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 46
    More: Interesting, BusinessNewsDaily, TechMediaNetwork, lesbians, nationalities, tobacco products  
•       •       •

7766 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Mar 2013 at 6:50 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-07 01:12:25 AM
8 votes:
That's because you could stop being a smoker.
2013-03-07 07:09:09 AM
6 votes:
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.
2013-03-07 02:14:28 AM
5 votes:
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 07:34:52 AM
3 votes:

kid_icarus: 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?


It just shows how easily people are led to demonize others, like a less-intense Milgram experiment. I don't care if you smoke, if you're fat, if you're ugly, whatever. What do you bring to the table as an individual? What is your skillset? What kind of person are you? What is your story?

These are qualifiers that interest me. Because I use my own brain. I also have endured enough in my life already to realize that the "theatrically coughing" or "Oooooh that's STINKY!" crowd are the antithesis of who _I_ am -- busybodies with small lives, small brains, and small opinions. Obviously small enough to join the herd and bray like the rest over trivialities as the world turns AND burns.
j4x
2013-03-07 07:14:51 AM
3 votes:

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 07:02:29 AM
3 votes:
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 06:55:57 AM
3 votes:
Your employer shouldn't be able to dictate what you do outside work on your personal time.
2013-03-07 06:54:44 AM
3 votes:
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 01:45:45 AM
3 votes:
Smokers are not a protected class.
2013-03-07 09:27:32 AM
2 votes:
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 07:17:53 AM
2 votes:

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 07:03:43 AM
2 votes:

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 02:55:34 AM
2 votes:
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 02:55:09 AM
2 votes:

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 01:14:25 AM
2 votes:
and because you stink.
2013-03-07 12:52:05 PM
1 votes:

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 11:23:44 AM
1 votes:

jayphat: 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.


The point -------------------------------------

You -------------------------------------------


Hint: Nobody cares about your cherry-picked story from a friend's cousin's brother's company's HR department e-mail. We're discussing liberty, stigmatization, and the general "OMG THE DIRT!" pansification of your society. Human beings previous to the latter century (and in many parts of the world) would have spent the great majority of their time in very close proximity to an open flame.

Do you honestly think it's surprising that it's cheap to insure people you will never have to cover? Insurance, once again, is just there to deny and avoid as many claims as possible by keeping a pool of healthy people paying regulated and mandatory taxes. Basically, it's a total racket and their cutting out people who actually may benefit from insurance. That doesn't do the group any favours, and once again, shows just how blinded we are in general to our "benevolent" insurers. Great, your premium went down. Wait until, beyond the ripples we have now, they come after BMI. Then we'll have Fark riots about how "unfair" BMI is. How "authoritarian" it is that the state can tell people that it's actually their own damn fault for eating cheeseburgers, and it's not from "big bonedness" or "a thyroid problem".

Then the skinny, nonsmoking, vegan Farkers will be lol'ing at how the stinky fatties can't get the willpower up, like any "decent" human, to become thin like them. That's the sort of people I stand against and always will, even if I'm not part of the group. (again, I don't smoke cigarettes on anything approaching a regular basis -- rarely while drunk maybe).

I guess, really, what we're lamenting is simply how many superficial thinkers, hypocrites, busybodies, NIMBYs, and other assorted "make the bad man from the outgroup stop for the good of the poor chilluns" types there are, even on Fark, which used to be filled with a hardier, sturdier, drunker, fattier, snake-plissken-adoring type group rather than a group of hyper-allergenic, snooty, cleaner-and-holier-than-thou suburban soccer moms.
2013-03-07 11:18:03 AM
1 votes:
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 10:44:22 AM
1 votes:

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 09:17:56 AM
1 votes:

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 08:52:50 AM
1 votes:
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 08:50:01 AM
1 votes:

Phinn: 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?


Hint, though.

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.
2013-03-07 08:36:23 AM
1 votes:

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 (scrips are okay)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 ...


It 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.
2013-03-07 08:15:49 AM
1 votes:

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 situation, but I'm talking about agreeing with it), rather than being rightly outraged at the continual march towards the "Gods of Insurance and Capitalism" being able to compartmentalize and dictate absolute terms to you like a good little Employee 93878472992 -- that's part of the problem.

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!
2013-03-07 08:06:19 AM
1 votes:
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 07:55:37 AM
1 votes:

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

You end up being a cancerous mess on their time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

(or, you could be like me, and simply suggest healthful food subsidies, and let people eat the burgers they damn well please in the interim, because I'm not a micromanaging, self-righteous ninny who wants to legislate your behaviour because it doesn't match my personal standards of "moral").
2013-03-07 07:49:42 AM
1 votes:
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 07:49:37 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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


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

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

I personally think it's fairly conclusive that a 2 pack a day smoker might develop lung cancer, for sure. The other case? No way to rationally determine, but colon cancer from secondhand smoke does not seem as likely as simple age or dietary / stress conditions. Not a doctor though.
2013-03-07 07:39:34 AM
1 votes:
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 07:33:53 AM
1 votes:

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 07:22:02 AM
1 votes:

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 07:21:07 AM
1 votes:

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 07:19:26 AM
1 votes:

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


Studies have shown that almost all Farkers fark at work if at all possible.

Anyone here use their little binky (iPhone, BB, Android) device at work to check the e-mail? Check facebook? ebay?

Anyone here guilty of TIME THEFT! (Empres is ready to report you!)

Come on, anyone going to cop to it? Or do only smokers abuse the workplace? Drinkers show up on time reliably and ready to work, obviously. As do the morbidly obese whom have self-inflicted diabetes and a lifetime of chronic illness. Obviously very mentally alert and productive. How about pill poppers (legally prescribed) -- obviously completely lucid.

People are so narrowly focused on this issue (mission success, gov't marketing!) that they are unable to compare it to anything other circumstance.
2013-03-07 07:16:04 AM
1 votes:

feckingmorons: Smokers are not a protected class.


This is all that needs to be said.
2013-03-07 07:14:08 AM
1 votes:
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.
2013-03-07 07:13:59 AM
1 votes:

IPS: 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!


Drinkers are dangerous to society, drug addicted losers who could crash the carpool vehicle, or make a rash decision at work while they had the DTs.

Best not to hire anyone who tests positive for alchohol. I mean, only weak idiots poison themselves, make themselves fat and bloated, and endanger our children on the roadway.

-- Authoritarian conformist, a person whom easily accepts rationales for excluding "nongroup" members so long as it doesn't include their personal habits.
2013-03-07 07:12:44 AM
1 votes:

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 07:10:30 AM
1 votes:
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 07:07:58 AM
1 votes:
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 07:06:23 AM
1 votes:

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 07:05:22 AM
1 votes:
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 07:02:34 AM
1 votes:

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 06:31:56 AM
1 votes:
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 02:52:19 AM
1 votes:

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 01:56:58 AM
1 votes:
obviously one attribute is a matter of choice.
somebody cares...
somebody
2013-03-07 01:23:23 AM
1 votes:
False equivalence is false.
 
Displayed 46 of 46 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report