker.
 
2013-03-07 07:11:17 AM  

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

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

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

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


On the nose.

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

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

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

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

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


I may have gone back to that nasty habit but I do not smoke in cars or building even if it is allowed. Smoking inside something seems even more wrong than smoking.
/Quitting again soon
//It's not easy, sure the first month or two easy. More than a year and beyond very difficult.
 
2013-03-07 07:12:04 AM  

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

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

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

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

On the nose.

Smokers have a higher chance of pasting the insurance premiums.


FAt fingered it:

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


so much this there is not enough this in "this" to express the this-ness.
 
2013-03-07 07:14:08 AM  
I'm a smoker and I support this. Smoking is a disgusting habit and I hate myself every time I light up. I can fully understand the people saying this violates your rights because smoking is legal, and it's really none of the company's business. But I can also say, from experience, that smoking needs to stop. And anything that can be done to do it is worth it.

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

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

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


Cool.

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

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


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

feckingmorons: Smokers are not a protected class.


This is all that needs to be said.
 
2013-03-07 07:17:53 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.


No. No. NO. That is dangerous logic that leads to Big Brother.I don't care what vice we're talking about or how much someone dislikes it.
 
2013-03-07 07:18:42 AM  
it started with smoking, by the way 7 days of smoke free living will beat the test (drink plenty of water). Now there are hospitals that will not hire you if you have a BMI of over 35. Next may be cholesterol levels over 200, or alcohol after work, soon no one will be able to work anywhere. Disability/ unemployment here we come.
 
2013-03-07 07:18:45 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



So do the obese, and the alcoholic.    Where's all the butt-hurt there?
 
2013-03-07 07:19:19 AM  

empres77: Studies have shown that smokers take 40% more breaks than non-smokers.


yes, but 98% of all studies show that studies use false information and statistics to the tune of aprox. 78 - 89.3 %.
 
2013-03-07 07:19:33 AM  

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.
 
2013-03-07 07:20:46 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.


I know the feeling I've quit tobacco so many times and end up going back too it. That wild wood weed was always just for fun and I never had a problem in dry spells.
/Don't smoke it any more although I might be happier if I did.
 
2013-03-07 07:21:07 AM  

j4x: Pharmdawg: Smokers in my experience take more breaks than others I manage. They also have more upper respiratory infections and potentially get cancer, raising health insurance rates for everyone. And they stink.

Cool.

When can we start not hiring fat people??


if you only hire people with BMI's under 30 you'll be missing out on a lot of muscular people in search of work...
 
2013-03-07 07:21:33 AM  
On my mobile so no linky:

http://m.wbtv.com/autojuice?targetUrl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.wbtv.com%2fsto r y%2f17114320%2fsmokers-waste-5-weeks-a-year-taking-smoke-breaks-survey -shows
 
2013-03-07 07:22:02 AM  

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

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

It's all anecdotal. There's another guy, a bodybuilder, who is sick all the damn time too.


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.
 
2013-03-07 07:22:11 AM  

Cold_Sassy: and the alcoholic


Try going to work drunk and/or hung over. See what happens.
 
2013-03-07 07:23:27 AM  

Jon iz teh kewl: j4x: Pharmdawg: Smokers in my experience take more breaks than others I manage. They also have more upper respiratory infections and potentially get cancer, raising health insurance rates for everyone. And they stink.

Cool.

When can we start not hiring fat people??

if you only hire people with BMI's under 30 you'll be missing out on a lot of muscular people in search of work...


that's because BMI is a terrible measurement. It does not work. They should be using a body fat % measurement.
 
2013-03-07 07:23:52 AM  
To be fair, I wouldn't hire a smoker either
i1200.photobucket.com
/though I'd take one over a boomer.
//and I'd hire a witch in a second....just need to work on her attitude problem.
 
2013-03-07 07:24:19 AM  

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


You can stop being a Muslim.
 
2013-03-07 07:24:23 AM  
So what you are saying is if the job application asks if you smoke, you lie and say no.
 
2013-03-07 07:24:37 AM  

Fuggin Bizzy: feckingmorons: Smokers are not a protected class.

This is all that needs to be said.


Although it might be better to state it correctly: "Personal habits are not a protected class".
The term "protected class" does not refer to specific groups of people, but rather to means by which different groups of people may be differentiated.
You most often find this misunderstanding among racists who will angrily claim that some other race is a "protected class", but that their race is not - when, in fact, it is race itself which is a protected class.
 
2013-03-07 07:24:57 AM  

MooseUpNorth: Cold_Sassy: and the alcoholic

Try going to work drunk and/or hung over. See what happens.


works best if you take the last drink about 30 sec. before showing up to work.

/jc
 
2013-03-07 07:26:12 AM  

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

You can stop being a Muslim.


I am glad i wasn't drinking at that very moment....

/soo true :)
 
2013-03-07 07:26:16 AM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: It's not easy, sure the first month or two easy. More than a year and beyond very difficult.


Funny that, I almost broke and started smoking again in the first month. All the times when I failed my attempts at quitting happened within the first month. However, I didn't quit quitting and have now been smoke free for over a dozen years.
/good luck!
 
2013-03-07 07:27:02 AM  
Subby, I am curious, how does one survive being a Muslim lesbian? Is that why she's in the wheelchair? And does she have no feeling from the waste down?, because that makes it hard to appreciate being a lesbian.

/Probably for the best anyways. If she's from Africa, she probably has AIDS.
 
2013-03-07 07:27:40 AM  

RockofAges: empres77: On my mobile so no linky:

http://m.wbtv.com/autojuice?targetUrl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.wbtv.com%2fsto r y%2f17114320%2fsmokers-waste-5-weeks-a-year-taking-smoke-breaks-survey -shows

Yes.

WBTV firstly. I believe it.

Secondly.

Smokers literally waste five weeks (or approx 8-9% of the ENTIRE YEAR, or 20% of their time at work (lol)) taking smoke breaks. On average.

Yea, that sounds legit.

Maybe Canadians are superheroes or something, but since our government actually mandates that we get a certain amount of breaks, I have to admit that I've never, ever, seen a smoker leave the place of employment during any "mission critical" time to "FEED THE ADDICTION!!!!!". Maybe an extra break (tops) a day at 5-10 minutes. Wowzers. TIME THEFT!!


i think the REAL issue here, is that your employees might DIE
 
2013-03-07 07:28:07 AM  
Smokers - here's the world's tiniest violin playing for you.

Oh, and those calculating, cold-hearted "suits" who run the tobacco industry and their stockholders who are responsible for manufacturing and marketing a product that mains and KILLS is users and reduces the quality of life for those around them when used as designed - Die in a fire, slowly and painfully.
 
2013-03-07 07:28:29 AM  

jamspoon: People still smoke?


Some are still alive, yes.
 
2013-03-07 07:28:37 AM  

RockofAges: empres77: On my mobile so no linky:

http://m.wbtv.com/autojuice?targetUrl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.wbtv.com%2fsto r y%2f17114320%2fsmokers-waste-5-weeks-a-year-taking-smoke-breaks-survey -shows

Yes.

WBTV firstly. I believe it.

Secondly.

Smokers literally waste five weeks (or approx 8-9% of the ENTIRE YEAR, or 20% of their time at work (lol)) taking smoke breaks. On average.

Yea, that sounds legit.

Maybe Canadians are superheroes or something, but since our government actually mandates that we get a certain amount of breaks, I have to admit that I've never, ever, seen a smoker leave the place of employment during any "mission critical" time to "FEED THE ADDICTION!!!!!". Maybe an extra break (tops) a day at 5-10 minutes. Wowzers. TIME THEFT!!


I used to work (a long time ago) for a company called T.A.G. (The Answer Group). Show me anyone who has worked there, and I will show you either a smoker, alcoholic, and/or nutjob due to the extreme stress environment there.
 
2013-03-07 07:28:57 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? ;)


This.

And I don't mean it as snark, just to say that if you allow them to target one legal activity done on one's personal time I hope you don't think they'll stop there.  How long before they won't hire you because you're BMI is too high?
 
2013-03-07 07:30:13 AM  

Day_Old_Dutchie: Smokers - here's the world's tiniest violin playing for you.

Oh, and those calculating, cold-hearted "suits" who run the tobacco industry and their stockholders who are responsible for manufacturing and marketing a product that mains and KILLS is users and reduces the quality of life for those around them when used as designed - Die in a fire, slowly and painfully.


someone sounds a little concerned.

1.2/10
 
2013-03-07 07:30:19 AM  
When I was younger I noticed smokers got a lot more breaks than non smokers. I bought a pack of smokes and would join the smokers outside for their smoke breaks.

It took my supervisor (a smoker) over half a year to realize I never actually smoked on smoke breaks.
 
2013-03-07 07:31:54 AM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: Esroc: I'm a smoker and I support this. Smoking is a disgusting habit and I hate myself every time I light up. I can fully understand the people saying this violates your rights because smoking is legal, and it's really none of the company's business. But I can also say, from experience, that smoking needs to stop. And anything that can be done to do it is worth it.

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

/Bah, now I have to go flush my cigs again. 100th times the charm.

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


You'd better served by switching from one to the other. Your lungs will thank you!
 
2013-03-07 07:32:23 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: Day_Old_Dutchie: Smokers - here's the world's tiniest violin playing for you.

Oh, and those calculating, cold-hearted "suits" who run the tobacco industry and their stockholders who are responsible for manufacturing and marketing a product that mains and KILLS is users and reduces the quality of life for those around them when used as designed - Die in a fire, slowly and painfully.

someone sounds a little concerned.

1.2/10


maybe we should put "not for human consumption" labels on cigarettes, then if they use them as designed they won't kill
 
2013-03-07 07:32:35 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?


Why would that be a problem? If there are enough people out there to buy in that BS, go for it. I see it like this: you like getting care from smoke free nurses? That's because a lot of hospitals prohibit hiring of smokers. Think your nurse should be able to smoke? Go to the hospital that allows it.

I think for most businesses, if those policy is known that they severely restrict their workers, most people won't go there to shop...wait...nevermind; wal-mart.
 
2013-03-07 07:33:18 AM  

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

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

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



I'm sure you have it real rough with people coughing all around you, never knowing if it's a real cough or a fake one. Seriously man, clean the sand out and stop being such a pussy.
 
2013-03-07 07:33:53 AM  

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.
 
2013-03-07 07:34:25 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).


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.
 
2013-03-07 07:34:56 AM  

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


Especially since you coudl failt his test by using patches, and gum...
 
2013-03-07 07:36:02 AM  

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.
 
2013-03-07 07:36:12 AM  

Jon iz teh kewl: HindiDiscoMonster: Day_Old_Dutchie: Smokers - here's the world's tiniest violin playing for you.

Oh, and those calculating, cold-hearted "suits" who run the tobacco industry and their stockholders who are responsible for manufacturing and marketing a product that mains and KILLS is users and reduces the quality of life for those around them when used as designed - Die in a fire, slowly and painfully.

someone sounds a little concerned.

1.2/10

maybe we should put "not for human consumption" labels on cigarettes, then if they use them as designed they won't kill


i wonder though... what would they be used for if not to kill people? Some suggestions:

Lightweight objects to throw at people you are disgusted with.
Poison... that could be popular (I read that the nicotine extracted from 1 cig is enough when injected to kill someone - lethal injection anyone?) - that's the money saving idea
Decoration - you know, for art... some cigs and their packs are quite beautiful... they put allot into attracting people after all

those are my ideas... do you have any?
 
2013-03-07 07:36:29 AM  

Kurmudgeon: tinfoil-hat maggie: It's not easy, sure the first month or two easy. More than a year and beyond very difficult.

Funny that, I almost broke and started smoking again in the first month. All the times when I failed my attempts at quitting happened within the first month. However, I didn't quit quitting and have now been smoke free for over a dozen years.
/good luck!


Congrats, and I will keep trying to quit, I don't like doing it, and it's probably really I start back when life get's stressful.
 
2013-03-07 07:37:48 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: Jon iz teh kewl: HindiDiscoMonster: Day_Old_Dutchie: Smokers - here's the world's tiniest violin playing for you.

Oh, and those calculating, cold-hearted "suits" who run the tobacco industry and their stockholders who are responsible for manufacturing and marketing a product that mains and KILLS is users and reduces the quality of life for those around them when used as designed - Die in a fire, slowly and painfully.

someone sounds a little concerned.

1.2/10

maybe we should put "not for human consumption" labels on cigarettes, then if they use them as designed they won't kill

i wonder though... what would they be used for if not to kill people? Some suggestions:

Lightweight objects to throw at people you are disgusted with.
Poison... that could be popular (I read that the nicotine extracted from 1 cig is enough when injected to kill someone - lethal injection anyone?) - that's the money saving idea
Decoration - you know, for art... some cigs and their packs are quite beautiful... they put allot into attracting people after all

those are my ideas... do you have any?


putting them around Amy Winehouse's grave

lauriegraham.com
 
2013-03-07 07:38:00 AM  
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.
 
2013-03-07 07:38:45 AM  
I just recently quit, I think this is dumb but I also think they can do whatever they want. They have ten fold as many applicants for one open position than they did 5 years ago, they can do whatever they want to be picky. I've personally never had health insurance through a job, so I doubt I would have worked for a company that did this.
 
2013-03-07 07:39:11 AM  
Dirty little secret of labor law is that you can discriminate against anyone for any reason, even prohibited reasons, just DON'T TELL ANYONE!

Seriously, employers so stupid as to tell a candidate that they didn't hire them based on (race/gender/other protected class) deserve what they get, which is usually a very large lawsuit. Standard verbiage to everyone interviewed is "thank you for applying; we found someone else who was more suitable to the position". You don't have to give them a reason, so DON'T! Not ever!

The only place where I have ever seen everyone hired strictly on merit is in (Canadian) government jobs. There are very strict guidelines about classification of positions, and rules on how to evaluate candidates. You end up with a numeric score which makes it very clear who the better candidate is. When there's a tie based on qualifications, then of course you have to hire the muslim lesbian in a wheelchair.
On average you get a slightly better outcome, but every hire is still a crapshoot whether they will get along with the team, which is really what matters. Everything else can be taught.
 
2013-03-07 07:39:25 AM  
What about raging alcoholics? I need to sue someone..
 
2013-03-07 07:39:34 AM  
What is next, if you drink soda you can be discriminated against? If you use plastic shopping bags? If you drive a car?

People need to stop being offended so much. We are spiraling out of control.
 
2013-03-07 07:40:28 AM  

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


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

Psylence: tinfoil-hat maggie: Esroc: I'm a smoker and I support this. Smoking is a disgusting habit and I hate myself every time I light up. I can fully understand the people saying this violates your rights because smoking is legal, and it's really none of the company's business. But I can also say, from experience, that smoking needs to stop. And anything that can be done to do it is worth it.

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

/Bah, now I have to go flush my cigs again. 100th times the charm.

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

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


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

Sense, this policy makes none.

Just another bullshiat way to make employees afraid of their employers.
 
2013-03-07 07:42:01 AM  

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


what about crack are you allowed to use crack
 
2013-03-07 07:45:49 AM  

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

You end up being a cancerous mess on their time.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

what about crack are you allowed to use crack


You are but that's only because you're special ; )
 
2013-03-07 07:49:42 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.
 
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...
 
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 10:29:00 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.
 
2013-03-07 10:44:22 AM  

addy2: 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.


www.westseattlefunblog.com
 
2013-03-07 10:54:35 AM  

j4x: Pharmdawg: Smokers in my experience take more breaks than others I manage. They also have more upper respiratory infections and potentially get cancer, raising health insurance rates for everyone. And they stink.

Cool.

When can we start not hiring fat people??


Since forever? 1, 2, 3, 4
Not saying it's right, just saying it's reality.
 
2013-03-07 11:00:33 AM  
I agree that one of these things should be fixed.
 
2013-03-07 11:01:36 AM  
I'd like to add a little example of how this policy can work for all parties.  Scotts Growing Company.

A few years back they made national headlines when they refused to hire anyone who smoked or used tobacco products.  They then went on to give their employees one year to kick the habit or risk losing company insurance. Sounds horrible right?  Except the company went out and paid for nicotine therapy and cesastion programs and a whole host of other things to help them kick the habit. A friend of mine works within their HR department.  One of the internal emails he's seen has shown a 27% increase in productivity along with a  45% reduction of the companies health insurance.  Works out well for both sides if you ask me.
 
2013-03-07 11:11:43 AM  

RockofAges: jayphat: I'd like to add a little example of how this policy can work for all parties.  Scotts Growing Company.

A few years back they made national headlines when they refused to hire anyone who smoked or used tobacco products.  They then went on to give their employees one year to kick the habit or risk losing company insurance. Sounds horrible right?  Except the company went out and paid for nicotine therapy and cesastion programs and a whole host of other things to help them kick the habit. A friend of mine works within their HR department.  One of the internal emails he's seen has shown a 27% increase in productivity along with a  45% reduction of the companies health insurance.  Works out well for both sides if you ask me.

Wow, I simultaneously believe your corporate propaganda AND that someone actually WORKS in HR! Two cockatrices with one Archimedes' death ray!

Big Brother knows what's good for YOU, citizen! Would you like to know more? [Link to HR Internal Memo]


Yes, because I'm going to call him up right now, ask if he still has a 2 year old memo, have him email it to me, and convert that over to PDF for a Fark thread.
 
2013-03-07 11:12:58 AM  
Over in 2.
 
2013-03-07 11:18:03 AM  
The problem a lot of people have with smokers is that a huge percentage of them are inconsiderate assholes.

You want to smoke? Fine. You're going to have to earn those 'rights' you think you get though.

1. Stop throwing your butts out the Window, I'm getting tired of the brush fires.

2. Quit lighting up in front of me. If you can get lung cancer, obviously I can s's well.

3. Get out from directly in front of the farking door. The same people who don't want you smoking inside also don't want you creating a nearly impenetrable wall of smoke blocking access to the inside.

4. Quit throwing your farking butts all over the sidewalk, the gutters, porches, the road, etc. Have a little police and pick up after yourself. My buddy can field strip a butt so that it's completely safe to dump in the trash. If you think handling a butt is "icky", then you're actually on the right track.

Not everything ts some kind of attack on you, but you've picked the one vice that people standing near you are immediately and directly affected by. Grow up and accept responsibility for your actions.

The good news is that more smokers actually ARE being courteous, so there's hope yet.
 
2013-03-07 11:27:41 AM  
My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who works with a girl in HR. I guess it's pretty effective.
 
2013-03-07 11:28:39 AM  

RockofAges: t sounds like you live and work in a Brave New World. One we should all aspire to. Everyone knows everyone elses business. Everyone judges, spies, and reports everyone else. What you do at home is no longer private business, but everyone elses too. 

Sounds great.


I agree.   The things the poster I was quoting was wondering about are already here.  Employers still retain the right to fire you for using the reefer stick in your personal time even where a State has legalized it.  Other employers have fired folks for social media posting of what they have done on their time outside of the work place.  Never said I liked the policies, just reporting the way it is.
 
2013-03-07 11:40:27 AM  

tinfoil-hat maggie [TotalFark]

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

Hmmm, interesting : )


My friend smoked regularly for a week, put every butt in a glass jar with a little water and set it in the sun. At the end of the week every time she wanted a cig she took the cap off and smelled the contents. She must be going on 20+yrs without.
 
2013-03-07 11:42:16 AM  

RockofAges: Yea, all those cigarette butts sure are catastrophically destroying America. How much garbage do you think you've thrown out in your entire life? Do you recycle every single piece of cardboard you consume? Do you recycle all paper you consume (receipts and up?) Do you drive a vehicle (if so, you're contributing far worse to pollution than a pedestrian smoker, and to the air quality problems which affect millions worldwide).


Yeah, spoken like a truly self centered smoker. By far, the MOST prevalent litter I see on the streets today is cigarette butts. hundreds for every single can or soda bottle. Everywhere. Amazingly large amounts NEXT to the ashtrays people put outside to give the poor, disadvantaged smoker somewhere to put their butts. Instead, they throw them on the ground NEXT to it.

/And no, I don't litter
//When I go out hiking, I pack out other people's littler
///I recycle what I can
////Poor you, I seem to have hit a nerve
 
2013-03-07 11:46:12 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


You being * negatively affects my interaction with you at work.

* Choose any from the following to fill in the blank...
ugly
fat
a fan of a different sports team than me
better at your job than me
paid more than me
black
asian
female
 
2013-03-07 11:53:55 AM  
So, I don't smoke, but my wife does.

Is that grounds for not hiring me?

How far into your personal life will these companies go before they are satisfied? Will they need to bring in my entire family for screening eventually?
 
2013-03-07 11:56:43 AM  
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-07 11:56:58 AM  

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


I have no problem with my employer wanting input on my out-of-office activities. We have an agreement where I provide professional skills, and in exchange I receive compensation for my abilities. (Gods above, I sound a gorram stripper or whore. Oh well, possibly accurate)
If they want to triple the amount of time in which I am obliged to follow their instructions, and are willing to triple my pay (corresponding overtime/comp time to be calculated as required by law) then we can certainly come to terms. I try to be reasonable about these things.

/All right, I'm just greedy.
 
2013-03-07 12:01:48 PM  
Smoking is a choice.  Being a black lesbian in a wheelchair is not.
 
2013-03-07 12:02:05 PM  

Mikey1969: By far, the MOST prevalent litter I see on the streets today is cigarette butts. hundreds for every single can or soda bottle. Everywhere. Amazingly large amounts NEXT to the ashtrays people put outside to give the poor, disadvantaged smoker somewhere to put their butts. Instead, they throw them on the ground NEXT to it.


Not that I endorse such littering (I, too, think it's outrageously lazy), but I recently read this story in SciAm, and was surprised to find that a bit of such litter around may actually be helpful to birds, at least...
 
2013-03-07 12:09:20 PM  

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

I have no problem with my employer wanting input on my out-of-office activities.


Good for you. I do have a problem with it, though. Whether we're talking about smoking, political affiliation, sexual orientation, drinking or religion...it's none of anyone's business but your own and you shouldn't be compelled to disclose private information.
 
2013-03-07 12:14:21 PM  
RockofAges: Bla bla


Businesses have the right to determine their own hiring practices and cost saving measures. Why do you want to take away their freedom to conduct business the way they want? It's people like you who enable the government to erode our liberties. Do you really think we need more regulations?
 
2013-03-07 12:18:11 PM  

Robert Farker: RockofAges: Bla bla


Businesses have the right to determine their own hiring practices and cost saving measures. Why do you want to take away their freedom to conduct business the way they want? It's people like you who enable the government to erode our liberties. Do you really think we need more regulations?


You sound Republican.
 
2013-03-07 12:20:01 PM  
Yeah, smoking is legal and while I'd be cool if you couldn't smoke at work, banning smoking at all is a bad precedent.
 
2013-03-07 12:20:42 PM  
...and on the day that smokers become a protected class, you can complain about it.

(don't hold your breath, even if you could)
 
2013-03-07 12:22:26 PM  

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

I have no problem with my employer wanting input on my out-of-office activities.

Good for you. I do have a problem with it, though. Whether we're talking about smoking, political affiliation, sexual orientation, drinking or religion...it's none of anyone's business but your own and you shouldn't be compelled to disclose private information.




Sounds like you are hiding something. Only criminals and poor job performers have something to hide.

I recommed employers require bank account information. That way we can be sure that the employee is doing exactly what we want with the money we pay. Better have receipts too.
 
2013-03-07 12:27:53 PM  

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

I have no problem with my employer wanting input on my out-of-office activities.

Good for you. I do have a problem with it, though. Whether we're talking about smoking, political affiliation, sexual orientation, drinking or religion...it's none of anyone's business but your own and you shouldn't be compelled to disclose private information.

Sounds like you are hiding something. Only criminals and poor job performers have something to hide.

I recommed employers require bank account information. That way we can be sure that the employee is doing exactly what we want with the money we pay. Better have receipts too.


Private business's don't need that information. That's what the IRS and the ACA are for. Better to make sure your money is being spent right citizen.
 
2013-03-07 12:33:05 PM  

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

I have no problem with my employer wanting input on my out-of-office activities.

Good for you. I do have a problem with it, though. Whether we're talking about smoking, political affiliation, sexual orientation, drinking or religion...it's none of anyone's business but your own and you shouldn't be compelled to disclose private information.

Sounds like you are hiding something. Only criminals and poor job performers have something to hide.

I recommed employers require bank account information. That way we can be sure that the employee is doing exactly what we want with the money we pay. Better have receipts too.


We need to let employers place cameras and listening devices in our homes, so they can see what we're up to.  If we stay up past our bedtime, we will be less productive at work.  If we don't eat a nutritious breakfast, we will be less productive at work.  Remember folks, work isn't a means to an end.  Work IS the end!
 
2013-03-07 12:37:14 PM  

jayphat: Private business's don't need that information. That's what the IRS and the ACA are for. Better to make sure your money is being spent right citizen.


Don't forget to report for your morning calisthenics in front of the telescreen.
 
2013-03-07 12:44:32 PM  
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2013-03-07 12:47:35 PM  

Burr: So, I don't smoke, but my wife does.

Is that grounds for not hiring me?

How far into your personal life will these companies go before they are satisfied? Will they need to bring in my entire family for screening eventually?


The Kansas Turnpike Authority won't hire someone if their spouse smokes.
 
2013-03-07 12:48:01 PM  

kid_icarus: Good for you. I do have a problem with it, though. Whether we're talking about smoking, political affiliation, sexual orientation, drinking or religion...it's none of anyone's business but your own and you shouldn't be compelled to disclose private information.


As long as they're willing to pay me triple, plus overtime, I'm totally willing to discuss it with them.

Yet somehow, I get the impression these companies are choosing to overlook that aspect of the equation. If 8 hours of my time = $X, then 24 hours of my time would = $X x 3 + overtime.
 
2013-03-07 12:49:41 PM  

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

I have no problem with my employer wanting input on my out-of-office activities.

Good for you. I do have a problem with it, though. Whether we're talking about smoking, political affiliation, sexual orientation, drinking or religion...it's none of anyone's business but your own and you shouldn't be compelled to disclose private information.

Sounds like you are hiding something. Only criminals and poor job performers have something to hide.

I recommed employers require bank account information. That way we can be sure that the employee is doing exactly what we want with the money we pay. Better have receipts too.

Private business's don't need that information. That's what the IRS and the ACA are for. Better to make sure your money is being spent right citizen.


IRS and ACA don't care if you buy TV dinners and McDonalds instead of brocolli and carrot like you're supposed to do.

Corporations need to do this for wellness of the employee.
 
2013-03-07 12:50:35 PM  

busy chillin': Burr: So, I don't smoke, but my wife does.

Is that grounds for not hiring me?

How far into your personal life will these companies go before they are satisfied? Will they need to bring in my entire family for screening eventually?

The Kansas Turnpike Authority won't hire someone if their spouse smokes.


THAT, sounds like a good thing, actually.
 
2013-03-07 12:52:05 PM  

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

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

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


Re read your post. You _are_ a drama queen.
 
2013-03-07 12:56:25 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: IRS and ACA don't care if you buy TV dinners and McDonalds instead of brocolli and carrot like you're supposed to do.

Corporations need to do this for wellness of the employee


Corporation don't "need" to do this.

They don't do it because they "care" what you eat.  They do it to save money on inusrance and have more productive employees.
 
2013-03-07 01:01:57 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: busy chillin': Burr: So, I don't smoke, but my wife does.

Is that grounds for not hiring me?

How far into your personal life will these companies go before they are satisfied? Will they need to bring in my entire family for screening eventually?

The Kansas Turnpike Authority won't hire someone if their spouse smokes.

THAT, sounds like a good thing, actually.


Why? How does a smoking spouse effect the person working abilities to do their job?
 
2013-03-07 01:04:53 PM  

busy chillin': Burr: So, I don't smoke, but my wife does.

Is that grounds for not hiring me?

How far into your personal life will these companies go before they are satisfied? Will they need to bring in my entire family for screening eventually?

The Kansas Turnpike Authority won't hire someone if their spouse smokes.


Does that go to your children as well, since they can be on their parents insurance until they are 24?
 
2013-03-07 01:06:41 PM  

RockofAges: Robert Farker: RockofAges: Bla bla


Businesses have the right to determine their own hiring practices and cost saving measures. Why do you want to take away their freedom to conduct business the way they want? It's people like you who enable the government to erode our liberties. Do you really think we need more regulations?

I already dismissed you once, quickly, and effectively, exposing you for a corporatist shill.

Please don't waste my time further with arguments that a child could deconstruct. Find someone of your own limited mental size to practice with.



I don't control how you spend your time. If you want to waste it cowering from debating your opinion that's all on you.
 
2013-03-07 01:07:32 PM  

Burr: busy chillin': Burr: So, I don't smoke, but my wife does.

Is that grounds for not hiring me?

How far into your personal life will these companies go before they are satisfied? Will they need to bring in my entire family for screening eventually?

The Kansas Turnpike Authority won't hire someone if their spouse smokes.

Does that go to your children as well, since they can be on their parents insurance until they are 24?


We didn't look into that far. But it seems the authoritarian reach is endless.


And all of these powers that be are laughing and thinking "Oh, they think we do this because we care about them and their health. That's cute."
 
2013-03-07 01:12:05 PM  

busy chillin': StoPPeRmobile: busy chillin': Burr: So, I don't smoke, but my wife does.

Is that grounds for not hiring me?

How far into your personal life will these companies go before they are satisfied? Will they need to bring in my entire family for screening eventually?

The Kansas Turnpike Authority won't hire someone if their spouse smokes.

THAT, sounds like a good thing, actually.

Why? How does a smoking spouse effect the person working abilities to do their job?


If you are breathing trackter-trailer exhaust fumes all day, the last thing we need is for your spouse to be enjoying the priviledge of freedom.
 
2013-03-07 01:14:50 PM  
I don't do anything addictive at work ...  caffeine, cigarettes, alcohol, fast food or drugs. Some people hate the smell of anything, and in my line of work I need to be up-close with people and friendly. Trust me, I hate the smell of fast food. It literally makes me nauseous. So does coffee-breath, it's disgusting. Both of which are horrible for your health and are addictive.

That said, I don't believe any business has a right to censor what an employee can legally do. I don't care if it is THEIR business people are working at; people are not slaves to their work 24/7/365.
 
2013-03-07 01:17:16 PM  
StoPPeRmobile:

If you are breathing trackter-trailer exhaust fumes all day, the last thing we need is for your spouse to be enjoying the priviledge of freedom.

I wonder if those people get home and need a hit off an big rig exhaust pipe just to make it through the night.
 
2013-03-07 01:18:49 PM  

j4x: Pharmdawg: Smokers in my experience take more breaks than others I manage. They also have more upper respiratory infections and potentially get cancer, raising health insurance rates for everyone. And they stink.

Cool.

When can we start not hiring fat people??


Why stop at fat people? When can we stop hiring people who wear too much cologne/perfume or just the kinds we don't like. When can we stop hiring people who gamble?
 
2013-03-07 01:22:52 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Nicotine addiction, like alcoholism, is a disease. If the employer is willing to ignore the rights of the sick, I'm happy to just as well take my business somewhere else.

I'm no smoker. I can't stand the smell of tobacco. But it's a pretty low person who will make it a policy to discriminate against someone because of a disease.



Interesting twist. Nicotine addiction, like alcoholism is treatable. Whether you choose 12-step programs, religion, or pure willpower is not important. Calling an addiction a disease is not justification for doing nothing about it.

If a bus driver with diabetes refuses to take insulin he doesn't get a free pass because his employers are discriminating against someone with a disease by firing him.

Preemptively, that is NOT apples to oranges. You already referred to nicotine addiction as a disease.
 
2013-03-07 01:23:56 PM  

jso2897: Pharmdawg: Smokers in my experience take more breaks than others I manage. They also have more upper respiratory infections and potentially get cancer, raising health insurance rates for everyone. And they stink.

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


There is one thing every anti-smoking zealot like yourself forgets. Smokers pay shiatloads of taxes on cigarettes.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=403

17.2 billion in taxes last year. (No I didn't read it wrong, it's 17,267,568 in [thousands of dollars], or 17,267,568,000). So I guess when you come up with a plan to replace 17 billion in tax revenue, I'll think your argument might have merit.
 
2013-03-07 01:26:59 PM  

liam76: StoPPeRmobile: IRS and ACA don't care if you buy TV dinners and McDonalds instead of brocolli and carrot like you're supposed to do.

Corporations need to do this for wellness of the employee

Corporation don't "need" to do this.

They don't do it because they "care" what you eat.  They do it to save money on inusrance and have more productive employees.


"Wellness" is code for lower insurance rates. Please do keep up.
 
2013-03-07 01:28:25 PM  

busy chillin': StoPPeRmobile:

If you are breathing trackter-trailer exhaust fumes all day, the last thing we need is for your spouse to be enjoying the priviledge of freedom.

I wonder if those people get home and need a hit off an big rig exhaust pipe just to make it through the night.


That, they are allowed to do.
 
2013-03-07 02:09:06 PM  
What happens if you apply for a job there and are in the process of giving up smoking by using nicotine patches? Then they will not hire you, even though you are not smoking.

As well, FTFA:   "In my opinion, anytime a company attempts to regulate an employee's private life, that in no way has an impact on their employment" ***

*** This does not include smokers who work on the 20th floor who have to wait 5-10 minutes for a lift going down to where they can have their smoke break then wait ANOTHER 5-10 minutes to come back up again while the overworked non-smoker does their work without being allowed the equivalent length of break from their tasks
 
2013-03-07 02:11:49 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: 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.


Smoking is physically active for you?
 
2013-03-07 02:22:04 PM  

empres77: Studies have shown that smokers take 40% more breaks than non-smokers.


You are assuming that time at one's desk is productive time, which is a load of steaming, foul-smelling shiat.
 
2013-03-07 02:22:36 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: 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.

Smoking is physically active for you?


Not all of us take our breaks at the desk.
 
2013-03-07 02:23:35 PM  
This is not new.  Many hospitals have this rule now.  How the fark can anyone defend the right of a company to ban smoking because of the smell?  How about people who sweat profusely and refuse to wear deodorant, or it just does not work on them?  How about the smelly bastards that feel the need to put on enough perfume/cologne to choke the life out of someone with asthma or perople who are allergic to the stuff?  Imagine people prior to the invention of the light bulb complaining about the smell of smoke, probably rare.  It's all for insurance purposes.

/slippery slope
//watch out for future fat discrimination
///will have to hand over medical history as part of the interview process
 
2013-03-07 02:27:26 PM  

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.


Do you ever get tired of all your endless ranting? You sound like a second year sociology major at a liberal arts college.

I wish that you would "choose" to stop posting your multi-part manifesto all over this thread I'm trying to read.
 
2013-03-07 02:46:59 PM  
I'm curious if this type of hiring discrimination would work in reverse... Could you require all employees to be smokers and fire anyone who quits smoking?? If so, would it then be legal to allow smoking inside the workplace, since everyone is already a smoker, so you're not exposing any non-smokers to it? (I think I recall some bar trying that tactic to avoid laws against smoking in bars, and that didn't fly... But, there they also have random members of the public coming in, and I suppose you can't test every one of them at the door to make sure they're smokers before letting them in...)
 
2013-03-07 03:08:02 PM  

Pangea: 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.

Do you ever get tired of all your endless ranting? You sound like a second year sociology major at a liberal arts college.

I wish that you would "choose" to stop posting your multi-part manifesto all over this thread I'm trying to read.


He's responding to people replying to or commenting on his posts. As you just did. Where's the problem?
 
2013-03-07 03:09:51 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: 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.

Smoking is physically active for you?


Right now I'm doing some Excel programming at a company. It's helpful to get away from VBA about once and hour, smoke a couple of cigs, and stretch the legs. I get some of my best ideas that way.
 
2013-03-07 03:11:24 PM  

RobSeace: I'm curious if this type of hiring discrimination would work in reverse... Could you require all employees to be smokers and fire anyone who quits smoking?? If so, would it then be legal to allow smoking inside the workplace, since everyone is already a smoker, so you're not exposing any non-smokers to it? (I think I recall some bar trying that tactic to avoid laws against smoking in bars, and that didn't fly... But, there they also have random members of the public coming in, and I suppose you can't test every one of them at the door to make sure they're smokers before letting them in...)


I doubt it.  Even as a smoker, I would not want to work in a place where everyone smokes inside.  I don't mind going outside to smoke.  It's the self-righteous punks that make even smoking outside illegal that annoy me.  I was once smoking outside, and the lady walked by me covering her mouth as she passed by.  She walked up to the curb as a bus sending out a massive plume of black smoke passed in front her.  She did not have her mouth covered.  My thought was, "Stupid self-righteous biatch."
 
2013-03-07 03:17:27 PM  
addy2:  He's responding to people replying to or commenting on his posts. As you just did. Where's the problem?


I think it's just the insufferable, "wake up sheeple," quasi-intellectual ranting that wears on me.

I actually agree with many of the sentiments, but the delivery is grating and overly condescending.

It's not as if anyone actually cares about my opinion anyway.
 
2013-03-07 03:24:41 PM  

Pangea: addy2:  He's responding to people replying to or commenting on his posts. As you just did. Where's the problem?


I think it's just the insufferable, "wake up sheeple," quasi-intellectual ranting that wears on me.

I actually agree with many of the sentiments, but the delivery is grating and overly condescending.

It's not as if anyone actually cares about my opinion anyway.


Oh, I see. But he's trying and coming back for more and I have to admire that.
And no one cares what any of us think. That's why we come here.: )
 
2013-03-07 03:42:44 PM  

RobSeace: I'm curious if this type of hiring discrimination would work in reverse... Could you require all employees to be smokers and fire anyone who quits smoking?? If so, would it then be legal to allow smoking inside the workplace, since everyone is already a smoker, so you're not exposing any non-smokers to it? (I think I recall some bar trying that tactic to avoid laws against smoking in bars, and that didn't fly... But, there they also have random members of the public coming in, and I suppose you can't test every one of them at the door to make sure they're smokers before letting them in...)


A bar in my hometown was about to do something similar. I'm from a small college town and the bar scene was popular among the young smoking crowd. The town wanted to do the whole clean air thing and decided to ban smoking in restaurants/bars while students were away on summer break. They did it at this specific time so the college students wouldn't feel like they were missing out on their habit. The bars suffered damaging losses during the summer, 4 of the 11 shut down. The students came back in fall and the bars still had a low turnout (2 more closed after that). Even us folk that lived there year round were turned off about going down to bar street under the new ordinance, the ones that survived were well established restaurants that turned bar at night. The bars are starting to slowly pick up again but it isn't like it was before.

So back to that one bar owner, he talked to his lawyer and they found a loophole where he would be able to make it possible. Register the bar a private club with membership fees... he went bankrupt before he could try that platform.

My current favorite smoking ban is at the community college in my new town. They removed the social-smoking patio and banned smoking from the campus. However, they still allow you to smoke if you are sitting in a vehicle on the campus (even if you have the windows down). What if you don't have a vehicle? Either sit in a friend's car, smoke on the campus and get hit with a $50 fine, or run across a busy 4 lane, 50mph road to smoke on the sidewalk across the street.
 
2013-03-07 04:46:09 PM  

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


You could stop being a Muslim too.  Other Muslims might kill you for it however, so quitting smoking might be wiser.
 
2013-03-07 05:39:22 PM  

j4x: Pharmdawg: Smokers in my experience take more breaks than others I manage. They also have more upper respiratory infections and potentially get cancer, raising health insurance rates for everyone. And they stink.

Cool.

When can we start not hiring fat people??


Depends, do you hire for Hooters?
 
2013-03-07 06:10:11 PM  
Whoever you are you should be against BS like this.  If your employer can dictate what legal activities you can participate in while not being paid then you aren't as much of an employee as your are virtual property of the company.

For people who applaud this, rest easy knowing you are effectively a marketing tool for insurance companies and corporate power.

It's bizarre to me how effective they have been at creating a virtual witch hunt on smoking/smokers.
 
2013-03-07 06:43:25 PM  

feckingmorons: Smokers are not a protected class.


There are a few states which actually do make it a protected class. I'm too lazy to look it up, but seriously, some states do make it illegal to not hire or to fire someone who does something that is completely legal on their own time.

This will probably get more attention as states legalize marijuana.

And it should be the law everywhere.

They can make it policy to prohibit smoking on their property. I may not like that, but that should be well within an employer's rights. What you do on your own time however, should be none of their farking business.
 
2013-03-07 06:49:10 PM  

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

Time to let it go.


e-cigs suck. I've tried at least a half dozen of them and none of them even comes close to providing the same satisfaction as an actual cigarette.;

I don't smoke anymore and do use an e-cig, but e-cigs do suck.

If you can suggest a better one, please do. I've got a Volt X2 and a Vision Spinner on my desk and no, they are not even close to being as good as a real cigarette.
 
2013-03-07 06:55:58 PM  

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.


I can't tell you how many times I've gone out for a "smoke break" at work and taken work with me and at the same time seen non-smokers just shooting the shiat around the water cooler when I was going outside and when I came back in.

You can't judge a worker's performance on the basis of whether they smoke or not. There's a lot more to it than that. If you can't see it, you shouldn't be a manager of anything.
 
2013-03-07 07:20:42 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: 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.


yeah but you don't have to smoke
smokings for losers with good lungs (unlike mine) mine are black and dirty
 
2013-03-07 07:35:48 PM  

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


comments should have been closed right here
 
2013-03-07 08:50:07 PM  
That rule doesn't apply to everyone, evidently.
farm4.staticflickr.com
 
2013-03-07 08:56:17 PM  

dbrunker: That rule doesn't apply to everyone, evidently.
[farm4.staticflickr.com image 185x240]


Is Obama moonlighting at a hospital in Orlando? You'd think that would have made the news.

I guess he's gotta try out Obamacare somewhere.
 
2013-03-07 11:31:13 PM  

Relatively Obscure: I loved, loved, LOVED smoking.  I recently quit for health reasons, but barring that I'd dearly love to be smoking right now.

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


www.troll.me
 
2013-03-08 12:58:07 AM  
Pity the smokers.  They are so persecuted!
 
2013-03-08 01:13:24 AM  

Thunderpipes: What is next, if you drink soda you can be discriminated against? If you use plastic shopping bags? If you drive a car?

People need to stop being offended so much. We are spiraling out of control.


There is that....but over sensitivity is far outweighed by overly inconsiderate.  Oddly enough, in my experience those two groups overlap a lot on the Venn diagram.
 
2013-03-08 01:48:33 AM  

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

What if you work for, say the DMV, or other essential government services?


That would be the exception. The 14th Amendment (equal protection) forbids the government from discriminating.
 
2013-03-08 01:49:54 AM  

SpectroBoy: 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.


Why is it always assumed that only white people want freedom? For your information, there are a lot of minorities in the libertarian movement. But, I guess they're all Uncle Toms to you.
 
2013-03-08 01:51:53 AM  

mbillips: 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.


Of course. No philosophy or belief system can be outlawed.
 
2013-03-08 06:23:57 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Nicotine addiction, like alcoholism, is a disease. If the employer is willing to ignore the rights of the sick, I'm happy to just as well take my business somewhere else.

I'm no smoker. I can't stand the smell of tobacco. But it's a pretty low person who will make it a policy to discriminate against someone because of a disease.


Hahahaha, oh god... you're serious. Haha.
 
2013-03-08 08:52:28 AM  

DrPainMD: SpectroBoy: 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.

Why is it always assumed that only white people want freedom? For your information, there are a lot of minorities in the libertarian movement. But, I guess they're all Uncle Toms to you.


I don't doubt that there are black libertarians. There are also gay Republicans. But what I can tell you is that I have never heard anyone who was not white say racism is no longer a problem and that  legal protection is no longer required.
 
2013-03-08 10:23:33 PM  
0.tqn.com
 
2013-03-09 09:23:45 PM  

SpectroBoy: DrPainMD: SpectroBoy: 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.

Why is it always assumed that only white people want freedom? For your information, there are a lot of minorities in the libertarian movement. But, I guess they're all Uncle Toms to you.

I don't doubt that there are black libertarians. There are also gay Republicans. But what I can tell you is that I have never heard anyone who was not white say racism is no longer a problem and that  legal protection is no longer required.


Of course not. The mainstream media will never publish it. That doesn't mean it doesn't occur. Hell, there were black civil rights leaders back in the 1960s who were against the so-called civil rights act. There are gay rights activists who are against non-discrimination laws. Good luck finding quotes from them, tho.
 
2013-03-10 05:09:54 PM  
RockofAges:
-- the pussification of our society (see: yourself and your predictable hipster butthurt slash zero-contribution to the thread while threadshiatting stance. Bravo.)
-- a continuing trend towards endorsing authoritarian mores and ways as long as you, yourself, don't belong to the outgroup.



You're clearly quite hardcore, as evidenced when you equate a desire to avoid a proven carcinogen as being "pussified." You know who is a lot more offensive than smokers? Self-righteous assholes with a god-complex who can deliver a line like you can without a hint of snark.

I can hear a cry for help from you every time you post. You're barking as loud as you can, but it never really accomplishes much of anything. You're big words with no substance. You can't seem to come to terms with the fact that you're just not that interesting.
 
2013-03-10 08:51:28 PM  
My greatest solace is knowing that I get to be again tomorrow and you have to go through the rest of your life being you. I am content with that.
 
Displayed 292 of 292 comments

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