Massachusetts Hospital Association: Smokers Need Not Apply

[matt0611]

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.

I think I should be able to open a bar where people are allowed to smoke cigarettes, why not? You don't like smoking you don't have to come. Its your choice.

So its ok if I choose to smoke cigarettes but NOT ok if I decide I want to be around others that smoke in a bar?

 

[bamacre]

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

Has absolutely nothing to do with my opinion and everything to do with private property rights.

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

Definitely.

 

[bamacre]

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.

Which is fine.

 

[Corn]

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

Then you perpetuate stupidity as well. Craig said something similarly idiotic a while back. You 2 are peas in a pod, congratulations.

 

[nobodyknows]

I think I should be able to open a bar where people are allowed to smoke cigarettes, why not? You don't like smoking you don't have to come. Its your choice.

So its ok if I choose to smoke cigarettes but NOT ok if I decide I want to be around others that smoke in a bar?

Yet they have laws that prevent people from having smoking only bard since they are "open to the public". No one is forcing non-smokers to go into those bars.

Seems to me the law wants to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[nobodyknows]

Has absolutely nothing to do with my opinion and everything to do with private property rights.

What the hell are you taking about? From the OP:

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

If a person wants to LEGALLY smoke at his own house, on his own time, it's absolutely in no way, shape, of form, any business of his boss. Just the same as whether he is registered as a D, a R or an I. It has nothing to do with private property rights

 

[theeedude]

If Boss pays for health insurance, then hell yeah it's his business.

 

[bamacre]

What the hell are you taking about? From the OP:

If a person wants to LEGALLY smoke at his own house, on his own time, it's absolutely in no way, shape, of form, any business of his boss. Just the same as whether he is registered as a D, a R or an I. It has nothing to do with private property rights

Yeah, it does, the property rights of the business. They should be able to hire and fire who they wish for reasons they wish. And on the other side, an employee has the right to quit for whatever reasons he/she wishes.

 

[Amused]

If you are free to work for whomever you choose, why is an employer not free to hire whomever they choose?

If you are free to quit whenever you want for whatever reason you want, why is an employer not free to fire someone whenever they want for whatever reason they want?

Conversely, WHY would you want to work for an employer who does not like you??? Would you like to be forced by rule of law to work for an employer you do not like?

You cannot expect more rights than your employer.

 

[matt0611]

If Boss pays for health insurance, then hell yeah it's his business.

And if he's overweight? Has AIDS? Lives a promiscuous lifestyle? Does extreme sports on his own time? Drives a motorcycle?

 

[theeedude]

And if he's overweight? Has AIDS? Lives a promiscuous lifestyle? Does extreme sports on his own time? Drives a motorcycle?

Sure. Boss is da boss.

 

[matt0611]

Sure. Boss is da boss.

Cool, sounds good to me.

 

[IBMer]

There are a number of places that do this. I think of lot of the policy comes up from people working in Corporate America, where they see smokers taking tons of breaks to smoke and how they aren't and see it as a performance issue.

 

[blackangst1]

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.

Not entirely true. Religion is a choice, and protected under law.

 

[Throckmorton]

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.

I think male homosexuals have an HIV infection rate something like 10x as high as the general population.

BTW, you know gays aren't allowed to donate blood right?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If you are free to work for whomever you choose, why is an employer not free to hire whomever they choose?

If you are free to quit whenever you want for whatever reason you want, why is an employer not free to fire someone whenever they want for whatever reason they want?

Conversely, WHY would you want to work for an employer who does not like you??? Would you like to be forced by rule of law to work for an employer you do not like?

You cannot expect more rights than your employer.

I have a problem with this to a degree. I think the employer should have the right to discharge for cause and if business conditions warrants. That's fine because it's related to the livelihood of owner.

Once we get beyond that we enter into another area. Tell me, as an employer would you accept being told you must vote a certain way or donate to a political organization by an employee (or a consensus of them)? How about making not being allowed to make a political donation? If you drive a red car? I bet not, yet it would seem that our rights disappear once a dollar has changed hands. I can't see that.

We work for people, not masters.

 

[Amused]

I have a problem with this to a degree. I think the employer should have the right to discharge for cause and if business conditions warrants. That's fine because it's related to the livelihood of owner.

Once we get beyond that we enter into another area. Tell me, as an employer would you accept being told you must vote a certain way or donate to a political organization by an employee (or a consensus of them)? How about making not being allowed to make a political donation? If you drive a red car? I bet not, yet it would seem that our rights disappear once a dollar has changed hands. I can't see that.

We work for people, not masters.

Of course they are not masters. They are someone with which you are in a MUTUAL agreement.

What if you didn't like the way your employer voted? Or if his red car offended you? Or of his political donations offended you? Should the law force you to continue working there against your will?

Employment is a mutually agreed upon contract. Both parties should have the right to end it given the terms spelled out in that contract. If both are 100% free to end it, then that is how it should be. But if you limit their right to end the contract, why should they not be able to limit your right to end it as well?

What you want is unequal rights. You want complete freedom while maintaining those who enter into mutually agreed contracts with you do not.

 

[Patranus]

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

Happens all of the time in housing even though gender is a "protected" class.

Just go to the part of town with hippies and look at those bulletin boards, "looking for a female roommate"/ect...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Of course they are not masters. They are someone with which you are in a MUTUAL agreement.

What if you didn't like the way your employer voted? Or if his red car offended you? Or of his political donations offended you? Should the law force you to continue working there against your will?

Employment is a mutually agreed upon contract. Both parties should have the right to end it given the terms spelled out in that contract. If both are 100% free to end it, then that is how it should be. But if you limit their right to end the contract, why should they not be able to limit your right to end it as well?

What you want is unequal rights. You want complete freedom while maintaining those who enter into mutually agreed contracts with you do not.

Complete freedom? It would appear that only the employer has that. He can vote for whomever he wants without penalty.

Precisely what business is it of an employer if someone has cloth instead of leather in their car?

 

[IGBT]

pre employment drug tests look for smokers too. Who wants to hire some body who needs to run off and huff tobacco every 25 min. and needs a designated area. End the problem by not hiring them in the fist place.

 

[Amused]

Complete freedom? It would appear that only the employer has that. He can vote for whomever he wants without penalty.

Precisely what business is it of an employer if someone has cloth instead of leather in their car?

No, you can quit if you don't like who he votes for or what he has in his car. How is your freedom to quit any less a "penalty" to him than his freedom to fire you is a "penalty" to you?

Employment is a mutually agreed upon contract. Not slavery NOR daycare NOR a one sided contract. Both of you have the right to end that contract for whatever reason so long as it abides by the limits set forth in the contract.

 

[actuarial]

No, you can quit if you don't like who he votes for or what he has in his car. How is your freedom to quit any less a "penalty" to him than his freedom to fire you is a "penalty" to you?

Employment is a mutually agreed upon contract. Not slavery NOR daycare NOR a one sided contract. Both of you have the right to end that contract for whatever reason so long as it abides by the limits set forth in the contract.

So you should also be against minimum wages, maximum hours worked a week, mandatory overtime pay, mandatory lunches/breaks, workplace safety requirements, statutory holidays, mandatory vacation time etc. etc.

 

[Amused]

So you should also be against minimum wages, maximum hours worked a week, mandatory overtime pay, mandatory lunches/breaks, workplace safety requirements, statutory holidays, mandatory vacation time etc. etc.

Of course I am. Most of these laws are pointless, and the "minimums are far exceeded due to employers trying to attract quality employees.

 

[matt0611]

So you should also be against minimum wages, maximum hours worked a week, mandatory overtime pay, mandatory lunches/breaks, workplace safety requirements, statutory holidays, mandatory vacation time etc. etc.

I think you should be able to be paid any wage that you agree to, I don't agree with the minimum wage. Same with over time pay, lunch breaks, holidays and vacations.

 

[Amused]

I think you should be able to be paid any wage that you agree to, I don't agree with the minimum wage. Same with over time pay, lunch breaks, holidays and vacations.

Yep. An employee can choose NOT to work for an employer who does not offer the pay and working conditions he wants.