 
|
|
|
|
|
|
thegman
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 23 Sep 2002
Posts: 3088
Location: 12 yards out.
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 01/26/05 - 16:14 Post subject:
| genie wrote: |
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? |
As long as the employer is a private entity in an "at-will" employment state, they can set whatever rules they wish and discharge people as they see fit. They can fire people for wearing red sweaters on their off hours if they want - there doesn't have to be anything reasonable about it. Government employment is different and those states creating property rights in a person's job are different.
Obviously, private employers can't discriminate against and discharge those belonging to a protected class due to their status - gender, age, disabled, minorities to name a few - but smokers aren't a legally protected class.
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/26/05 - 16:21 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: |
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. |
I would venture to say the person killed by a pot smoker who is driving is a victim.
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/26/05 - 16:23 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? |
Because they wind up paying for it. If healthcare didn't come from your company, they wouldn't. Because it does, they get more say.
| genie wrote: |
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). |
Smoking dope at home has no effect on your job and I've never heard of anyone getting fired for it. Smoking cigarettes at home when your company's policy is not to smoke is against the contract you make with them when you sign on. It's as antithetical to their policy at home as it would be were you smoking at work.
| genie wrote: |
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? |
Hmm, I think it's somewhat myopic to think that civil rights are bogus. The cases might not apply to you at this moment, but b/c of those civil rights lawyers, they never will. Do you think women and black people getting to vote in this country is a bogus cause? Do you think the protection afforded you by the 4th or 5th amendments is bogus? I don't. I value the protection and privacy they afford me more every day.
| genie wrote: | | Where is it in the legal system that a company can do this? |
"The legal system," meaning case law based on statutes and the Constitution, mostly applies to state and federal law, and state and federally funded entities, ie the gov. Private entities can pretty much do what they want. Most states are employment-at-will states meaning employees deal or get out. Once a company sets a rule for itself, it has to comply with it. But in the absence of that, there's nothing to protect the employee.
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/26/05 - 16:25 Post subject:
| rtpd113 wrote: |
I would venture to say the person killed by a pot smoker who is driving is a victim. |
Point taken. But relative to drunk drivers, what are the stats on how many people annually are killed by potsmokers?
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/26/05 - 16:30 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: |
Point taken. But relative to drunk drivers, what are the stats on how many people annually are killed by potsmokers? |
even 1 is too many.
I honestly do not have it, they are under the umbrella of DUI which is not broken down real clearly, I will have to investigate that. Even then, we break it down into DUI/drugs which would encompass, all narcotics and illegal drugs.
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/26/05 - 16:34 Post subject:
| rtpd113 wrote: |
even 1 is too many.
|
Do you think alcohol should be outlawed?
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/26/05 - 16:38 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: |
Point taken. But relative to drunk drivers, what are the stats on how many people annually are killed by potsmokers? |
Some of the research I was able to find, no credible deaths were caused by marijuana use.
http://www.drugwarfacts.com/causes.htm
http://www.cannabis.com/untoldstory/hemp_9.shtml
When I worked police, we classified it under DUI as well. So I suspect that if you broke down the numbers even further you could find a few instances.
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/26/05 - 16:41 Post subject:
| camelia bedelia wrote: |
Do you think alcohol should be outlawed? |
no.
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/26/05 - 16:50 Post subject:
Well then the fact that people can be killed by drivers under the influence of marijuana is an invalid arguement as to why it should not be legalized.
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/26/05 - 16:53 Post subject:
| camelia bedelia wrote: |
Well then the fact that people can be killed by drivers under the influence of marijuana is an invalid arguement as to why it should not be legalized. |
I did not argue that. G3 mentioned that Marijuana is a victimless crime. I responded with Fatal DUI accidents where marijuana was the influencing drug. that was the only point I responded. This thread as gone off topic I will only respond in a new on topic thread.
Health insurance peeps.
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/26/05 - 16:55 Post subject:
Would Cigar smoking fall under the guise of smoking, or is it just Cigarettes?
|
|
|
|
|
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 - 16:57 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: |
Smoking cigarettes at home when your company's policy is not to smoke is against the contract you make with them when you sign on. It's as antithetical to their policy at home as it would be were you smoking at work. |
But that's what I'm asking and what totally pisses me off. It boggles my mind that my company, theoretically, would be allowed to tell me what I can or can't do on my own time. And where does that regulating end? People are so up in arms about the government telling us what to do, and less is more, etc.....but nobody else thinks it's more than a bit freakish that a private company has the right to tell you not to smoke AT HOME? Or in London, on vacation? Seriously, where does it end? Will they then tell me I'm not allowed to eat meat? Not allowed to wear certain types of clothing? That I must have exactly 2.2 children, no more or no less, because that's "company policy?" It's scary when you read it the way you wrote it, and I'm not quite sure why more people aren't upset about it, unless I'm reading something wrong here.  Granted, this is all hypothetical, but if they can get away with this non smoking nonsense, what's to stop them from regulating everything else we do ON OUR OWN TIME? I have NO problem whatsoever complying with what you want me to do while I am on the clock, during the hours you are paying me to be there, but WTF right do you have to tell me what to do when I'm not? (you being the company, I mean)
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/26/05 - 17:05 Post subject:
I understand the concern. When your company tells you what insurance to use, it's just a small step before they tell you what bank and phone company to use.
But healthcare in America is funded through our jobs, so they do get more say. If you were paying for my insurance, and you noticed costs that could be contained were going up, you might try to stop it too.
Still, within the realm of paying for insurance, I still see a disparity. Tell smokers they can't smoke, fine. But then tell the fat guy in the mailroom that he has to lose 175 pounds to get his blood pressure and diabetes under control b/c it's expensive and don't forget to tell the alcoholic that he has to get his ass into rehab b/c all those blue mondays are a drain on departmental productivity. Fair's fair.
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/26/05 - 17:08 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: | | Still, within the realm of paying for insurance, I still see a disparity. Tell smokers they can't smoke, fine. But then tell the fat guy in the mailroom that he has to lose 175 pounds to get his blood pressure and diabetes under control b/c it's expensive and don't forget to tell the alcoholic that he has to get his ass into rehab b/c all those blue mondays are a drain on departmental productivity. Fair's fair. |
Good point Go, I agree.
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/26/05 - 17:08 Post subject:
Instead of parity, I say you want to smoke you pay a higher premium. Period.
It works that way for life insurance.
Life insurance also considers life style, ie activities too.
Should Hyper pay more because he skates, which is considered a more dangerous activity? Therefore his risk for an accident thus a claim is higher.
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
|
|
