jonwright
Needs a job
Posts: 2416
|
posted February 01, 2005 08:44 AM
Discrimination is usually based on something you can not choose....except religion.
Smoking is certainly something that one can choose to do, or not. And if anyone says they have no choice and that they can't stop underlines the addictive nature of the drug nicotine and it's dubious positive effects.
However...the public safety aspect of smoking and it's cost to society are also the same argument for NOT doing other 'high risk' activities like .... um, motorcycle riding.
Recently legislation was indeed passed that ended the discrimination of health insurance and high risk activities. I.e. your employer or health insurance carrier could terminate coverage if you engage in high risk activities, like motorcycle riding.
That's no more, however.
While I am certainly no friend of smoking, and the costs to society are indeed very high (with taking care of millions of people with lung cancer, emphazema et. al.).
Like the Boys Scouts, who could keep out gay boys because they are a private club, I think this employer will indeed be able to do as he sees fit for his company - it is, after all, a PRIVATE company.
As much as I have a distaste for smoking (and I'm a former smoker, so YES, I do have room to talk) I think this guy will prevail on any legal challenge.
My company is starting a similar program. A premium discount on your health insurance if you participate in a voluntary health program. While it does involve a very detailed survey about your current health habits - I have no problem with that.
If we had two insurance pools - one for smokers and one for non-smokers....wonder what the premiums would look like? And the requisite payouts? 
Sorry fellas, but personal observations on "at MY factory smokers don't take longer breaks" are irrelevant. Overall stats is the deal here.
But also notice that when the weight thing came up he mentioned obese folks - so if you have a 'medical' condition yer covered. Got that spare tire from slamming beer and watching the boob toob? Too bad.
And while this does lead to the arguement about what one can control personally (behavior) and what one cannot (genetics)....is genetic profiling just around the corner? It's already begun (see my note about the health survey at my company).......
And then the next step...eugenics!
Isn't it a wonderful world we live in?
Ever see Gatiga?
  
|
Otis
Needs a job
Captain Kickstand
Posts: 3028
|
posted February 01, 2005 10:53 AM
quote:
Speaking of "Insurance" and controls, now if you own a house and get ready to sell it no one will buy it if you have had 2 claims. Not only do they qualify the Owner, but they Qualify the Property and its history. Sort of like telling someone that the Used car they bought had 2 accident claims so you cannot get insurance when you buy it because of the past!
Vincent, is this for real? Not only had I never heard of that but I never even considered that scenario.
Just Joy, you can't make a decision on current emplyment law because of what MIGHT happen in the future. This goes beyond employment law and speaks to the interest of private citizens and their endevours. In reference to your worry about employers firing people because their fat because of what this guy is doing with smokers, I'm trying to think of an anology but I'm drawing a blank right now. Slug explaioned the bottom line of this nicely and I will repeat it from my experience as a PRIVATE business owner in a Right to Work state and a C.P.C (Certified Personnel Consultant or specialist at Employment Law). As an employer, I have the RIGHT, to fire you at any time for any reason (Examples: I don't like the way you smack your gum, I don't like the way you treat other employees, I don't like that you beat your wife when you get home, I don't like the way you're unresponsible with your money and keep having to ask for advances on yor pay, I don't care for the way you degrade women, I don't like the way your voice sounds like scratching finger nails down a blackboard, OR I don't like the way you make my health insurance premiums go up because you are a smoker) except in violation of the EEOC guidelines and you as an employee have the RIGHT to quit at any time for any reason (example: If you think your boss is a prick, you quit). PERIOD. Now that doesn't mean it may not be unfair in your eyes, but it's the law.
|
Otis
Needs a job
Captain Kickstand
Posts: 3028
|
posted February 01, 2005 11:12 AM
 Edited By: Otis on 1 Feb 2005 11:14
And in the interest of disclosure, I did fire a guys for beating his wife, I did fire a woman that everyone else hated cause she turned out to be a bitch and I did fire a guy who was so degrading to woman it was embarrasing and pure sexual harrassment.
|
Just Joy
Needs a job
Posts: 3976
|
posted February 01, 2005 11:22 AM
Otis.....I never once in my post said that the employer did not have the right to fire smokers, I only said that I can't AGREE with it.............and as for my statement on over weight people, it has been documented over and over again, that obesity is now the NUMBER ONE strain on Health Care, followed closely by smoking and then nervous mothers......and there are documented concerns for the next generation, simply because over 60% of the (Canadian / American) children are over weight and lack proper excercise and eating habits. That by the time these children reach their 20s, they will experiance back, hip, knee, and heart complications.......so, yes, I can make a decision on this because of what might happen in the future, ever heard of "Precedent"..... One thing ALWAYS leads to another....and that is what I'm afraid of....
|
Otis
Needs a job
Captain Kickstand
Posts: 3028
|
posted February 01, 2005 11:34 AM
I'm sorry if I came across as accusatory, that was not my intention. I agree that heathcare costs for obese people is astronomical and people are typically fat and lazy. What you need to understand is this precedent you are speaking of. There is no law stating you can't fire someone because they smoke, so there cannot be a precedent over his firing them. There is no law to uphold, therefore no precedent. If his employer sues him and looses, it doesn't start a precedent because there was no law to stop him from firing the guy in the first place. Tomorrow another employer may fire all his employees who are fat, and you know what? No matter how unfair it may be, he can do it because there is no law stopping him. That was my point is all. I've known all along I can fire anyone I want for any reason, including being fat or being a smoker, that doesn't mean I do it, or ever will do it. But, you beat your wife when you get home and I find out about it? You can't work for me.
By the way, I don't fire people because they smoke or are fat. I smoke (never at work) but am not fat.
|
Just Joy
Needs a job
Posts: 3976
|
posted February 01, 2005 11:48 AM
lol....gottcha.....and I agree with you that there is no law.....but, (just for an example) at one point there was no law that a benifit company could not cancel or didn't have to cover someone who participated in dangerous sports (like motor cycling), but, because one company did it, others followed, someone chanllenged it (and won), now there is a law......see what I'm getting at, (in my babbleing sort of way), there dosen't need to be a law to set a precedent, and maybe thats the wrong word to use, lets say "common practise".....all I'm saying is that if this does become common practise, will it be that much of a stretch to include the obese??? Its just something to think about....... 
|
Otis
Needs a job
Captain Kickstand
Posts: 3028
|
posted February 01, 2005 12:00 PM
Edited By: Otis on 1 Feb 2005 12:02
Good point for sure. Let's just hope employers have a bit more decency than this guy, even though I stand by him in his RIGHT to do it. The thing is that he won't get too much flack for this because a majority of people hat esmokers anyway, or at least disagree with it. You know, second hand smoke and all. But I truly think that if this happened to someone who was fired because they were overweight, holy smokes can you imagine??? I bet Oprah would lead the cause to crucify the employer and Jenny Craig would be on a rampage. I think it would be suicide for any employer to even try it, then again there are a LOT of stupid employers.
|
Just Joy
Needs a job
Posts: 3976
|
posted February 01, 2005 12:07 PM
|
frEEk
Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9660
|
posted February 01, 2005 12:38 PM
i dunno, Jenny Craig would prolly love it. can u imagine the stampede of people trying to lose weight cause they're afraid of losing their jobs? almost be a good thing in a way.
there definteily seems to be a bit of confusing 3 different points/views here tho, and that's what he is ALLOWED TO DO (legally), what he SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO (legally), and what would be the RIGHT THING TO DO (morally/ethically). definitely 3 VERY different issues. i think everyoen agrees on #1, most agree on #3, but there is defintiely contention on #2. it's a great and very educational debate i think, not so much cause of the core issue, but also teh underlying issue of #2 in terms of govt control. i see alot of people who are very pro-american (in the freedom sense) arguing that the employer should not be allowed to do so. it's worth a little reflection as to how socialist that viewpoint is. i think we really tend to get too caught up in the fundamentals of left (socialism) and right (conservatism) and don't realize that those ends of the spectrum still share alot of the basics like human rights and that they both have limits that arent that far apart. given the veracity which which i see the right defend freedom and minimal govt control, i'm surprised that there even are laws against discrimination of any kind. yet u very rarely hear someone actually disagree with those laws. on the other side, considering how much the left tries to force everyone to be perfect, controlled citizens, i'm amazed such countries allow things like gasoline powered cars, hunting, or brothels. in short, i think left/right really doesnt mean all that much in the end. it's almost an excuse to polaraize over a selected subset of issues. i guess it just makes it easier for one side to call the other stupid/evil/etc. my feeling is there shoudl be no parties at all. the political system should be comprised of an elected group of people (like now) that hash out the issues for the public, but then every law that needs to be voted in would be voted by the people. like once a week everyone in the country woudl go and vote on a couple issues. that would there would be no party bullshit pushing thru BS or pet laws. we all know there are plenty of republicans with differeing views, and democrats with differing views. this jsut tells me that the whole party system is crap. if views differ so much (and of course they do), then each issue shoudl be voted on individually. if diebold werent such a bunch of fucknuts, we could already use that system today.
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted February 01, 2005 04:01 PM
the problem with what you are suggesting (pure democracy) is twofold.
1. Purely on a practical level. Canyou imagine the expense of holding an election every week?
2. On a higher philpsophical level: pure democracy, when you boil it all down, is mob rule. And it is arguably a bigger loser than a dictatorship.
The reason we have elected officials is so that we have say in the government process. BUT (in the ideals of the US Constitution, and in the basis of its writing) the states were also to have representatives (senators) so that the state governments had a say in the federal level.
the way it was *supposed* to work was the house and senate offered different points of view. Senate was there to look after the interests of their state. The house was there to look after the interests of the people. Together they would ensure that the government was done in such a way as to not overshadow the individual people, and at the same time NOT descend to full-blown democracy.
Back when the senators became popularly elected officials, the great decline began. Because now you had no check and balance. Federal programs balooned, and state authority plummeted.
The majority of all actual GOVERNING was designed to be at a local level, where the people who served were closest to those they were serving.
Federal level governing was supposed to be limited to national security and such things. Nothing about everything else we have now.
Currently the federal government forces its views on states. How? Why?
1. because the states no longer have ANY say in that federal government. It's all driven by vote-getting
2. because the states DEPEND on federal funding. WIthhold funding (especially on projects the fed says MUST be done by states...) and the state is quick to get back in line (in most cases)
this is reverse of the intention. The federal was at the will of the people and states. Not the other way around.
Our party system is heavily flawed, but it unfortunately is a minor side-effect of the slide down the democracy slope. As more people are less educated, and know less about the reality of democracy, and the reasons we were set up as a democratic republic, the further down the toilet we will go.
Should politicians be career? not at all. But there is no way to change that now. (short of a really bloody war. which may or may not be coming)
It would be nice to get a REAL government reduction party in power, but who is to say that they wouldn't be similarly affected by the raw power and financial windfalls of being a federal-level career politician?
frEEk is so correct on both parties being essentially the same, except a few minor points. They are heavily dependant on power, and getting power means pandering to more people than the other party. Which leads to a free-for-all where actual legality and such are concerned.
but a full democracy is the fastest route to ruin. As soon as a population figured out they could vote themselves money from the public coffers, that society and government is doomed.
Social security anyone?
Class warfare? "evil filthy rich need more taxes" "they aren'tpaying their FAIR share"
Eminent domain abuse?
this is coming to a head, and there WILL be Hell to pay. Unfortunately there are not a lot of people that are capable (or willing) of paying...
 
|
frEEk
Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9660
|
posted February 01, 2005 04:17 PM
slug, tho i dissagree on the cost issue (it _could_ be done reasonably cheap but probably wouldnt) unfortunately i think u'r right about pure democracy/mob rule not being a particuarly great system either. tho i'd be curious as to if it actaully would work fairly well if the voting public were well and objectively informed of the choices they're making. that is to say, when u go vote on this week's issue, it would include a brief and plain paragraph on the liekly ramifications, pros & cons. again, objectivity is the important thing here, and i think that woudl be greatly increased by getting rid of parties. i'd like to see elected officials be mroe like govt staff and not polititians per se. if u'v ever been to a city hall meeting (at least where i live) the town council vote based on teh reports created by city staff. basiaclly i'd liek to see the councillors replaced by the public. let objective, honest researchers boil down the issues as much as possible, and present that to the public. frankly, i think at that point most decisions (at least the controversial ones) would probably be no brainers anyway (tho i could be wrong). i sure know what u mean about people voting themselves zero tax etc, but if they're aware that means they'll have no schools, no raods, etc, i think even the biggest assholes & idiots will wizen up and make more realistic choices. i may be giving humans too much credit mind u  unfortunately such an "experiment" is not particularly easy to pull off. maybe u'd have to pay a tiny country like luxemburg [sp?] to do it (they are for rent after all).
|
VincentHill
Needs a life
Posts: 6520
|
posted February 01, 2005 04:18 PM
Otis, I am 100% for real. It was in a rider attached to the offer to buy that house I am trying to sell in Toledo. I do not think it is "Allowed" is all statesm but I would bet that it is allowed in the "Red" States
It is always something and this is the last twist!
____________
Made History @ Daytona and still one fast old man!!
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted February 02, 2005 04:16 AM
the problem is that they will vote those costs on to the "filthy evil rich" since "they have more money than they need"
it's an ugly business. but it could be worse....
|
frEEk
Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9660
|
posted February 02, 2005 06:12 PM
funny how close total democracy sounds to communism when u put it that way eh? as a species, we sure like to have our cake and it it too!
|
VincentHill
Needs a life
Posts: 6520
|
posted February 03, 2005 07:39 AM
quote:
funny how close total democracy sounds to communism when u put it that way eh? as a species, we sure like to have our cake and it it too!
Socialisim. The Only true Communist was Jesus. They shared and Shared alike. What goes on in China, Korea and the Former USSR is not Communism!
____________
Made History @ Daytona and still one fast old man!!
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted February 03, 2005 11:12 AM
quote:
quote:
funny how close total democracy sounds to communism when u put it that way eh? as a species, we sure like to have our cake and it it too!
Socialisim. The Only true Communist was Jesus. They shared and Shared alike. What goes on in China, Korea and the Former USSR is not Communism!
But even Jesus was clear on the 'you reap what you sow' side of things. you work, you reap the benefits of that work. He was also clear that what we have we should have stewardship over. something about a cheerful giver and all that jazz ;P
|
Widowmaker
Expert Class
Posts: 378
|
posted February 08, 2005 07:06 PM
I bet these guys can smoke on the job!!
|
frEEk
Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9660
|
posted February 08, 2005 11:59 PM
frightening how small the f1 car is! not to mention how the HELL the driver can fit in it.
|
|
|
|
|
HOME
NEW TOPIC