Bourne man fired for smoking

[Kwaipie]

It won't be long before a company that hires you will be getting a DNA sample and determining that there is a .04% chance that you could get brain fever and denying you employment or insurance.

Of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
It won't be long before a company that hires you will be getting a DNA sample and determining that there is a .04% chance that you could get brain fever and denying you employment or insurance.

Of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation

:thumbsup:

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm an ex-smoker (7 years now), and I don't think companies should be allowed to dictate what people do in their off-hours if it does not effect their work. Smoking itself IMO has nothing to do with this. I was unaware of this policy of Scotts. I will now be boycotting all their products. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Okay hows this. If you want health insurance, you quit smoking. If you dont quit, no health insurance.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
If he wants the privileges of health benefits from the company; then he needs to abide by the company's rules to be elgible for them.

The company has a no-smoking policy for promote a healthy lifestyle and he apparently has ignored it.

What's next? No alcohol? No fatty foods? Restricted diets? Daily weigh-ins? Mandatory gym membership and participation? Prohibition of dangerous activities like skiing, mountain biking, or water sports?

Well see if the insurance agencies worked that way you'd have a point. Health insurance companies charge more for smokers, not drinkers or the obese.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm an ex-smoker (7 years now), and I don't think companies should be allowed to dictate what people do in their off-hours if it does not effect their work. Smoking itself IMO has nothing to do with this. I was unaware of this policy of Scotts. I will now be boycotting all their products. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Okay hows this. If you want health insurance, you quit smoking. If you dont quit, no health insurance.

I don't think you understand how insurance works.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
If he wants the privileges of health benefits from the company; then he needs to abide by the company's rules to be elgible for them.

The company has a no-smoking policy for promote a healthy lifestyle and he apparently has ignored it.

What's next? No alcohol? No fatty foods? Restricted diets? Daily weigh-ins? Mandatory gym membership and participation? Prohibition of dangerous activities like skiing, mountain biking, or water sports?

Well see if the insurance agencies worked that way you'd have a point. Health insurance companies charge more for smokers, not drinkers or the obese.

Why not? Drinking and obesity (especially obesity) are as costly or even more costly risks for healthcare as smoking. Answer that question, and you'd figured out my point. Because they can't charge more. If they could, they would.


edit: and do you people think that companies pay their employee's taxes too? :roll:

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin
Well, that's what you get for fostering a society where companies are worshipped.

As opposed to a society where government is worshipped I suppose?

I don't quite see where government comes into this.

EagleKeeper's comment is actually a pretty typical of the American business worship. Try this little social experiment - make a thread in OT about a fictional friend of yours that got fired because he got smoked pot on a friday night and suddenly you'll see nearly everyone say the company was right. This smoking/nicotine trend is fairly new, but give it some time and it'll catch on, just like drug testing exploded in the 90s.

Yes, but pot has the benefit of decades of government propaganda and being illegal. In the meantime, plenty of companies still don't drug test. And then your "business worship" comment just looks like a narrowminded troll. People need to organize in some fashion in order to create. If you want to knock megacorps, that's fine, but to knock all business in general for the fault of the few megacorps is just unreasonable and a worse position than even that of EK's.

I'm not knocking corporations (mega or otherwise), but rather people's outlook towards them. I don't think you'll disagree that Americans are much more pro-capitalism than other developed countries. They work longer hours (sometimes absurdly long hours, like the dumbass developers working 80hrs for 80k), they're way more devoted, have less vacation, oppose regulations on instinct alone, and have no problem with the idea of companies intruding in your personal life (as proven the very fact that drug testing is supported). When I say worship, I mean this unhealthy outlook whereby business almost becomes an end in itself, rather than (as I look at it) an important and extremely useful tool.

It is quite possible to have a healthy economy and a rich country without this type of view.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin
Well, that's what you get for fostering a society where companies are worshipped.

As opposed to a society where government is worshipped I suppose?

I don't quite see where government comes into this.

EagleKeeper's comment is actually a pretty typical of the American business worship. Try this little social experiment - make a thread in OT about a fictional friend of yours that got fired because he got smoked pot on a friday night and suddenly you'll see nearly everyone say the company was right. This smoking/nicotine trend is fairly new, but give it some time and it'll catch on, just like drug testing exploded in the 90s.

Yes, but pot has the benefit of decades of government propaganda and being illegal. In the meantime, plenty of companies still don't drug test. And then your "business worship" comment just looks like a narrowminded troll. People need to organize in some fashion in order to create. If you want to knock megacorps, that's fine, but to knock all business in general for the fault of the few megacorps is just unreasonable and a worse position than even that of EK's.

I'm not knocking corporations (mega or otherwise), but rather people's outlook towards them. I don't think you'll disagree that Americans are much more pro-capitalism than other developed countries. They work longer hours (sometimes absurdly long hours, like the dumbass developers working 80hrs for 80k), they're way more devoted, have less vacation, oppose regulations on instinct alone, and have no problem with the idea of companies intruding in your personal life (as proven the very fact that drug testing is supported). When I say worship, I mean this unhealthy outlook whereby business almost becomes an end in itself, rather than (as I look at it) an important and extremely useful tool.

It is quite possible to have a healthy economy and a rich country without this type of view.

You see to have an inaccurate view of capitalism is, as what you describe is not capitalism.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: ayabe
If they want to persecute smokers then they need to persecute and fire fat people, because if I'm not mistaken heart disease is the number 1 killer in the US and can be brought on by smoking, unhealthy eating, etc. If their real motivation is to cut health care costs then what's fair is fair.

As usual your point bears little if anysemblance to reality!!
Most health plans that you get don`t ask you if you are fat or over weight. But they do want to know of your a smoker....because in reality smokers can and do have more things go wrong due to smoking.
There are arguably a whol lot of over weight people who would amaze you at how they get around and arr productive who are also "healthy" when it comes to getting sick.

 

[JEDIYoda]

sorry repost...this really suks..

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: ayabe
If they want to persecute smokers then they need to persecute and fire fat people, because if I'm not mistaken heart disease is the number 1 killer in the US and can be brought on by smoking, unhealthy eating, etc. If their real motivation is to cut health care costs then what's fair is fair.

As usual your point bears little if anysemblance to reality!!
Most health plans that you get don`t ask you if you are fat or over weight. But they do want to know of your a smoker....because in reality smokers can and do have more things go wrong due to smoking.
There are arguably a whol lot of over weight people who would amaze you at how they get around and arr productive who are also "healthy" when it comes to getting sick.

Uh... no. Obesity causes just as many (if not more) health problems as smoking.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin
Well, that's what you get for fostering a society where companies are worshipped.

As opposed to a society where government is worshipped I suppose?

I don't quite see where government comes into this.

EagleKeeper's comment is actually a pretty typical of the American business worship. Try this little social experiment - make a thread in OT about a fictional friend of yours that got fired because he got smoked pot on a friday night and suddenly you'll see nearly everyone say the company was right. This smoking/nicotine trend is fairly new, but give it some time and it'll catch on, just like drug testing exploded in the 90s.

Yes, but pot has the benefit of decades of government propaganda and being illegal. In the meantime, plenty of companies still don't drug test. And then your "business worship" comment just looks like a narrowminded troll. People need to organize in some fashion in order to create. If you want to knock megacorps, that's fine, but to knock all business in general for the fault of the few megacorps is just unreasonable and a worse position than even that of EK's.

I'm not knocking corporations (mega or otherwise), but rather people's outlook towards them. I don't think you'll disagree that Americans are much more pro-capitalism than other developed countries. They work longer hours (sometimes absurdly long hours, like the dumbass developers working 80hrs for 80k), they're way more devoted, have less vacation, oppose regulations on instinct alone, and have no problem with the idea of companies intruding in your personal life (as proven the very fact that drug testing is supported). When I say worship, I mean this unhealthy outlook whereby business almost becomes an end in itself, rather than (as I look at it) an important and extremely useful tool.

It is quite possible to have a healthy economy and a rich country without this type of view.

You see to have an inaccurate view of capitalism is, as what you describe is not capitalism.

No, you have an inaccurate view of what I'm saying. Unless you can explain how these things are incompatible with capitalism
-people putting more emphasis on their free time
-making it illegal to reveal very personal information

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin
Well, that's what you get for fostering a society where companies are worshipped.

As opposed to a society where government is worshipped I suppose?

I don't quite see where government comes into this.

EagleKeeper's comment is actually a pretty typical of the American business worship. Try this little social experiment - make a thread in OT about a fictional friend of yours that got fired because he got smoked pot on a friday night and suddenly you'll see nearly everyone say the company was right. This smoking/nicotine trend is fairly new, but give it some time and it'll catch on, just like drug testing exploded in the 90s.

Yes, but pot has the benefit of decades of government propaganda and being illegal. In the meantime, plenty of companies still don't drug test. And then your "business worship" comment just looks like a narrowminded troll. People need to organize in some fashion in order to create. If you want to knock megacorps, that's fine, but to knock all business in general for the fault of the few megacorps is just unreasonable and a worse position than even that of EK's.

I'm not knocking corporations (mega or otherwise), but rather people's outlook towards them. I don't think you'll disagree that Americans are much more pro-capitalism than other developed countries. They work longer hours (sometimes absurdly long hours, like the dumbass developers working 80hrs for 80k), they're way more devoted, have less vacation, oppose regulations on instinct alone, and have no problem with the idea of companies intruding in your personal life (as proven the very fact that drug testing is supported). When I say worship, I mean this unhealthy outlook whereby business almost becomes an end in itself, rather than (as I look at it) an important and extremely useful tool.

It is quite possible to have a healthy economy and a rich country without this type of view.

You see to have an inaccurate view of capitalism is, as what you describe is not capitalism.

No, you have an inaccurate view of what I'm saying. Unless you can explain how these things are incompatible with capitalism
-people putting more emphasis on their free time
-making it illegal to reveal very personal information

Capitalism (or economic liberalism as it is more rightly called) is the economics of free and voluntary associations, so I'm not sure where either of those ties in with capitalism or this this thread even. If a person wants to work 100 hours a week or not at all, that's their business. All time is "free time" according to capitalism. Some people hate their work, others are only happy when working -- who are you to decide? If you choose to associate yourself with others who will reveal confidential information, and they reveal that to you in advance, then that is your business as well (failure of disclosure is fraud by definition).
Your own personal values are not the basis of all that is rational, and it is IMO quite irrational to think so.

This thread is about whether or not a corporation can choose to disassociate itself with an employee solely on the basis of what he does during that time that he does not sell to the corporation, and which doesn't affect his performance during the time he does sell.

 

[JBarr]

It's been proven obese employees cost more than non obese employees and smokers to ensure & employ.

They are however a protected class, you can't fire them for being fat.

You can however fire an employee for smoking, and in some states for wearing the wrong color socks to work.

Edit, not stooping to Dave's level & trolling this thread.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin
Well, that's what you get for fostering a society where companies are worshipped.

As opposed to a society where government is worshipped I suppose?

I don't quite see where government comes into this.

EagleKeeper's comment is actually a pretty typical of the American business worship. Try this little social experiment - make a thread in OT about a fictional friend of yours that got fired because he got smoked pot on a friday night and suddenly you'll see nearly everyone say the company was right. This smoking/nicotine trend is fairly new, but give it some time and it'll catch on, just like drug testing exploded in the 90s.

Yes, but pot has the benefit of decades of government propaganda and being illegal. In the meantime, plenty of companies still don't drug test. And then your "business worship" comment just looks like a narrowminded troll. People need to organize in some fashion in order to create. If you want to knock megacorps, that's fine, but to knock all business in general for the fault of the few megacorps is just unreasonable and a worse position than even that of EK's.

I'm not knocking corporations (mega or otherwise), but rather people's outlook towards them. I don't think you'll disagree that Americans are much more pro-capitalism than other developed countries. They work longer hours (sometimes absurdly long hours, like the dumbass developers working 80hrs for 80k), they're way more devoted, have less vacation, oppose regulations on instinct alone, and have no problem with the idea of companies intruding in your personal life (as proven the very fact that drug testing is supported). When I say worship, I mean this unhealthy outlook whereby business almost becomes an end in itself, rather than (as I look at it) an important and extremely useful tool.

It is quite possible to have a healthy economy and a rich country without this type of view.

You see to have an inaccurate view of capitalism is, as what you describe is not capitalism.

No, you have an inaccurate view of what I'm saying. Unless you can explain how these things are incompatible with capitalism
-people putting more emphasis on their free time
-making it illegal to reveal very personal information

Capitalism (or economic liberalism as it is more rightly called) is the economics of free and voluntary associations, so I'm not sure where either of those ties in with capitalism or this this thread even. If a person wants to work 100 hours a week or not at all, that's their business. All time is "free time" according to capitalism. Some people hate their work, others are only happy when working -- who are you to decide? If you choose to associate yourself with others who will reveal confidential information, and they reveal that to you in advance, then that is your business as well (failure of disclosure is fraud by definition).
Your own personal values are not the basis of all that is rational, and it is IMO quite irrational to think so.

This thread is about whether or not a corporation can choose to disassociate itself with an employee solely on the basis of what he does during that time that he does not sell to the corporation, and which doesn't affect his performance during the time he does sell.

So you're not opposed to things like lifestyle screening in principle, just that this guy wasn't told of this when he was hired? I'm really trying to understand how you can believe that companies should have the right two hire and fire anyone without any restrictions, yet be opposed to things like screening for smokers, fat people, subs, doms etc.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm an ex-smoker (7 years now), and I don't think companies should be allowed to dictate what people do in their off-hours if it does not effect their work. Smoking itself IMO has nothing to do with this. I was unaware of this policy of Scotts. I will now be boycotting all their products. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Why?

EDIT: Martin, reflects some of my thoughts to a degree. I'll say it outloud that I don't agree with you that companies shouldn't be allowed to dictate the personal lives of their workers. Infact I really don't see why corporations aren't allowed to discriminate based on race, sex or other controversial factors. If a business owner decides to not sell or employee african americans because he's a racist prick then he should be able to so. After all it's his business and I don't see how the rights of the discriminated indiviual are violated.

By the way I work for a corporation that drug tests and being a twenty year old college student I don't like it one bit. I do NOT believe that drug testing employees should in anyway be restricted or illegal. This summer I will be quiting that job and that's largely one of the reasons I am quiting.

EDIT: I suppose one could argue that everything an employee does in their off-hours does have some kind of impact on their work performance.

 

[Zebo]

Smokers are lazy/less productive compared to other workers by the nature of having to get thier fix in every 15 minutes. I've seen them in some of the guys I've hired and now as a rule won't hire smokers. Smokers also hurt your health insurance premiums. Add in all the subjective negatives like smelly and coughy seals the deal, no smokers.

Of course people should be able to hire whom they wish. I'm looking for a non-smoking big breasted receptionist right now.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin
Well, that's what you get for fostering a society where companies are worshipped.

As opposed to a society where government is worshipped I suppose?

I don't quite see where government comes into this.

EagleKeeper's comment is actually a pretty typical of the American business worship. Try this little social experiment - make a thread in OT about a fictional friend of yours that got fired because he got smoked pot on a friday night and suddenly you'll see nearly everyone say the company was right. This smoking/nicotine trend is fairly new, but give it some time and it'll catch on, just like drug testing exploded in the 90s.

Yes, but pot has the benefit of decades of government propaganda and being illegal. In the meantime, plenty of companies still don't drug test. And then your "business worship" comment just looks like a narrowminded troll. People need to organize in some fashion in order to create. If you want to knock megacorps, that's fine, but to knock all business in general for the fault of the few megacorps is just unreasonable and a worse position than even that of EK's.

I'm not knocking corporations (mega or otherwise), but rather people's outlook towards them. I don't think you'll disagree that Americans are much more pro-capitalism than other developed countries. They work longer hours (sometimes absurdly long hours, like the dumbass developers working 80hrs for 80k), they're way more devoted, have less vacation, oppose regulations on instinct alone, and have no problem with the idea of companies intruding in your personal life (as proven the very fact that drug testing is supported). When I say worship, I mean this unhealthy outlook whereby business almost becomes an end in itself, rather than (as I look at it) an important and extremely useful tool.

It is quite possible to have a healthy economy and a rich country without this type of view.

You see to have an inaccurate view of capitalism is, as what you describe is not capitalism.

No, you have an inaccurate view of what I'm saying. Unless you can explain how these things are incompatible with capitalism
-people putting more emphasis on their free time
-making it illegal to reveal very personal information

Capitalism (or economic liberalism as it is more rightly called) is the economics of free and voluntary associations, so I'm not sure where either of those ties in with capitalism or this this thread even. If a person wants to work 100 hours a week or not at all, that's their business. All time is "free time" according to capitalism. Some people hate their work, others are only happy when working -- who are you to decide? If you choose to associate yourself with others who will reveal confidential information, and they reveal that to you in advance, then that is your business as well (failure of disclosure is fraud by definition).
Your own personal values are not the basis of all that is rational, and it is IMO quite irrational to think so.

This thread is about whether or not a corporation can choose to disassociate itself with an employee solely on the basis of what he does during that time that he does not sell to the corporation, and which doesn't affect his performance during the time he does sell.

So you're not opposed to things like lifestyle screening in principle, just that this guy wasn't told of this when he was hired? I'm really trying to understand how you can believe that companies should have the right two hire and fire anyone without any restrictions, yet be opposed to things like screening for smokers, fat people, subs, doms etc.

This isn't an at-will issue. The employer is terminating for-cause. I strongly disapprove of the for-cause reason, i.e. that the individual engages in his off-hours in a socially-unacceptable vice. At-will is an entirely different issue, that protects the employee as well as the employer, or how would you like to be told you couldn't quit a job if you wanted to?

 

[Termagant]

So what exactly is the problem? For years we've been having drug tests for drugs which have much milder health effects than cigarettes, it's just that those drugs happen to be illegal. And the reason they are illegal isn't based on medical knowledge and facts but rather old cultural traditions and misconceptions.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Termagant
So what exactly is the problem? For years we've been having drug tests for drugs which have much milder health effects than cigarettes, it's just that those drugs happen to be illegal. And the reason they are illegal isn't based on medical knowledge and facts but rather old cultural traditions and misconceptions.

The problem is just that, cigarrettes are legal, but pot, cocain, etc.. are illegal. That is the issue with me at least.

I am not disputing which drug is the least healthy or more detrimental, but the law should play a part here.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
If he wants the privileges of health benefits from the company; then he needs to abide by the company's rules to be elgible for them.

The company has a no-smoking policy for promote a healthy lifestyle and he apparently has ignored it.

What's next?

No alcohol? No fatty foods? Restricted diets? Daily weigh-ins? Mandatory gym membership and participation?

Prohibition of dangerous activities like skiing, mountain biking, or water sports?

Bahahahahahahaha :laugh:

Awwwwwww look at all the people unhappy with their Political heroes.

What? Do you understand that it is Democrats that are doing this? Do you ever say anything besides "Bahahahahaha" or "heroes"?

Your "heroes" the Democrats are screwing this one big boy.

Dave's heros are the anti-government. Party affiliation does not matter - it is who is in charge

No, his heroes are communists.

what is it with you calling everything and anything communist. That term went out of vogue 15 years ago.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Termagant
So what exactly is the problem? For years we've been having drug tests for drugs which have much milder health effects than cigarettes, it's just that those drugs happen to be illegal. And the reason they are illegal isn't based on medical knowledge and facts but rather old cultural traditions and misconceptions.

The problem is just that, cigarrettes are legal, but pot, cocain, etc.. are illegal. That is the issue with me at least.

I am not disputing which drug is the least healthy or more detrimental, but the law should play a part here.

And while this is not quite the direction I am coming from, it must be said that this is a major issue. Whether or not one did illegal drugs on or off the job, it could not be argued that simply using them made one a criminal, because that is the law. OTOH, using tobacco is still completely legal. Thus, testing and firing for-cause for use of tobacco begins a slippery slope that we really don't want to go down. What other legal activities do you do that might be frowned upon? Pick your nose? Fap to too much porn? You know who you are....

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Termagant
So what exactly is the problem? For years we've been having drug tests for drugs which have much milder health effects than cigarettes, it's just that those drugs happen to be illegal. And the reason they are illegal isn't based on medical knowledge and facts but rather old cultural traditions and misconceptions.

The problem is just that, cigarrettes are legal, but pot, cocain, etc.. are illegal. That is the issue with me at least.

I am not disputing which drug is the least healthy or more detrimental, but the law should play a part here.

And while this is not quite the direction I am coming from, it must be said that this is a major issue. Whether or not one did illegal drugs on or off the job, it could not be argued that simply using them made one a criminal, because that is the law. OTOH, using tobacco is still completely legal. Thus, testing and firing for-cause for use of tobacco begins a slippery slope that we really don't want to go down. What other legal activities do you do that might be frowned upon? Pick your nose? Fap to too much porn? You know who you are....

Bolded line would clear up most of ATOT easily

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: JBarr
It's been proven obese employees cost more than non obese employees and smokers to ensure & employ.

They are however a protected class, you can't fire them for being fat.

You can however fire an employee for smoking, and in some states for wearing the wrong color socks to work.

Edit, not stooping to Dave's level & trolling this thread.

Awwwwwww :lips: Who were you before bannation?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
BS in my opinion.

How far can you carry this crap? Deciding you might die in a fire because you live too far from a fire hydrant, and are therefore a bad insurance risk?

You get hired to do a job. So long as you can do the job, that should be it.

Offering health insurance is just an incentive to keep able workers for going elsewhere for empolyment.

Actually this is the key point of all of this.

Is health insurance a right?

Or are only the rich entitled to live?