|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 01/25/05 - 15:04 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: |
What I was saying above was to illustrate that if you're going to have a policy that says you value health of employees and no one can smoke, then it should be across the board. There should have been smoking cessation for the original smokers.
|
I definitely agree with this part but I still think it's absolute bullsh*t that someone would be fired for becoming a smoker after the policy went into effect, regardless of whether the older smokers were grandfathered in or not. More so because they were still permitted to smoke. That's just a ridiculous abuse of power by the management.
When I first started working after high school, you could still smoke at your desk. My desk-mate almost set her space and mine on fire several times leaving a burning cigarette in her ashtray next to a pile of papers--ironically, we were working at Prudential in the life insurance department. 
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/25/05 - 15:44 Post subject:
| robp wrote: | | I don't think there is any way in hell that a company could justify hiring/not hiring personnel based on their smoking habits. |
They do it all the time, based on other "bad" habits. Companies don't employ drivers if they know that said drive has a bad driving record to limit their liability. Many employees take drug tests prior to employment.
Wouldn't smoking fall under the same umbrella? Smoking isn't a gender or sexual orientation or religious or race issue, so "normal" discrimination laws wouldn't apply here.
|
|
|
|
|
phillycat
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 1953
Location: Da hood
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/25/05 - 15:47 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: |
They do it all the time, based on other "bad" habits. Companies don't employ drivers if they know that said drive has a bad driving record to limit their liability. Many employees take drug tests prior to employment.
Wouldn't smoking fall under the same umbrella? Smoking isn't a gender or sexual orientation or religious or race issue, so "normal" discrimination laws wouldn't apply here. |
Isn't the driving example more of a liability issue? I think that the company can do something when you might hurt someone else. If you want to hurt yourself...that's ok.
|
|
|
|
|
robp
Pyromaniac
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Jul 2002
Posts: 16242
Location: Waiting in line at the beer store...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/25/05 - 15:55 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: |
They do it all the time, based on other "bad" habits. Companies don't employ drivers if they know that said drive has a bad driving record to limit their liability. Many employees take drug tests prior to employment.
Wouldn't smoking fall under the same umbrella? Smoking isn't a gender or sexual orientation or religious or race issue, so "normal" discrimination laws wouldn't apply here. |
Drug testing is for illegal drugs. A bad driving record equals obvious breaking of driving laws. Smoking isn't illegal.
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/25/05 - 15:55 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: |
They do it all the time, based on other "bad" habits. Companies don't employ drivers if they know that said drive has a bad driving record to limit their liability. Many employees take drug tests prior to employment.
Wouldn't smoking fall under the same umbrella? Smoking isn't a gender or sexual orientation or religious or race issue, so "normal" discrimination laws wouldn't apply here. |
But smoking is legal. In the case of drug testing, they are not. Plus like PC said, being intoxicated while operating machinery or otherwise being in a position to injure other people is a liability, not to mention the moral obligation to protect your employees, not that any company gives a rat's patootie about morals, but.....I think it really is what she said though. Although if you want to push the secondary smoke issue, you could be injuring other people. 
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/25/05 - 15:55 Post subject:
| phillycat wrote: | | If you want to hurt yourself...that's ok. |
But the difference is that the company is paying for your healthcare when you decide to hurt yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/25/05 - 17:06 Post subject:
Unusual though this may be, I agree with Sonny. A company can pretty much decide not to hire you for a multitude of reasons and so long as that discrimination isn't based on an immutable trait, it's legal.
|
|
|
|
|
marathonrnr262
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 1885
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/26/05 - 10:28 Post subject:
I searched for that article and could not find it. I LOVE the fact that companys are finally making the smoking issue a real issue.
A private company has the right to hire fire anybody they want based onthe rules of the company. if the rule says you cannot be a smoker, then you can't smoke.
If I smoked dope, but didn't do it at work would that be ok? I know dope is illegal, but I'm not doing it at work, I'm using it on my own time, away from the company.
I smoked for 10 years, so I can speak from experience.
Sheldon
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/26/05 - 10:52 Post subject:
| marathonrnr262 wrote: | I searched for that article and could not find it. I LOVE the fact that companys are finally making the smoking issue a real issue.
A private company has the right to hire fire anybody they want based onthe rules of the company. if the rule says you cannot be a smoker, then you can't smoke.
If I smoked dope, but didn't do it at work would that be ok? I know dope is illegal, but I'm not doing it at work, I'm using it on my own time, away from the company.
I smoked for 10 years, so I can speak from experience.
Sheldon |
I don't think potsmoking should be illegal, and as I think it's a victimless crime, I wouldn't personally have trouble with an employee doing that on his own time. However, if the job requires you to uphold the law, like a police officer or an attorney, I think it's a different story.
|
|
|
|
|
robp
Pyromaniac
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Jul 2002
Posts: 16242
Location: Waiting in line at the beer store...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/26/05 - 10:56 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: | | Unusual though this may be, I agree with Sonny. A company can pretty much decide not to hire you for a multitude of reasons and so long as that discrimination isn't based on an immutable trait, it's legal. |
I'd bet that company would tell you they hired someone else with better qualifications though. They wouldn't come right out and tell you - hey you're a smoker (or whatever bad habit you had) so we aren't about to hire you. They would skirt the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/26/05 - 11:01 Post subject:
| robp wrote: |
I'd bet that company would tell you they hired someone else with better qualifications though. They wouldn't come right out and tell you - hey you're a smoker (or whatever bad habit you had) so we aren't about to hire you. They would skirt the issue. |
I don't agree. A company would do better to tell you a)here's our rule b)you violate it so c)we won't hire you. It's a lot easier to be up front about something that's clearly within their rights to discriminate on than on some other reason. They have nothing to lose.
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/26/05 - 15:31 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: |
I don't agree. A company would do better to tell you a)here's our rule b)you violate it so c)we won't hire you. It's a lot easier to be up front about something that's clearly within their rights to discriminate on than on some other reason. They have nothing to lose. |
OK, this is what confuses me though: HOW is it within a company's rights to discriminate against me for something I do on my own time? Kinda like what Sheldon said: obviously you don't smoke dope at work because depending on your job you could put others in jeopardy (driving, machine operating, medical field, etc) as opposed to smoking cigarettes at work which you have to get pretty nitpicky over to see how that would "jeopardize" other people.....but what grants them the right to tell me I can't do either of these things in the privacy of my own home after 5PM? (Besides the fact that dope is illegal, I mean).
You'd think the civil rights lawyers would be more interested in stuff like this that seems to have no justification rather than some of the other bogus "causes" they support, no? Where is it in the legal system that a company can do this?
|
|
|
|
|
marathonrnr262
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 1885
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/26/05 - 15:40 Post subject:
A private company can set whatever rules they want for workers. They only have to follow the rules and guidelines set forth. They cannot discriminate against you, but they can set rules that they want you to adhere by.
Would Hooters be Hooters (ad that little trademark thingy) if they hired chicks with no breasts? They hire girls that fit the profile they want. Smaller breasted girls don't even bother to apply.
I think the idea is great, although I can see both sides. Are they gonna start testing my cholesterol and ban McDonalds?
Sheldon
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/26/05 - 15:54 Post subject:
| genie wrote: |
OK, this is what confuses me though: HOW is it within a company's rights to discriminate against me for something I do on my own time? Kinda like what Sheldon said: obviously you don't smoke dope at work because depending on your job you could put others in jeopardy (driving, machine operating, medical field, etc) as opposed to smoking cigarettes at work which you have to get pretty nitpicky over to see how that would "jeopardize" other people.....but what grants them the right to tell me I can't do either of these things in the privacy of my own home after 5PM? (Besides the fact that dope is illegal, I mean).
You'd think the civil rights lawyers would be more interested in stuff like this that seems to have no justification rather than some of the other bogus "causes" they support, no? Where is it in the legal system that a company can do this? |
Maybe they should separate health care coverage from employees that wish to engage in "risky" activities such as smoking. Then they could truly do what they wish on their own time w/o impacting other employees (increased health care premiums, etc.).
|
|
|
|
|
marathonrnr262
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 1885
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/26/05 - 16:13 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: |
Maybe they should separate health care coverage from employees that wish to engage in "risky" activities such as smoking. Then they could truly do what they wish on their own time w/o impacting other employees (increased health care premiums, etc.). |
Not offering insurance to an employee because they smoke is discriminating. Unless, they ban everybody. Then they can say they are a smoke free facility, kinda like a drug free facility.
Sheldon
|
|
|
|
