Massachusetts Hospital Association: Smokers Need Not Apply

[matt0611]

http://www.boston.com/news/health/blog/2010/11/hospital_group_1.html?rss_id=Top+Stories

So the Massachusetts Hospital Association will now refuse to hire people who smoke, not at work, but ON THEIR OWN TIME, even at home.

Guess Barack Obama couldn't work here.

Why? Because they say its a risky activity. Also, this is not even at a hospital, we are talking about the headquarters that don't directly treat people.

So if more risk is more reward can I not hire fat people because of their lifestyle?

What about gays If gay sex was more risky could I ban homosexuals too?
Gay men live statistically very short lives.

What about blacks? More likely to die earlier in life, even more if they live in a bad neighborhood.

So which is it? Do I have the right to discriminate about who I choose to work for my private place of employment for any reason or not? Whats the difference between a smoker and a someone who practices homosexual sex? Both are more risky lifestyles. Shouldn't I be free to decide who works for me and who does not?

 

[preCRT]

Smokers are not a protected class under the ADA or EEOC.

 

[Fear No Evil]

I wouldn't hire liberals either if I were them.

 

[matt0611]

Smokers are not a protected class under the ADA or EEOC.

I know this. But put that aside for a moment. I am just asking the question out of logic. Why protect people who do one thing, and not people who do another?

And are you saying its ok if I don't hire overweight people? They're not a protected class.

 

[shortylickens]

I know this. But put that aside for a moment. I am just asking the question out of logic. Why protect people who do one thing, and not people who do another?

And are you saying its ok if I don't hire overweight people? They're not a protected class.

Because some of those people will organize and march on Washington and sue and riot.
Some will not.

Actions speak louder than words.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

And people are scared of losing their freedoms to government.

 

[Dekasa]

I know this. But put that aside for a moment. I am just asking the question out of logic. Why protect people who do one thing, and not people who do another?

And are you saying its ok if I don't hire overweight people? They're not a protected class.

Being black or homosexual isn't a choice. Being a smoker/fat is. You can only discriminate based on the choices people have made/make, not on how God made them.

 

[matt0611]

Being black or homosexual isn't a choice. Being a smoker/fat is. You can only discriminate based on the choices people have made/make, not on how God made them.

Having homosexual sex is not a choice?

So you're saying I can make a store and put a sign: "Now Hireing: Fatties not apply" and I won't get sued?

What if you choose to live in poor neighborhood?

 

[Dekasa]

Having homosexual sex is not a choice?

So you're saying I can make a store and put a sign: "Now Hireing: Fatties not apply" and I won't get sued?

You'd have to prove that homosexual sex is what causes the shorter life-span, not simply being homosexual. And from my best information, a number of homosexuals don't have full-on homosexual sex. Also, I haven't seen anything that says they die sooner, link?

Anyone can sue you for anything, I won't say you won't get sued. I'm saying you should win, though.

 

[matt0611]

And from my best information, a number of homosexuals don't have full-on homosexual sex. Also, I haven't seen anything that says they die sooner, link?

Well, I've always heard that statistic thrown around, thought it was common knowledge, if you put in homosexual life expectancy in google you will find a lot of information.

Heres one study: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/3/657.abstract

But we're getting a bit off track here, don't see why I should have to "prove it".

So if it was proven, you'd be ok with it?


What if an employee has AIDS? Or another disease? Would that be ok to not hire him?

 

[nobodyknows]

Smokers are not a protected class under the ADA or EEOC.

They're also not breaking any laws so how can they be singled out? This IS supposedly still a free country where individuals have rights and if they aren't breaking the laws then how can this be justified??

Next they will refuse to hire people who like to race cars, skydive, play rugby, etc.

 

[Double Trouble]

I suppose they are well within their legal rights to do so. Scott's in Ohio's had that policy for a couple of years now, they don't hire smokers, they fire anyone who smokes.

I don't smoke and I think it's a nasty habit, but the principle of it bothers me. No employer should have any say over what you do on your own time, provided it doesn't impact your work performance or negatively impacts the employer. I could understand if the association says "you can work here, but if you smoke, you're going to have to pay xyz extra in health care premiums" or something like that. That makes logical sense. Allowing the employer to decide what you can do on your own time (provided it's not illegal) takes away from all our freedoms and makes no logical sense.

 

[Dekasa]

I suppose they are well within their legal rights to do so. Scott's in Ohio's had that policy for a couple of years now, they don't hire smokers, they fire anyone who smokes.

I don't smoke and I think it's a nasty habit, but the principle of it bothers me. No employer should have any say over what you do on your own time, provided it doesn't impact your work performance or negatively impacts the employer. I could understand if the association says "you can work here, but if you smoke, you're going to have to pay xyz extra in health care premiums" or something like that. That makes logical sense. Allowing the employer to decide what you can do on your own time (provided it's not illegal) takes away from all our freedoms and makes no logical sense.

Every smoker coworker I've ever met was a terrible worker. They took a break every hour, and if they couldn't get it, they were cranky and worked like crap. Ever seen a customer service rep. who hasn't gotten their fix?

 

[CycloWizard]

I know this. But put that aside for a moment. I am just asking the question out of logic. Why protect people who do one thing, and not people who do another?

And are you saying its ok if I don't hire overweight people? They're not a protected class.

You've stumbled on something very important here without realizing it. I will now reveal the secret on which all of the smoke and mirrors are based: laws are not based on logic. The next time you're dealing with something completely inane, ask yourself, "Why does this have to be so complicated?" The answer, inevitably, is that there is a law forcing it to be that way. "Why doesn't this make any sense?" Because it's the law - it doesn't have to make sense. Once you realize that government is not subject to logic in any way, everything will become clear.

 

[Dekasa]

After reading several things about homosexual life expectancy, it seems the only thing lowering their LE is HIV/AIDS. So, why don't we just not hire people who don't use protection? The thing is, nearly every group has something they do that is bad for an employee. Drinkers show up late to work, smokers take an hourly break + health issues, homosexuals gets HIV/AIDS (health issues/die younger), women get pregnant and take a huge vacation, sometimes fathers will take parental vacation (let's not hire married people?). I say you can discriminate based on whatever you feel, and I feel people probably do have their biases, but if you won't hire because someone does something bad for their health, you're not going to be able to hire anyone. The list of stupid things people do (to their health) is really, REALLY long.

So, can't hire blacks, women, future fathers, smokers, gays, people that eat and drive, alcoholics, druggies, teens, old people.... any more groups that have stereotypical ''bad worker'' issues?

 

[Double Trouble]

Every smoker coworker I've ever met was a terrible worker. They took a break every hour, and if they couldn't get it, they were cranky and worked like crap. Ever seen a customer service rep. who hasn't gotten their fix?

One, I don't believe that's the case, several of my top performing employees are smokers. Two, if that was the case, it would fall under "performance evaluation", you'd get rid of them because they were crappy performers, not because they smoke on their own time. If someone doesn't perform the job well, get rid of them, but I don't like the idea of the employer being allowed to run your private life.

 

[Dekasa]

One, I don't believe that's the case, several of my top performing employees are smokers. Two, if that was the case, it would fall under "performance evaluation", you'd get rid of them because they were crappy performers, not because they smoke on their own time. If someone doesn't perform the job well, get rid of them, but I don't like the idea of the employer being allowed to run your private life.

I'm not running your private life, I'm saying all the smokers I've worked with sucked, therefore I'm not going to hire you. That break every hour really hurts performance in some jobs.

 

[Matthiasa]

One, I don't believe that's the case, several of my top performing employees are smokers. Two, if that was the case, it would fall under "performance evaluation", you'd get rid of them because they were crappy performers, not because they smoke on their own time. If someone doesn't perform the job well, get rid of them, but I don't like the idea of the employer being allowed to run your private life.

They pretty much can as soon as they start paying for your health insurance, since at that point you start costing them quite a bit of money.
Besides it's not like someone is forcing the people to work there.

 

[bamacre]

A private business should be able to hire and fire who they wish.

 

[matt0611]

A private business should be able to hire and fire who they wish.

Agreed.

 

[Dekasa]

A private business should be able to hire and fire who they wish.

Barring genetics, they pretty much can (religion being the only outlier I can think of).

 

[halik]

http://www.boston.com/news/health/blog/2010/11/hospital_group_1.html?rss_id=Top+Stories

So the Massachusetts Hospital Association will now refuse to hire people who smoke, not at work, but ON THEIR OWN TIME, even at home.

Guess Barack Obama couldn't work here.

Why? Because they say its a risky activity. Also, this is not even at a hospital, we are talking about the headquarters that don't directly treat people.

So if more risk is more reward can I not hire fat people because of their lifestyle?

What about gays If gay sex was more risky could I ban homosexuals too?
Gay men live statistically very short lives.

What about blacks? More likely to die earlier in life, even more if they live in a bad neighborhood.

So which is it? Do I have the right to discriminate about who I choose to work for my private place of employment for any reason or not? Whats the difference between a smoker and a someone who practices homosexual sex? Both are more risky lifestyles. Shouldn't I be free to decide who works for me and who does not?

How about people on medicinal marijuana or drinkers?

I would guess that the policy is mostly to limit their health insurance costs, although it would be interest to see if they had the same policy for morbid obese people.

 

[bamacre]

Barring genetics, they pretty much can (religion being the only outlier I can think of).

I wish that were true. Businesses these days have to jump through hoops to fire someone.

 

[nobodyknows]

A private business should be able to hire and fire who they wish.

So no hiring people whose politics you disagree with would be A-OK with you?

How about a business deciding that smoking can be allowed on the premisis, after all, it's a PRIVATE business.

 

[nobodyknows]

I wish that were true. Businesses these days have to jump through hoops to fire someone.

LOL, not true in right to work states. They can fire you because they didn't like the color of the shirt you wore to work here.