MadMike
Moderator
FEAR THE BLACK FLAG!!!!!!!!
Posts: 6579
|
posted January 26, 2005 10:31 PM
if you smoke anywhere, YOUR FIRED!!
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050126/hl_nm/life_smoking_dc
So what do you think of this, someone own's a company and if you smoke at all, anywhere in your own home on your own time! YOUR FIRED!!! hmmm..... I have written an email to the owner of this company. and informed him in a short letter of How un-american I believe he is! we will see if he even responds! I Do not smoke, nor have I ever smoked. I have though been around it my entire life, with friends and family. I truly do not care if someone smokes, if it bothers me I MOVE. I really hope someone like a tobacco company sues his ass! for discrimination! He is also working on if your to Fat, you will be fired! Next I am sure it will be if you have brown hair. or brown eye's. maybe all lefties will be fired, how about if your catholic... what is next, We have some Rich Power Mogal that is going to tell you how to run your private/personal life! what would you do if your boss or the Pres/owner of your company walked in tomorrow and said.... Well you know I have been thinking.. yea ummm... that motorcycle that you ride, yea it is to dangerous, so your going to have to get rid of it. and yea if we ever catch you riding any bike again ever well um...We are going to fire you. and we really don't care what you do on your own private time, well except riding. you cant do that ever. we would all go tell them to  off! well maybe not all of us but I sure as hell would! I seriously hope someone sue's him for everything he is worth! sorry about the rant this just really pisses me off, that someone would actually tell the people who work for him and has made him a MULTI-Millionare that if they dont like what he says its ok, it is a free country, they can just go work someplace else! What a freaking Hitler!
Mad Mike.
____________
200-MPH CLUB MEMBER!
   
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted January 27, 2005 04:05 AM
There is one problem with that idea of being "un american"
now that in America, it is assumed, and in many cases DEMANDED, that the government or the employer is responsible for your healthcare, it is no longer an issue of personal choice not affecting anyone else.
If the employer is liable for health care costs, then why should that employer be required to hire OR RETAIN personel that will cause their insurance costs to rise?
Anyone that has bought health insurance on their own, or who has priced it out, knows how expensive it is.
A company should not be REQUIRED to hire or retain people that are not going to be as productive. A company should not be REQUIRED to hire or retain people that are a liability.
Smoking is not a race. it is not a skin colour. it's not a religious belief. it is a habit and/or a behavior.
If you ran a business where you had to hire drivers for your company vehicles (delivery service perhaps) would you not hire or retain based on that person's driving record? If someone on "their own personal time" got a DUI and a bunch of speeding tickets, would it not be reasonable for that person to be removed from any duties involving vehicles?
the "answer" is that "oh noooo they did that on their peeeeersonal time, it should have nooo bearing on their job" is a line of BS.
The short of this is the FACT that ALL businesses that are privately owned have every RIGHT to hire or fire people based on their ability to enhance the company's productivity, or hurt it.
It has been proven in study after study that smokers in many cases are a liability to production.My first hand experience at the factory is a great example of this. Smokers were FAR more likely to be sick, to be absent for illness, and took far more breaks. (to get their drug fix of course)
If they are sick more often, they are a healthcare liability. If they take breaks more often to get their nicotine high, they are being paid to do nothing. hence, loss of productivity.
if they smoke at home only, they still have the greater healthcare risks, and are still a liability to the company. (since the insurance companies charge higher rates to companies that employ smokers)
A company that has rising costs pays less, or pays fewer people. It's really a no-brainer. If you are HURTING the company why should they retain you? "oh but they have multi MILLIONS of dollars" is a BS excuse. If they take in less than they spend, it won't matter WHAT is in the bank account or in shareholder's pockets. they will start trimming expenses. Healthcare is the single-largest expense out there. How do you cut healthcare costs? either cover less, reduce the company's portion of the rates, or reduce the rates themselves. Or just lay off some people and make do with fewer workers.
A person has every RIGHT to do whatever they want to themselves, as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights & liberties of other people around them.
however it's a fact that smoking is NOT a healthy endeavor. it is a proven FACT that smoking is causal to other health problems. If an employer must cut health benefits to other people, that habit has just impacted someone esle's life negatively. If an employer cuts more people out of the payroll, again it's a 'habit' in 'personal time' that has just crossed the line from petty habit to crap deal for someone else.
By the way, it's funny how "hitler" is always brought up when people don't like something that is being done. regardless of the context it's always amusing.
  
|
MadMike
Moderator
FEAR THE BLACK FLAG!!!!!!!!
Posts: 6579
|
posted January 27, 2005 04:48 AM
Slug even though I respect your opinion, I totally disagreee, as you did with me. first with the people who smoke are sick more, and take more breaks, and are less productive. for all of the factories I have ever worked for 3-4 total, this has not been the case. I can see smokers taking more breaks if the company lets them but that is not the employee's fault! It honestly is the companies own fault! If you have an employee that is less productive then you let them go. smoker or not! my employee's have two breaks 15min each. one at 10 and one at 3. that is it! they smoke on break and lunch. it does not affect their work one bit. all of my employee's recieve a break some watch TV and some smoke and some walk. it is their own choice. you should look up some of the death rates and ages, and causes, I am not deniying that smoking "can" lead to problems, but I still do not believe that any company should be able to tell their employee's you can not smoke, eat, drink, race, skydive, drive fast cars, etc..... and to me the term hitler was how the freedom's were slowly taken away to controll then entire population. dude where does it stop? but hey this is america the free correct........ so he is free to tell his fat employee's to lose weight or else, he is also free to tell his smokers to quit or else.... but I am going to use my freedom and let everyone I know hear about what this company is doing and how I feel it is wrong.
____________
200-MPH CLUB MEMBER!
|
rac4it
Needs a job
Bergie
Posts: 3009
|
posted January 27, 2005 05:48 AM
Smoking on the job is no different than say eating on the job, or drinking on the job. I don't think anyone should be fired because they smoke, but at the same time an employer should have the right to ban smoking on the job site. Simple.
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted January 27, 2005 06:42 AM
if the company is not footing the health bills, then i see no reason why they should fire or hire based on smoking or not smoking
but as soon as that employer is responsible for that healthcare, and since healthcare premiums ARE affected by tobacco use, they ahve every right to make hire and fire decisions based on that habit. Even life insurance premiums are affected by tobacco use.
it's not an erosion of rights in ANY way. NOWHERE is that employer saying that person is NOT ALLOWED to smoke ever. just that while employed there.
last i checked private companies and private individuals had the RIGHT to decide who does and does not work for them, based on any criteria NOT RELATED to how a person was born or what they believe in. (for example, race, skin colour, religious beliefs, height, eye colour, etc etc)
In America you are free to speak. you are also free to reap the consequences of that action
In America you are free to drink alcohol. you are also free to reap the consequences
In America you are free to smoke. You are also free to reap the consequences.
Something that you might find interesting, i feel that it is WRONG for the state to require all restaurants to be smoke-free. That establishment's owner should have that determination. THAT is an erosion of rights.
Likewise, i believe that the restaurant in question should have every RIGHT to outright ban smoking on the premises. this is NOT an erosion of anyone's rights. because that property owner has every right to make that choice.
By extension, in a FREE economy employment is (or SHOULD be) an at-will basis. The employee has every right to terminate their employment at his or her will, and likewise the employER has that same right. (Obviously there are limitations based on race colour creed etc) unfortunately the societal pressures are forcing us towards a system where employment is COMPULSORY not at-will. This makes it easy, it won't matter if an employee is or is not productive, they are 'required' to be kept on the job if they don't do anything 'bad' to warrant firing. In many cases there are places like that already. The maintenance facility the navy utilized in georgia was a great example of this. No longer did the employer have the RIGHT to terminate employees unless they 'broke the rules'. the union was stronger and had more power. Whose rights were abridged here?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOW that all being said, if the congress passed a law saying that all smokers must quit smoking, i'll be right there with you telling them to shove it. Because THAT is an erosion of rights.
I also believe that the other drugs should be legalized, and let nature take its course. Stop wasting our taxpayer money on the 'war on drugs' which is a complete waste of time, effort, and lives.
Again, the consequences of using those drugs should be made clear, and the USERS must take the responsibility to ACCEPT those consequences.
In a free country, one must be RESPONSIBLE and ACCOUNTABLE to be truly free.
But your freedom to do whatsoever you shall do ends where someone else's nose begins. Therein lies the responsibility inherently intertwined with freedom.
|
redelk
Moderator
Please... speak to the hand.
Posts: 3212
|
posted January 27, 2005 07:40 AM
 Edited By: redelk on 27 Jan 2005 07:52
Just for shits and giggles, lets throw this into the mix....
Lets say I have a cigarette that does the following:
Reduces second hand smoke by more than 80%
NO smoke AND NO ash comes from the lit cigarette itself
Exhaled smoke is dramatically reduced
Does not leave stains or odors on clothing, furniture, inside autos, etc.
17-57% less lung inflammation (after two months in smokers of two packs or more per day)
Contains far less of many of the compounds that have been linked to the risk of cancer and associated with certain other smoking-related illnesses
Contains less than 5 mg of tar and 0.1 mg of nicotine AND unlike other "low tar and nicotine" cigarettes, you will NOT draw heavier to compensate (a common believe on why the "light" brands are no better, health wise)
Because it creates no ash, it could reduce unintentional fires
Sooooooooooo..... since second hand smoke seems to be the biggest complaint against smokers and if there were a cigarette that virtually eliminated it, would that be acceptable? Interestingly enough, such a cigarette DOES EXIST! I just bought a pack yesterday and am considering on switching. I smoked Merits for decades and just recently switched to Marlboro Ultra Lights (mostly due to price). Then I read about a product from RJR called Eclipse. It is not short of a WEIRD cigarette. It does all of what I described above, but instead of tasting like a Carlton (no taste at all), it tastes more like a Marlboro RED! Almost everyone here at my office smokes. After buying a couple of packs yesterday, we all tried them. Both regular and menthol. Not only are they weird (they do not burn down like a normal cigarette), but they are SO DAMN STRONG, everyone of us actually got a "nicotine buzz". Similar to what a smoker that had not smoked a cigarette in a few days and then lit up would experience.
As for the employer not employing smokers, be it for health care costs, productivity, or what ever... is his choice. Many of those reasons are likely very valid. It is similar to the firearm manufacturer not allowing health care coverage for motorcycle related injuries. Smoking is a choice. Drinking is a choice. Riding a motorcycle on public roads above the posted limits is a choice. Fortunately, they have chosen to create a cigarette that address many, not all, but many of the issues usually used in discriminating against those that partake in this legal activity. Hopefully, they will not chose to regulate motorcycles in a similar fashion.
Check 'em out at http://www.eclipse.rjrt.com/RJR/dtc_certify.jsp?brand=ECL&from_Jeeves=true
You'll have to log on by entering a birthday making you over 21 and check the "I'm a smoker" box to enter the site. Ladies and Gentleman, I introduce to you the future of cigarette smoking.
BTW - I and the company pay 100% of our employees health and perscription insurance costs, as well as 50% of their AFLAC and dental insurances. The health insurance is a BCBS PPO (not a HMO). Those payments are NOT counted as income on the employees' W-2s. Also, when BCBS raised the deductable from $250 to $500, we pay the second $250 so the increase is not passed on to the employee.
____________
There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
-Ernest Hemingway
|
VincentHill
Needs a life
Posts: 6520
|
posted January 27, 2005 08:27 AM
Every Day when I come to work (I suspect Bergie sees the same thing) The same people standing at the entrance of our building smoking. There are signs not to smoke on the property, but we still have to walk through the smog of this smoke. My question is, If I was the employer, should I have to pay them for the 4 or 5 times a day they "MUST" go outside for a smoke break? (Forget the insurance, lets just talk about paying a person to smoke on your time!)
BTW, it is always the same ones. I se them when I come to work, When I go to lunch, when I came back from lunch, Go to a meeting in the building, Go to pick up a package at the front desk and when I go home in the evening.
____________
Made History @ Daytona and still one fast old man!!
|
avdigigeek
Expert Class
Posts: 128
|
posted January 27, 2005 10:06 AM
Slug,
I call bullshit....
"Smoking is not a race. It is not a skin color. It's not a religious belief. It is a habit and/or a behavior."
Using your own logic (which I totally agree with) here is a different example.
I have this horrible addiction called motorcycles it doesn't interfere with my work.
I don't take breaks through the day but it does put my company's health insurance at a higher risk since I can wreck and cause my self bodily harm raising the company's rates...
Can my employer say I'm not going to allow people who ride motorcycles on their own time work for me?
Smiley
____________
00 CBR F4
00 CR 250
03 ZX6R
04 ZX10R
|
avdigigeek
Expert Class
Posts: 128
|
posted January 27, 2005 10:12 AM
just to ad watch out you fat fuckers......
Next on the firing line: overweight workers.
"We have to work on eating habits and getting people to exercise. But if you're obese, you're (legally) protected," Weyers said.
He has brought in an eating disorder therapist to speak to workers, provided eating coaches, created a point system for employees to earn health-related $100 bonuses and plans to offer $45 vouchers for health club memberships.
What a jagoff..........
I smell a law suit.
____________
00 CBR F4
00 CR 250
03 ZX6R
04 ZX10R
|
canadamaxxer
Pro
Posts: 1090
|
posted January 27, 2005 10:32 AM
quote:
Slug,
I call bullshit....
"Smoking is not a race. It is not a skin color. It's not a religious belief. It is a habit and/or a behavior."
Using your own logic (which I totally agree with) here is a different example.
I have this horrible addiction called motorcycles it doesn't interfere with my work.
I don't take breaks through the day but it does put my company's health insurance at a higher risk since I can wreck and cause my self bodily harm raising the company's rates...
Can my employer say I'm not going to allow people who ride motorcycles on their own time work for me?
Smiley
There is a gaping flaw in this logic: smoking is KNOWN to cause many illnesses and even death DIRECTLY. Riding a motorcycle is not KNOWN to cause death. This is especially true because of the many permutations in the term "Riding". Keep in mind it is the accident that kills or injures the rider, not the act of riding. The act of smoking kills not only the smoker, but the unfortunate people forced to inhale their 2nd hand smoke.
There are many types of insurance that either raise the premium price or deny coverage entirely for people who participate in high risk activities (smoking, racing, alcoholism, sky diving, SCUBA). Why should this be any different?
Smokers (from what I've seen) do have a lower productivity. I would love to have the excuse to take the extra "smoke" time...but since I don't smoke I'm expected to work...and have management cracking the whip about it all the time. You could argue that non smokers in this situation are being descriminated against.
Even in a country like Canada (with our socialized medicine), I hate the fact that smokers clog up so many beds in the system. If it wasn't for those people poisoning themselves for years on end, I wouldn't have to wait 18 months to get surgery. My opinion is that if a person does something deliberately (smoking, drinking, drugs, even overeating in some cases) they should be on the hook for it. If this means you lose your job because you smoke, get over it...and quit.
This is the same as the helmet law arguements: "I don't need the government telling me what to do...it's my right as a _____ to do what I want". This is fine except some people are not smart enough to make sound choices based on the FACTS. I won't even ride (OK once in a blue moon) without full leathers, let alone without a helmet...not because the government tells me to, but because I decided the risks are too high.
Maybe the government forcing people to quit smoking isn't invading their rights....maybe it's actually giving them (and the other people forced to be around them) the best right of all....the right to a longer healthier life.
|
zxfingyz
Expert Class
Posts: 424
|
posted January 27, 2005 10:45 AM
C,mon! Let's speak plainly without the flag waving. I agree with you on the it's your right thing. It is your right to smoke.
But it should be ok to discriminate against stupid people.
If you smoke you are an addict or a dumbass, probably both. Before all you 12 steppers get all wound up addicts make GREAT employees as long as they are NOT currently using.
The only saving grace for cigarettes is they aren't illegal yet. Would you employ a heroin user? Hell no you wouldn't. Cigarettes are a little different I admit because they take longer to kill you but just like with Heroin,you are going to die. With motorcycles you might die early but it isn't a certainty like it is with smoking. Would you take the time and effort to train someone you knew was leaving your company? Heck no.
And the kids of smokers? What is it about the denial involved with cigarette smoking that makes it so easy to not consider the kids? The AMA just released a study that says the second hand smoke makes kids stupid too! They get "cognitive difficulty" from even the lowest exposure to second hand smoke.
The social cost, the financial cost, hell just the humanity of it, is simply ridiculous. Those fuckers( tobacco companies) only get away with it becuase they spend so much money lobbying.
It is ok to discriminate against smokers. Tobacco is going to be illegal and history will hold tobacco company execs in the same stead as slave owners and American Indian killers - in a place covered in the bright and never ending light of shame.
|
avdigigeek
Expert Class
Posts: 128
|
posted January 27, 2005 11:51 AM
Yeah you guys hit the nail on the head us smokers are lazy good for nothing time wasters.....
What a bunch of B.S.
zxfingy ,maxxer you totaly miss the piont ignore your personal feelings of smokers and the side effects of second handsmoke etc....
Let's say I'm single live alone smoke only at home and never leave my desk at work. I'm fired cause I smoke.
My replacment is a total Cathlic reliying on the rythem method.
he has 8 kids there goes your insurance cost savings now what?
The whole point is he's fireing people who do something totaly legal
on there own time.
If any of those people had any sense they would be suing the shit out of him.
And next he's going to force people to loose weight wtf
I'm not at fighting weight and could loose 20 pounds but do I deserve to loose my job because I refuse to diet????
there's no flag waiving going on here I think it's bullshit regardless of country.
"Even in a country like Canada (with our socialized medicine), I hate the fact that smokers clog up so many beds in the system. If it wasn't for those people poisoning themselves for years on end, I wouldn't have to wait 18 months to get surgery. My opinion is that if a person does something deliberately (smoking, drinking, drugs, even overeating in some cases) they should be on the hook for it. If this means you lose your job because you smoke, get over it...and quit."
And to all you canadians I'm sorry your health care sucks but why give the gov more controll over your body?
"Maybe the government forcing people to quit smoking isn't invading their rights....maybe it's actually giving them (and the other people forced to be around them) the best right of all....the right to a longer healthier life. "
cool maybe we should have the gov make us stop eating meat cause it causes high cholesterol????
Smiley
____________
00 CBR F4
00 CR 250
03 ZX6R
04 ZX10R
|
Ra12r
Zone Head
Posts: 919
|
posted January 27, 2005 12:03 PM
As far as "Rights" are concerned, the whole issue goes bad to a CONTINUAL move of our government toward Communism. We have watched (and applauded) the GREATEST LOSS of our civil and privacy rights in the last 3 years. This has happened all in the name of a plane that NO ONE can find!!! We read and hear terrorism everyday and yet, who is trying to "take over" our country?!?!?! The problem is our governments master plan.
I do not agree with the government making employers responsible for healthcare. I do not agree with workers comp. I don't agree with the FDA as nicotine is the same as Cocain. Except the government cant tax the people, even though "they" do RUN and CONTROL the drug trade........ie:OPIUM in Afganistan.
Mike, the employer and the employee are victims not the problem.
____________
All must bow to the "Ra Supremecy"...
|
frEEk
Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9660
|
posted January 27, 2005 12:18 PM
seems alot of people are missing one important point: the employer is not forcing people to do anything. if the employer were the govt and was making a general law, then it would be unamerican, illegal, etc. but this is jsut one employer who is choosing not to employ smokers. next i'm gonna hear that he has to hire a certain % of smokers based on a quota. by saying he can't discriminate against smokers, YOU are the ones forcing HIM, and thus being more unamerican than he is. as has already been pointed out, that issue of freedom is a 2 way street, so u have to give him his freedom to employ who he wants too. same goes for refusing the employ bikers. i wouldnt like it and i'd prolyl say he's a dumbass (as is being done here), but that would be within his rights in my mind. moreover, so long as he can make a valid argument for the decision (higher risk of losing an employee/healthcare premiums/ or even "i believe biking is a dangerous/wasteful passtime and noone shoudl partake and i'm trying to encourage adoption of that view") then i'm not even gonna bitch about it (much). so logn as he jsut doesnt say "i don't like bikers".
someone else made what i think is the excellent point of legality too. i hear alot of cases (outsideof the board too) where people draw hard & fast lines at legality. look how hard possession of pot is punished in some places. many people can legally and will fire an employee who is cause with a joint. however, an excellent argument can be made that a light marijuana user is less of a liability that a smoker or a drinker, healthwise and otherwise so long as they don't smoke on or before the job. doesnt make much sense to me. the last town i live i saw ALOT of pot smokers (light and heavy) and ALOT of drinkers (light and heavy). i can tell u that the drinkers, tho legal, were a much bigger problem in every way.
as to allteh complaints about govt, keep in mind that the govt is (generally) the collective will of its people. it's so easy to point and say "bad separate entity" (as i do myself plenty) but it comes down to what the majority wants, tho it may not be directly expressed. i'd love to say fuck the world i'll live by my own rules, but then everyone else would do the same and i'd proly be dead soon, and ahve no roads, water, etc etc.
just my $0.02 worth of food for thought.
|
MadMike
Moderator
FEAR THE BLACK FLAG!!!!!!!!
Posts: 6579
|
posted January 27, 2005 12:55 PM
this may be very strange but, one of my main issues with this guy, is not that he has decided to not hire smokers. it is he has employee's that now he has decided ok you cant do this anymore and be and employee here. I have looked over my records for the last 12 years of all of my employee's, and time off and sick days. I have not had a single one call in sick from smoking, or with a smoking related problem. you can not even imagine how many days people have missed because of children being sick, or the flu, or just saying screw it and taking a day off.
From what I have read, it is just starting for him, he has fired all of the smokers, and now he is working on people that are overweight. I dont smoke never have, and I could loose 40lbs. but come on, am I doing you a good job? am I making you money? That is where it should end.
____________
200-MPH CLUB MEMBER!
|
frEEk
Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9660
|
posted January 27, 2005 01:03 PM
MM, that's the beauty of the capitalist/free market system tho. if he fires good employees and hires worse ones based on their personal habits/health choices, his business will go downhill. then he'll either close up shop and be an example of why discirimination on anything not DIRECTLY work related is a bad idea, or he'll quickly change his tune when his pocketbook starts feeling negative effects. ah, the beauty of natural equilibrium 
|
VincentHill
Needs a life
Posts: 6520
|
posted January 27, 2005 01:07 PM
MM, Remember the AMA fighting the Unions because some of the Health Insurance plans would not cover people riding Motorcycles.
How about the fact that some companies do drug testing so if you were around people doing weed, you could get fired.
The problem on this thread is not race , but it is race related. Back in the day, some companies had policies that prohibited the hiring of Black people. Doing this was not against the Law either. So what is the difference here? You "Can" do something about Smoking, you cannot do anything about your Skin Color (Except Michael Jackson) 
Personally I do not like to be around people while they are smoking. SOme of my Best Friends Smoke (Where have I heard that expression "Some of my Best Friends " I remember now "are Black"). I also realize that Smoking is possible the most addictive thing a Human can ever do and to stop takes the exact same will power as it does to stop eating and lose weight. SO until I can stop eating and lose weight, I do not have any room to talk against people that cannot stop smoking. I do say that me eating too much will not give anyone else cancer or make them sick (Unless you get too close when the Exhaust or Exhaust Gas is forced out ) So it is a very hard call to make, but right now, I do not think it is Right for the owner to do this, but I think he is within his rights!
____________
Made History @ Daytona and still one fast old man!!
|
Ninjaman12R
Needs a job
as a Deal's Gap tour guide.
Posts: 4767
|
posted January 27, 2005 01:25 PM
I think it's a swell idea. How could anyone not be on the bandwagon with this one??? It's a great idea that is sure to catch on.
Smokers suck.
Nonsmokers RULE!!! 
____________
What we're dealin' with here is a complete lack of respect for the law.
Sheriff Buford T. Justice of TEXAS
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted January 27, 2005 01:30 PM
If my employer said that my bike riding was dangerous and caused his rates to rise, and he was going to terminate if i didn't stop riding bikes, i'd find another job.
but that's my choice.
and his.
thepoint is this: a PRIVATE company has every right to decide who they want to hire or not hire, SO LONG as CIVIL rights are not violated. (civil rights being related to how someone was born, their physical characteristics etc, not their behavior)
note MANY times (and RA12 completely ignored this line) i ahve said that the GOVERNMENT stepping in and making these rules IS wrong.
our GOVERNMENT had NOTHING to do with this, yet RA12r is trying to make that his basis for hating this rule?
read the article. THEN open mouth.
also it is not like the company *suddenly* decided to fire all their smokers
this has been in the works for YEARS. YEARS.
those who got fired CHOSE not to comply with regulations they KNEW were coming, and got fired.
how the hell is that anyone else's fault, how is that someone 'violating' THEIR rights?
i don't get it...
|
MadMike
Moderator
FEAR THE BLACK FLAG!!!!!!!!
Posts: 6579
|
posted January 27, 2005 01:32 PM
quote:
MM, that's the beauty of the capitalist/free market system tho. if he fires good employees and hires worse ones based on their personal habits/health choices, his business will go downhill. then he'll either close up shop and be an example of why discirimination on anything not DIRECTLY work related is a bad idea, or he'll quickly change his tune when his pocketbook starts feeling negative effects. ah, the beauty of natural equilibrium
You know this make's more sense then I would have even thought. thanks for the input Freek!
|
canadamaxxer
Pro
Posts: 1090
|
posted January 27, 2005 01:55 PM
quote:
Yeah you guys hit the nail on the head us smokers are lazy good for nothing time wasters.....
What a bunch of B.S.
Like I said...in my experience.... I would love to have the freedom in the workplace to stop working and "go for a smoke" like the smokers do. I often see guys take a 30 min lunch break and then a 20 min smoke break right after...and management sees that and looks away...yet if the non smokers spend 11 min on our coffee break instead of 10 min, management freaks out. This is not the only place where I have seen it happen (in fact every place I have worked at is the same), so I assume this is fairly universal. By this observation, the smokers are productive for approx 1/2 hour less per day. Is that time wasting? I think so....
quote:
zxfingy ,maxxer you totaly miss the piont ignore your personal feelings of smokers and the side effects of second handsmoke etc....
Let's say I'm single live alone smoke only at home and never leave my desk at work. I'm fired cause I smoke.
My replacment is a total Cathlic reliying on the rythem method.
he has 8 kids there goes your insurance cost savings now what?
I'm willing to bet that lung cancer, heart disease, mouth cancer, and other smoking related illnesses cost more to treat than those 8 kids.
Anyways, how can we ignore the effects of 2nd hand smoke, etc? I really fucking hate that my health is compromised by anything that isn't my choice. I hate the shit we have to dip our hands in at works....I hate the loud noises that make us deaf at work, I hate when management forces a person to do something they are not supposed to do...and they get hurt, but I especially hate when I have to breath 2nd hand smoke because the smokers in the crowd are so inconsiderate that they somehow think we LIKE to breath that shit.....or thay just don't care if we do breath it. Even worse is when they do it around kids and still don't care.
quote:
The whole point is he's fireing people who do something totaly legal
on there own time.
If any of those people had any sense they would be suing the shit out of him.
And next he's going to force people to loose weight wtf
I'm not at fighting weight and could loose 20 pounds but do I deserve to loose my job because I refuse to diet????
Is there no government system in the US to protect the worker against ANY kind of discrimination? In Canada, each province has a Labour Board (Labour Standards Council or something like that), and god help the employer who gets those guys on his ass...
If there is no system, then I guess it is up to the employer to decide fair labour practices (that is a scary thought). In that circumstance, it seems to me that the finger should be pointed at the government, not the employer...after all the employer is taking advantage of the lack of laws to reduce his insurance costs...it's a cold move, but makes sense business-wise...unless (like someone has posted) the new employees are less qualified or productive than the old ones. If that happens the company could have some difficulties surviving.
quote:
there's no flag waiving going on here I think it's bullshit regardless of country.
If the government (of the people) is not there to protect the people's rights, that is bullshit.....BUT if the government (of the people) has decided that smoking is an issue worthy of prohibition, then the people are on their own (with regards to fighting this). This, of course, will never happen (well...maybe not NEVER) since there is so much money and power in the cigarette industry.
quote:
quote:
"Even in a country like Canada (with our socialized medicine), I hate the fact that smokers clog up so many beds in the system. If it wasn't for those people poisoning themselves for years on end, I wouldn't have to wait 18 months to get surgery. My opinion is that if a person does something deliberately (smoking, drinking, drugs, even overeating in some cases) they should be on the hook for it. If this means you lose your job because you smoke, get over it...and quit."
And to all you canadians I'm sorry your health care sucks but why give the gov more controll over your body?
Why give the government more control over our bodies? Because often the masses lack the knowledge and concern to actively monitor their health or welfare. There is no action and consequence anymore....everything is someone else's fault. People know that smoking is a DIRECT cause of many horrible ways to die....yet when they are dying, they moan that the government wasn't there to stop them from doing it. The Canadian government has stepped in to attempt to break the cycle of new smokers, they label cigarette packages with horrible pictures of lumps and cancer and all sort of shit to hope to scare people into stopping ....or never starting. Cigarette ads have also been banned here for years. Even after all of this effort you still hear people complaining that the government wasn't there to try to stop them from smoking. If we have to give up a little personal "freedom" in order to break the cycle, I say go for it.
quote:
quote:
"Maybe the government forcing people to quit smoking isn't invading their rights....maybe it's actually giving them (and the other people forced to be around them) the best right of all....the right to a longer healthier life. "
cool maybe we should have the gov make us stop eating meat cause it causes high cholesterol????
Smiley
Once again we are talking about direct consequences vs indirect. There is NO amount of smoking that is safe....yet there are perfectly safe levels of meat that can be consumed. You do have a point though...watch the movie "Supersize Me". Even in that example.....people are blaming Mcdonald's instead of looking to themselves and having the will power to say "no". Nowhere else in the world do you get the same size of portion as in the USA, but the consumer still have the choice to say "no, a small coke is fine, thank you", but yet for the most part no one says it. That is a large part of why the USA has SOOOO many obese people. This is another example of the people not having the willpower or desire to actively participate in their own welfare....and the government probably should step in...but of course the problem with the government interventing is that some people will scream and cry about their rights being trampled on...all because the government is actually interested in saving the lives of the people.
|
VincentHill
Needs a life
Posts: 6520
|
posted January 27, 2005 03:06 PM
Here is a report dated 2001 on smoking and work. Note the very last line.
Wednesday, 5 September, 2001, 00:38 GMT 01:38 UK
Smokers 'more sickly and less productive'
Smokers are more likely to have days off sick
Smokers take more time off than their colleagues and do less work when they are there, according to researchers.
A study by American scientists of 300 staff in an airline ticket office found that smokers had more than two extra days off sick each year compared to their non-smoking colleagues.
Smokers were found to be absent from work for 6.16 days a year, compared to 4.53 for ex-smokers and 3.86 for non-smokers.
It's time employers recognised the fact that health and industrial competitiveness are fundamentally linked
Clive Bates, of ASH
They were also found to be considerably less productive than their non-smoking counterparts, completing tasks such as booking flights more slowly.
But within a year of quitting smoking the productivity levels started to pick up again - with ex-smokers being five per cent more productive than those who still smoked.
Less healthy
Smokers were thought to be less productive than their colleagues because as well as suffering more ill-health, they also tended to take regular smoking breaks.
The report said: "Workplace productivity is increased and absenteeism is decreased among former smokers as compared to current smokers."
The research in the specialist journal Tobacco Control, a publication of the British Medical Journal, also revealed that current smokers felt their colleagues and supervisors were more likely to rate them as less productive.
A 1994 report estimated that the annual direct medical care cost attributable to smoking in the US the previous year was a staggering $50bn.
Clive Bates, director of ASH (Action on Smoking and Health), said it should come as no surprise to employers that smoking has an effect on productivity.
And he called on the government to tackle passive smoking at work.
"It's time employers recognised the fact that health and industrial competitiveness are fundamentally linked.
"Ignoring the health and welfare of staff is not only poor employment practice, it's also bad for business."
____________
Made History @ Daytona and still one fast old man!!
|
addisonzx12
Expert Class
Posts: 213
|
posted January 27, 2005 03:24 PM
Edited By: addisonzx12 on 27 Jan 2005 17:04
Y'know I can't believe some of you 'bikers'!! Talk about short-sightedness!! Think about what you are saying!! Smoking is not safe, so they should not do it!!! WTF, motorcycling is not safe either! You want your employer to tell you not to ride anymore or else? Wake up! It's none of their business what you do on your own time, period!! Now, on their time or property that's a different story! MM is correct in his views! Btw, I never smoked, never will. But a employer has no right to tell you what to do after hours period!
|
Spyral
Pro
Unpredictable individual.
Posts: 1071
|
posted January 27, 2005 06:13 PM
Me and my fat ass will smoke all we want on our time. heh heh heh
|
frEEk
Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9660
|
posted January 27, 2005 06:31 PM
yep, and u won't work for buddy. everybody's happy!
addison, u'r sounding dangerously close to those nasty "socialist" canadians. u may want to read the other posts, realize that saying the employer isn't free to hire who they want but the employee is free to do whatever they want is hypocritical, plain and simple.
|
|
|
|
|
HOME
NEW TOPIC