Employees with nicotine in their systems to be fired...

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Crescent13
:thumbsup:

I think this is a good idea! Now people can't go around destroying their bodies, other peoples bodies (second hand smoke), and the environment.

actually, iirc no peer reviewed study has ever concluded that second hand smoke is bad. in fact, the WHO did a 30 odd year long study, and when they got the results they didn't release them. seeing as how WHO has campaigned against smoke and second hand smoke for pretty much its whole existence, i can't imagine they'd bury a study that found second hand smoke was bad. so what do you think the study found?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
Communism? Holy Straw Man!

That entire post is utterly ridiculous Amused. Typically, you have a mind with the complexity of a light switch. Either it's pure capitalism or communism. Your attempts to emulate single decision binary thinking are admirably pathetic and humurous at the same time.

We have had unregulated markets. They sucked.

I didn't say wealth=rights. You did. I'm saying it shouldn't equal rights. Maybe in a week you'll have evolved beyond your two dimensional thinking and understand the concept. maybe not.

No, you are saying (once you read past all the insults and whining) that the wealthy should have LESS rights than the less wealthy. If an employee is free to quit at any time for any reason, equality would mean the employer should be able to fire at any time for any reason.

BTW, "social justice" has been the rallying cry for every communist movement that ever existed. And we know how all of that turned out. Calling it "ridiculous" and a "strawman" won't make that very simple fact go away. Nor will your posts containing 3/4 insults and 1/4 mindless bleating of the socialist bullsh!t your professors shoved down your throat.

 

[HumblePie]

Originally posted by: broon
It's discrimination and they shouldn't be able to do that to current employees. It really wouldn't be any different than if they fired people for being promiscuous.

There's a difference between legal discrimination and illegal. You haven't learned it despite doing it all the time I bet. For example, do you like to hang out with fat people? Do you like to party with nerds? Do you like to ride in cars that smell like cat piss? Do you like sitting next to a guy on a park bench that mutters to himself? Do you like to give a bum on a street corner a dollar because he has a sign that says, please?

Those are legal discrimintations if you chose NOT to like that and walk away. Same thing here. Employers chose NOT to like something you do and walk away and not give you money, because they don't like you. That's called legal discrimination because it's our freedom of association as Amused puts it. You can chose who you want to be around, who you don't want to be around, who you want to give money to and who you don't.

Think of employer's like this. They do not control you, they are simply BUYING your time. Your product is the work you produce for them. They are a CONSUMER just like you are. Why? They have money, they want a product or a service, and pay you for it. If they don't like you, the work, the product, or the service they can chose NOT TO BUY it at any time. By saying that's discrimination and FORCING them to buy your work because they have to is the same as making you BUY a truck over a car even if you really want the truck. Or making you buy an American car instead of a foreign car even if you don't like American cars. Or making you VOTE for a politician even if you don't like him because he's permiscuous.

You guys are thinking in the wrong direction and assuming additional powers and rights to employers that they REALLY DON'T HAVE.

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
To humble pie and the "free markets will correct everything" posters - Free market correction is a GREAT idea in the closed idealistic vacuum. But let's take a stroll back to early 1900's america when the markets WERE unregulated and examine working conditions for the average employee. No, not what they did after work on their own time, like in the instant case, but how their lives were on the clock.

If you know anything about history - brutal hours, unhealthy working conditions, child labor, no redress, low wages, little opportunity, death, sickness, and multi-generational poverty.

No thanks on the completely unregulated markets.

Sigh, you are doing it again. Making assumptions that aren't real. In early America and early England and those times, people were NOT FREE. There was a class based caste system in place, even if was a looser base caste system then say fuedal Europe, but it was still there. If you weren't born to money, you weren't going to get it except by extreme luck and intelligence. Most people, sadly, lack both. Those that had it, we idolize in America as the greats. Which is neither here nor there and is digressing from the point in hand.

You see, I didn't say free MARKET, I said free LABOR MARKET. There is a difference. What you are talking about is akin to anarchy. Look, there is no such thing as perfect freedom. Can never be. People need to live with one another, and as such there needs to be rules to society. Otherwise, people could rob, kill, and hurt others if they want. Why? There is no to stop them. Same thing with businesses. Back in the days you were refering to, there were a lack of rules for EVERYTHING. If a business wanted to sabotage another business it was fair game. As such, there were only a few ruthless businesses around. If you were a "worker" and weren't born into money then your only chance of living was to work for those ruthless businesses under the conditions they proposed. The federal government laid down laws of INTERACTION. The laws promote competition and freedom for all.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: Amused

No, you are saying (once you read past all the insults and whining) that the wealthy should have LESS rights than the less wealthy.

You should stick to just repeating rhetoric. I have clearly stated my position and this isn't it. It's just your strawman, which you once again set up and knocked down, as you do with every post you make.

I'll say it again: you are the most worthless poster on ATOT, due to the frequency of your posts and their lack of quality, not to mention the know-it-all air you so desperately try to maintain in your posts and with your username.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: HumblePie

Sigh, you are doing it again. Making assumptions that aren't real.

They aren't "assumptions" if they did happen, which they did.

In early America and early England and those times, people were NOT FREE. There was a class based caste system in place, even if was a looser base caste system then say fuedal Europe, but it was still there.

I agree. And what was the root cause of enforcement of the caste system? Money. Lack of opportunity to imrpove one's station because they capital holders and nobility wielded their power absolutely. That is the tyranny of the completely free market - it transfers all the power to the capital holders. It's just as bad as the opposite - a purely communal economy.

Look, there is no such thing as perfect freedom. Can never be. People need to live with one another, and as such there needs to be rules to society. Otherwise, people could rob, kill, and hurt others if they want. Why? There is no to stop them. Same thing with businesses. Back in the days you were refering to, there were a lack of rules for EVERYTHING. If a business wanted to sabotage another business it was fair game. As such, there were only a few ruthless businesses around. If you were a "worker" and weren't born into money then your only chance of living was to work for those ruthless businesses under the conditions they proposed. The federal government laid down laws of INTERACTION. The laws promote competition and freedom for all.

Ok, I agree completely. Perhaps I misread your reply or took the wrong name from a tree of quotes. My apologies.

We do need some market regulation. There are non-absolute/extreme answers to problems. Transferring decision making authority (aka "power") to one group completely destroys the system. The folks arguing for firing over non-impactful lifestyle choices are arguing for that transferrence of power when it's completely unnecessary. The employees have a right to smoke if they want (personally, I detest smoking, but whatever toots your horn), however, I do expect for them to shoulder the *increase* healthcare costs of doing so.

Instead, we get pages of Amused's class warfare, "money=right" argument. Like we need him to tell us again how we're all beholden to corporations for our "sorry" lives... argh.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: Amused

No, you are saying (once you read past all the insults and whining) that the wealthy should have LESS rights than the less wealthy.

You should stick to just repeating rhetoric. I have clearly stated my position and this isn't it. It's just your strawman, which you once again set up and knocked down, as you do with every post you make.

I'll say it again: you are the most worthless poster on ATOT, due to the frequency of your posts and their lack of quality, not to mention the know-it-all air you so desperately try to maintain in your posts and with your username.

You are denying saying exactly what you've said. And then you spend another 3/4 of a post insulting me?

Good gawd, man.

But if your real goal is to tell people how YOU want them to live, then firing them is the way to unethically and immorally exercise your absolute power over them. The capitalist exercising his capital over the serf. It's utter B.S. There is no "choice" here, and what's worse, is the blatant attempt of one person to choose for the other. Ridiculous.

This argiment has been shot down completely. Your total implication here is that while the employee should have absolute freedom of association, the employer should not because he is wealthy. (never mind that the majority of business owners are middle class small busniess owners)

As long as the capital holders can do whatever they want whenever they want, it's all good with Amused. Same song, different day. Money=rights. You are a colossal bore.

The question isn't WHO they are associating with, it's about them telling people how to live because they have the capitalistic power to do so.

And here you make the same lame argument once again. With the added claim that this is somehow the employer telling the employee how to live, even though the employee has every legal right to live however they choose.

And yet, you came back with the claim that you have never made this argument?

So, tell me, if denying employers their right to freedom of association and allowing it for employees, how are you NOT denying the rights of one group, and giving them to another thus making them unequal under the law?

 

[Titan]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: Amused
How about their real intention is exercising their Constitutional right to freedom of association?

As long as the capital holders can do whatever they want whenever they want, it's all good with Amused. Same song, different day. Money=rights. You are a colossal bore.

The question isn't WHO they are associating with, it's about them telling people how to live because they have the capitalistic power to do so. As usual you try to couch it in Boortz-esque gobbedleygook.

You spend pages talking about legislation that not only doesn't exist, but isn't proposed.

Ahh why bother. You are the most boorish poster on ATOT. You speak like a young sponge who has soaked up capitlistic dogma for years and is incapable of independent, rational thought that considers not one, not two, but all sides to an issue and all possible solutions.

Ah, once one reads past the insults, attacks and whining, one finds a central theme:

"Rights are relative to wealth." That's your core argument. Therefore, equal protection under the law becomes moot and is thrown out the window. We now have a reverse caste system in which the wealthy have fewer rights than the poorer classes.

Again, employers cannot, nor do they have the power to tell anyone how to live. The employees are perfectly free to leave and find employment elsewhere. Employees do this every day in this country for their own reasons... yet if it's an employer's reasons, you throw a fit.

Employers have had this right since the founding of this country. Where is the rampant abuse? It doesn't exist. Why? Because employers are as varied in their preferences as employees. There is always a perfect match out there somewhere. By allowing both to find acceptable matches, you foster growth and productivity. Force employers to hire and keep employees they neither want, nor like and productivity will decline.

Your ideas have been tried before, and failed. Communism and the loss of rights in an effort for social justice ALWAYS fails. There is no such thing as "social justice." You cannot lift up one group at the cost of the rights and freedoms of another.

Finally, the practical side: Why would anyone want to work for someone who doesn't want them, or like them?

This is such a ridiculous flamefest I have to weigh in.

Amused, I agree with your principle interpretation of capitalism. The adademic definition of capitalism is a free market with lots of equal producers competeing with one another. Ideally, a free market would balance things out. But that doesn't always happen, because in business, the guy with the biggest d!ck wins. The man with the advantage abuses the rules and gains an even bigger advantage which he can use to buy a bigger one, and then pay to protect it. You end up with economical empires with essentially a king at the top and many underlings beneath. Now, you can try to overthrow the king, but it aint so easy, in some cases it's near impossible and sometimes you're risking your life to do it. Just because you want a fair marketplace. Do you seriously think that anyone could start up a competing OS provider with a model similar to MS? Bill gates would buy them out in a heartbeat, or if they wouldn't sell, muscle and market them into oblivion. When you throw in govt subsidies, we don't have pure capitalism in almost any market in the US, we have Oligopoly and (supposedly) regulated monopoly. A bunch of kings chilling with each other. And the kings follow the king of kings in their market. The duty of the government is to balance the inequities of the marketplace. To protect the rights of the peasants, who, for whatever reason, can't or don't wish to overthrow the king.

To address something else you said, "social justice" does exist. We're not talking about a socialist state. You see things have to be balanced out. On one hand, you have to screw people out of their money, and on the other you have to help your community and donate to charity and the church. The kings and peasants alike have to watch out for the masses of the society. Social justice operates on the same principle capitalism does: Might Makes Right. Might always makes right because how else could someone be judged right? If you think you're right, and you're not mighty enough, guess what, you're wrong. So if you want to live in your house, subsistence farm to live without paying money, guess what, your neighbors are going to come by and take your house because you didn't pay your taxes for the school. If you want to roam the town naked, guess what we'll lock you up because we don't want you to. If we want to lock you up for owning a plant, we will. That's social justice. It's how things get done, the masses, our neighbors, define the rules we live by and enforce them, because they are socially just. For most of this stuff, the kings could care less. You can always lift up one group at the cost of others. Single people pay more taxes because they aren't married. Women can legally give up parental rights of their child but a man has to pay through the nose until it is 18. And judges can sentence drug offenders on urine tests without ever having to take a test themselves. Explain and rationalize it if you want, but it is undeniable social discrimination.

The goal of true capitalism is to promote freedom, which gives us happiness. The role of social justice is to define and maintain a quality of life for everyone, which capitalism does not have the scope to do.

My opinion: we do have a crazy sense of social justice in many respects, and we have a lot of kings who are just full of apathy and want to keep going to the bank. I'm not saying one is right vs the other, but it is a mess. The are also classes of people who protect each other, lawyers, cops, judges, senators, doctors, the good ones won't turn in the bad ones. While we don't legally have a caste system, we don't legally have a truly free market either. We have a market where there are big fish and little fish and we all have to get along. We are free to choose, but choices are limited by our resources (capital).

Now, the original topic was really about personal privacy. What does an employer have a right to know about you? Urine testing people for nicotene may be legal now, but many many such things have had to been outlawed to protect people from greedy capitalists. Or should we just disband OSHA? The issue of privacy is a very real, imprtant, and complicated one. But one thing will remain certain, there will always be discrimination against people even if you don't mention the reason, for it can go on unspoken, and unjustified.

I am done ranting for the day.

We all live in the world our neighbors create for us.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Instead, we get pages of Amused's class warfare, "money=right" argument. Like we need him to tell us again how we're all beholden to corporations for our "sorry" lives... argh.

Um, bullsh!t. In this thread, I have merely stressed that employees and employers should have equal rights. If the employee finds something the employer does objectionable, the employee is free to terminate their agreement at any time and for any reason.

To have equality under the law the employer MUST be afforded that same right.

 

[Rebasxer]

In my expirience in life, if you give someone an inch, they end up taking a mile. I'm not so much opposed to the firing of the smokers as I am to the idea that this is the first step towards an Orwellian society run by big business where your personal life becomes controled by your boss. Most people are arguing the logistics of the case (myself included), rather than the signifigance it might pose for future generations. I think we should stem the trend now rather than having a major problem in the future.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Rebasxer
In my expirience in life, if you give someone an inch, they end up taking a mile. I'm not so much opposed to the firing of the smokers as I am to the idea that this is the first step towards an Orwellian society run by big business where your personal life becomes controled by your boss. Most people are arguing the logistics of the case (myself included), rather than the signifigance it might pose for future generations. I think we should stem the trend now rather than having a major problem in the future.

Again, employers have had this right since the founding of this country.

This is not something new. This is no new step toward anything "Orwellian" nor could employers EVER have Orwellian control over anyone.

 

[HumblePie]

Originally posted by: Titan

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: Amused
How about their real intention is exercising their Constitutional right to freedom of association?

As long as the capital holders can do whatever they want whenever they want, it's all good with Amused. Same song, different day. Money=rights. You are a colossal bore.

The question isn't WHO they are associating with, it's about them telling people how to live because they have the capitalistic power to do so. As usual you try to couch it in Boortz-esque gobbedleygook.

You spend pages talking about legislation that not only doesn't exist, but isn't proposed.

Ahh why bother. You are the most boorish poster on ATOT. You speak like a young sponge who has soaked up capitlistic dogma for years and is incapable of independent, rational thought that considers not one, not two, but all sides to an issue and all possible solutions.

Ah, once one reads past the insults, attacks and whining, one finds a central theme:

"Rights are relative to wealth." That's your core argument. Therefore, equal protection under the law becomes moot and is thrown out the window. We now have a reverse caste system in which the wealthy have fewer rights than the poorer classes.

Again, employers cannot, nor do they have the power to tell anyone how to live. The employees are perfectly free to leave and find employment elsewhere. Employees do this every day in this country for their own reasons... yet if it's an employer's reasons, you throw a fit.

Employers have had this right since the founding of this country. Where is the rampant abuse? It doesn't exist. Why? Because employers are as varied in their preferences as employees. There is always a perfect match out there somewhere. By allowing both to find acceptable matches, you foster growth and productivity. Force employers to hire and keep employees they neither want, nor like and productivity will decline.

Your ideas have been tried before, and failed. Communism and the loss of rights in an effort for social justice ALWAYS fails. There is no such thing as "social justice." You cannot lift up one group at the cost of the rights and freedoms of another.

Finally, the practical side: Why would anyone want to work for someone who doesn't want them, or like them?

This is such a ridiculous flamefest I have to weigh in.

Amused, I agree with your principle interpretation of capitalism. The adademic definition of capitalism is a free market with lots of equal producers competeing with one another. Ideally, a free market would balance things out. But that doesn't always happen, because in business, the guy with the biggest d!ck wins. The man with the advantage abuses the rules and gains an even bigger advantage which he can use to buy a bigger one, and then pay to protect it. You end up with economical empires with essentially a king at the top and many underlings beneath. Now, you can try to overthrow the king, but it aint so easy, in some cases it's near impossible and sometimes you're risking your life to do it. Just because you want a fair marketplace. Do you seriously think that anyone could start up a competing OS provider with a model similar to MS? Bill gates would buy them out in a heartbeat, or if they wouldn't sell, muscle and market them into oblivion. When you throw in govt subsidies, we don't have pure capitalism in almost any market in the US, we have Oligopoly and (supposedly) regulated monopoly. A bunch of kings chilling with each other. And the kings follow the king of kings in their market. The duty of the government is to balance the inequities of the marketplace. To protect the rights of the peasants, who, for whatever reason, can't or don't wish to overthrow the king.

To address something else you said, "social justice" does exist. We're not talking about a socialist state. You see things have to be balanced out. On one hand, you have to screw people out of their money, and on the other you have to help your community and donate to charity and the church. The kings and peasants alike have to watch out for the masses of the society. Social justice operates on the same principle capitalism does: Might Makes Right. Might always makes right because how else could someone be judged right? If you think you're right, and you're not mighty enough, guess what, you're wrong. So if you want to live in your house, subsistence farm to live without paying money, guess what, your neighbors are going to come by and take your house because you didn't pay your taxes for the school. If you want to roam the town naked, guess what we'll lock you up because we don't want you to. If we want to lock you up for owning a plant, we will. That's social justice. It's how things get done, the masses, our neighbors, define the rules we live by and enforce them, because they are socially just. For most of this stuff, the kings could care less. You can always lift up one group at the cost of others. Single people pay more taxes because they aren't married. Women can legally give up parental rights of their child but a man has to pay through the nose until it is 18. And judges can sentence drug offenders on urine tests without ever having to take a test themselves. Explain and rationalize it if you want, but it is undeniable social discrimination.

The goal of true capitalism is to promote freedom, which gives us happiness. The role of social justice is to define and maintain a quality of life for everyone, which capitalism does not have the scope to do.

My opinion: we do have a crazy sense of social justice in many respects, and we have a lot of kings who are just full of apathy and want to keep going to the bank. I'm not saying one is right vs the other, but it is a mess. The are also classes of people who protect each other, lawyers, cops, judges, senators, doctors, the good ones won't turn in the bad ones. While we don't legally have a caste system, we don't legally have a truly free market either. We have a market where there are big fish and little fish and we all have to get along. We are free to choose, but choices are limited by our resources (capital).

Now, the original topic was really about personal privacy. What does an employer have a right to know about you? Urine testing people for nicotene may be legal now, but many many such things have had to been outlawed to protect people from greedy capitalists. Or should we just disband OSHA? The issue of privacy is a very real, imprtant, and complicated one. But one thing will remain certain, there will always be discrimination against people even if you don't mention the reason, for it can go on unspoken, and unjustified.

I am done ranting for the day.

We all live in the world our neighbors create for us.

Oh good GAWD! You are talking monopoly of a NICHE in the market structure. I'm talking about the market as a WHOLE. Go back to olden times. In a given town, region, or state there was ONE or relatively FEW businesses. THAT WAS IT. You had no choice. I don't care what the business was, but that was ALL THERE WAS. You either worked for them or didn't and starved to death. Come to modern times. Pick almost any city in America. There isn't ONE business ruling the land anymore. Microsoft might own their little corner of the OPERATING systems market, but they don't own San Francisco. They don't own ALL markets in and around where they are based. Go back to early America. This was not the case. Regions wre owned and DOMINATED by the big businesses. There was no way in hell to start something new without government intervention. They controlled everything. If you didn't work for them in some capacity you couldn't work anywhere in that region at all. You had to move, do illegal activities, or die. Goverment business laws only prevent THIS sort of thing from happening ever again and that's ALL they should prevent.

Government laws turned a CASTE based business system into a free market based system. It turned employers into consumers. They BUY your time. They don't and can't dictate your time. However, the reverse holds true. It is THEIR money and if they don't want to spend it on your time, for whatever reason, they don't have to. Going further with the laws to force employers to spend money on you when they don't want to is going back to olden days in the REVERSE. Instead of the weathly having the power over the poor, it's the poor having the power over the wealthy. This is what Amused pointed out.

The laws the government instigated for business was to do one thing, give people on ALL sides a choice and freedom to make choices. If you want to work for someone, you have that freedom. Want to start a new business? you have that freedom. Want buy X versus Y, you have that choice. That choice cuts both ways.

Also, the laws weren't to prevent monopolies through normal competitive business means. If you find a way to make a vastly superior product then your competitors at a vastly cheaper price, guess what? You can and WILL beat out all the competition if they can't figure out a way to compete. If no one can figure out on their own how to compete, they deserve to go under.

The laws were put in place to prevent the opposite from happening. Businesses not figuring out on their own how to compete. Businesses stealing the means, or coercing the competition not to compete. THATS the market laws we have.

 

[ElFenix]

we didn't really have free labor markets in the early 20th century. free markets, in the literature, assumes competitive markets. that simply wasn't the case. many markets were monopsony situations, where you had almost perfect competition on the supply side but only one buyer on the demand side. that isn't a good market. so laws were passed allowing the formation of labor unions, which made the situation a bilateral monopoly. such a setup is more competitve than a monopsony. most labor 'advances' since then have been due to such bilateral monopoly.

notice that in labor markets that are more competitive there hasn't been much of a unionization movement.

 

[HumblePie]

Originally posted by: Rebasxer
In my expirience in life, if you give someone an inch, they end up taking a mile. I'm not so much opposed to the firing of the smokers as I am to the idea that this is the first step towards an Orwellian society run by big business where your personal life becomes controled by your boss. Most people are arguing the logistics of the case (myself included), rather than the signifigance it might pose for future generations. I think we should stem the trend now rather than having a major problem in the future.

It will NEVER happen so long a businesses can't dictate OTHER businesses. That's what was wrong in the past. Since businesses can't dictate other businesses, it will NEVER come to that. Why? because if you don't like it, you can START YOUR OWN business. If you can compete in the market place with a better product and/or price then the other business can only retaliate with making a better product and/or price. They can't stop you from making a better product.

If company A doesn't want to hire smokers, for whatever reason, the smokers STILL need to do something. They can always form together into a competing business and if they can compete will prosper. If not, oh well. They need to find a new line of work or a business that will hire them and can compete.

I can't beleive you guys don't see this. Here let me use this as an example.

You are a new parent looking to hire a nanny. You obviously want the best for your kid, because that's your kid. You do as selective a screening process as you can before hiring this person to find the most qualified to take care of your child. This makes you an employer. Chances are you will find MANY qualified applicants for the position. How do you chose? Well, this is where you need to discriminate because you can select only ONE. Chances are, you are going to try to select a person with the same values you have to hopefully instill those in your child. You make your choice.

Now, six months down the rode, you find out that the person taking care of your child for you, which has done a remarkable job for six months, likes do something you don't like for whatever reason. It doesn't affect their work performance, BUT you don't want your child accidently picking up on whatever it is they do. Would you want to fire that person? Chances are, yes. Currently, in most states, you can. What you want would prevent you from firing them.

Bleh, my work day is over and my neffing quota is full. I can't beleive people can't see logic.

 

[SuperSix]

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
great, now why don't they fire all blacks because they are 2x as likely to get heart disease.

Let's not forget to toss the homosexuals amles in there.. High risk behaviour, eh?

How do they determine the severity with that? What if a guy only does oral? Is that as high a risk as one that does anal?

This whole thing sucks. :|

 

[Ornery]

If I can't smoke pot on the weekends without fear of losing my job, then this ain't no different. They ought to extend it to alcohol as well. At least I'd consider that to be more fair and even handed.

 

[Sureshot324]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: slick230

Originally posted by: KK
Its as much the smokers right to smoke as it is the employers right to fire. If you don't like it, find another job.

Read my other posts in this thread. NOW it's about snoking. What if employers start firing people for participating in certain other activities? Is your employer going to be able to dictate what kind of lifestyle you have outside of their workplace and off their property? Are they going to tell you what you can and can't do on your vacation, because if they find out they might fire you?

So what's your stance on priests getting married?

Being married would have an effect on a priests job performance, since most christians wouldn't want a married man as their priest.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Rebasxer

No L in companies, anyhow I'd much rather blame the massive greed of corporate America rather than the elderly.

An exec takes a few million dollars. The elderly take billions and billions with thousand dollar bypass surgeries, ICU care, and perpetual usage of prescription drugs.

 

[remagavon]

Amused is completely right, and unfortunately not many people here will be able to see it. Thumbs up for having the balls to defend what you believe in.

 

[CDC Mail Guy]

The keyword is "nicotine"...NOT "smoking". Thats scary indeed. What if someone was still on the patch?

 

[Red Dawn]

Couldn't they have just not offered those who smoke health benefits? What about Employees who don't smoke but who haqve immediate members in their family that do and are covered by the companies health care provider or Insurance? Do they or should they have the right to fire the employee because their spouse smokes?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Couldn't they have just not offered those who smoke health benefits? What about Employees who don't smoke but who haqve immediate members in their family that do and are covered by the companies health care provider or Insurance? Do they or should they have the right to fire the employee because their spouse smokes?

Should an employee have the right to quit because their employer's spouse smokes and it offends them?

If the answer is: "An employee should have the right to quit for any reason at any time," then you have your answer for the employer as well.

Anything else would destroy equality of rights and equal protection under the law.

 

[Modeps]

Smokers have to routinely go outside their office building to light up. 10-15 minute breaks every hour or so? That sounds like it would be a good enough reason to fire someone.

 

[meltdown75]

i will take this opportunity to say that i simply don't smoke anymore.

i haven't had a pack in 3 weeks and the past 2 weekends when i was out (having beers) - i only had a couple drags. i feel much better.

yay me

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: meltdown75
i will take this opportunity to say that i simply don't smoke anymore.

i haven't had a pack in 3 weeks and the past 2 weekends when i was out (having beers) - i only had a couple drags. i feel much better.

yay me

Good for you! I quit a few years ago. To this day, it's the hardest thing I've ever done, and am still doing.

The one downfall is EVER believing you can "have just one." Never believe it and never make deals with yourself and your success will be permanent.

 

[meltdown75]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: meltdown75
i will take this opportunity to say that i simply don't smoke anymore.

i haven't had a pack in 3 weeks and the past 2 weekends when i was out (having beers) - i only had a couple drags. i feel much better.

yay me

Good for you! I quit a few years ago. To this day, it's the hardest thing I've ever done, and am still doing.

The one downfall is EVER believing you can "have just one." Never believe it and never make deals with yourself and your success will be permanent.

thanks man. :beer: in just a few weeks, i have noticed my stamina levels increasing when playing pickup hockey - i don't get tired as fast and i seem to just overall be able to play better. i'm sure this has something to do with not smoking, but maybe some of the rust from the summer is simply falling off.