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

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: 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.

Yep, it would seem the only recourse against fscktard employers would be to find another job or have all the employees organize and use that clout against the employer.

 

[PricklyPete]

Denying work is pretty crappy...denying health benefits if smoking seems reasonable.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: 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.

Yep, it would seem the only recourse against fscktard employers would be to find another job or have all the employees organize and use that clout against the employer.

Exactly. Use the power of numbers and the threat of being forced to train an entirely new workforce to keep idiot employers in check.

But an equally effective tactic is to find another job with a better, competing employer and bring all the best employees with you. Then that competing employer will destroy the idiot employer in the market.

 

[shortylickens]

Sh1t! When I was in the Navy, they told us we would be smoke free by the year 2000. Oh yeah, THAT went over well. About the only thing they could do to us was take away smoking privledges at various times.
Boot Camp.
"A" School anytime during the school day.
Inside ANY building.
Onboard the ship for a lot of reasons. (Fuel Transfer, Flight Ops, formal events, darken ship.)
If you get in trouble and put on restriction.

But overall they knew damn well they couldnt tell us to simply STOP smoking. It wouldnt work.
What I never figured out was all the guys who started after Boot Camp. You have to go 9 whole weeks with out anything. No cigarettes, no nicotine gum, no patches, no drugs, NOTHING. Its nine solid weeks you have to go without. Why the hell did so many fvckers start up again? After that long cold-turkey you should be cured! Espcially with all the excercise and reasonably healthy food. It never made sense to me.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: shortylickens
Sh1t! When I was in the Navy, they told us we would be smoke free by the year 2000. Oh yeah, THAT went over well. About the only thing they could do to us was take away smoking privledges at various times.
Boot Camp.
"A" School anytime during the school day.
Inside ANY building.
Onboard the ship for a lot of reasons. (Fuel Transfer, Flight Ops, formal events, darken ship.)
If you get in trouble and put on restriction.

But overall they knew damn well they couldnt tell us to simply STOP smoking. It wouldnt work.

The employer is not telling anyone they cannot smoke. They are merely saying you can't smoke and work for them.

The military has legal power over you, the employer does not.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: Amused
The employer is not telling anyone they cannot smoke. They are merely saying you can't smoke and work for them.
The military has legal power over you, the employer does not.

Amused, I love you man and you always have something interesting to say but it seems whenever you make a reply to one of my posts, you miss the point completety. Maybe I'm not communicating well enough, which is usually my problem anyway.

What I was getting at: Even in the military, (where folks really can tell you to do things and you have to obey), they knew they couldnt get us to stop doing something that was so common. I cant figure why a company would force out intelligent, useful people simply because of a bad habit. I think a better way to handle this is slashing health benefits for smokers or making them pay part of the premiums for the company. I went to work for a contractor after I got out, and most of the other workers are vets. These are the kinds of issues that come up now and again.

I guess I just see manpower a little differently than most civilian employers.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Originally posted by: Amused
The employer is not telling anyone they cannot smoke. They are merely saying you can't smoke and work for them.
The military has legal power over you, the employer does not.

Amused, I love you man and you always have something intersesting to say but it seems whenever you make a reply to one of my posts, you miss the point completety. Maybe I'm not communicating well enough, which is usually my problem anyway.

What I was getting at: Even in the military, (where folks really can tell you to do things and you have to obey), they knew they couldnt get us to stop doing something that was so common. I cant figure why a company would force out intelligent, useful people simply because of a bad habit. I think a better way to handle this is slashing health benefits for smokers or making them pay part of the premiums for the company. I went to work for a contractor after I got out, and most of the other workers are vets. These are the kinds of issues that come up now and again.

I guess I just see manpower a little differently than most civilian employers.

I never said I agreed with the employer's decision or would do it myself. I am merely making arguments against those who would ban the employer's freedom of association.

But yes, you are correct. This is a stupid action on the part of the employer... but it's his right to be stupid.

 

[SMOGZINN]

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.

QFT

I have been smoke free for about 3 months now, and it is still hard, but you get use to it.
He has a point about not doing the, just this once. or Just for special occasions, or what ever rationalization you might use. That is how I failed last time I quit, after 9 months smoke free I decided to allow myself just one. By the end of the next month I was back at a pack a day, and hadn't even noticed, so I put them back down, and it was as hard as that first day again. Never will I be that stupid again.

Originally posted by: shortylickens
After that long cold-turkey you should be cured! Espcially with all the excercise and reasonably healthy food. It never made sense to me.

Trust me it is not, 9 months was not long enough for me to be over it. I am sitting here at just over 9 weeks (actually closer to 12) myself and just thinking about it is enough to make my hands shake.
My mother tells me that she still has cravings 20 years after she quit, but that they are infrequent. I don't think you are ever really cured of an addiction.

 

[tooltime]

this reminds me of the story about insurance companies using your dna to look predispositions to illnesses

 

[latino666]

But at a company benefits meeting two years ago, the company president announced, "As of January 1st, 2005, anyone that has nicotine in their body will be fired,? Anita remembers. ?And we sat there in awe. And I spoke out at that time. ?You can't do that to us? And then he said, ?Yes, I can.? I said, ?That's not legal.? And he came back with, ?Yes, it is.??

And it was legal: in Michigan, there?s no law that prevents a boss from firing people virtually at will. At Weyco, that meant no smoking at work, no smoking at home, no smoking period.

Huh, no wonder why MI has one of the highest unemployment rates in the US.

 

[latino666]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: shortylickens
Sh1t! When I was in the Navy, they told us we would be smoke free by the year 2000. Oh yeah, THAT went over well. About the only thing they could do to us was take away smoking privledges at various times.
Boot Camp.
"A" School anytime during the school day.
Inside ANY building.
Onboard the ship for a lot of reasons. (Fuel Transfer, Flight Ops, formal events, darken ship.)
If you get in trouble and put on restriction.

But overall they knew damn well they couldnt tell us to simply STOP smoking. It wouldnt work.

The employer is not telling anyone they cannot smoke. They are merely saying you can't smoke and work for them.

The military has legal power over you, the employer does not.

I think they do if they can fire them just for smoking.

 

[tooltime]

what's next...cameras in our homes?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: latino666

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: shortylickens
Sh1t! When I was in the Navy, they told us we would be smoke free by the year 2000. Oh yeah, THAT went over well. About the only thing they could do to us was take away smoking privledges at various times.
Boot Camp.
"A" School anytime during the school day.
Inside ANY building.
Onboard the ship for a lot of reasons. (Fuel Transfer, Flight Ops, formal events, darken ship.)
If you get in trouble and put on restriction.

But overall they knew damn well they couldnt tell us to simply STOP smoking. It wouldnt work.

The employer is not telling anyone they cannot smoke. They are merely saying you can't smoke and work for them.

The military has legal power over you, the employer does not.

I think they do if they can fire them just for smoking.

That's not legal power. Legal power is the power to prosecute and punish/jail someone using the justice system.

Firing you is the SAME power you have when you tell someone you don't want to be friends anymore. The same power you have when you quit a job for any reason you like. It's called freedom of association and employers are NOT exempt from that right.

 

[inveterate]

EVERYONE ,, GO TO CANADA,, healthy place to be,, people acutally jog to work,, bam,, HEALTHY

 

[VIAN]

That's what you get for smoking.

 

[Gillbot]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: poncherelli2
how is that different from an ad agency not hiring ugly people (and ugly is genetic) or a tree clipping business not hiring short people?

Smoking has nothing to do with job performance. The article even addressed this issue.

I disagree, as a non-smoker I've been tasked with picking up the slack of a coworker out on smoke break.

 

[cavemanmoron]

Originally posted by: slick230
Your body is not your own anymore

Kool

 

[Umberger]

the company's footing the health insurance bill... if they want to try to save money that way, it's their option.

 

[zerocool1]

i don't smoke but I still say that's crap

 

[Kanalua]

Originally posted by: slick230
Your body is not your own anymore

haha...funny how it was never their (or your) company/corporation...

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Your body is your own.
So is your choice to remain gainfully employed at those places.

The employer is paying the insurance bill, and employing smokers make those bills higher.

I don't see a problem with it, especially since they were given 15 months to quit.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Gillbot

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: poncherelli2
how is that different from an ad agency not hiring ugly people (and ugly is genetic) or a tree clipping business not hiring short people?

Smoking has nothing to do with job performance. The article even addressed this issue.

I disagree, as a non-smoker I've been tasked with picking up the slack of a coworker out on smoke break.

This is true, it's documented that smokers are not as productive. I've seen many, many, many instances of non-smokers having to pick up the slack when a smoker is off puffing one.

I've had to do it myself many times.