Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-11-2012, 09:46 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,076 posts, read 20,535,499 times
Reputation: 7807

Advertisements

Ada County, ID is considering not hiring tobacco users. Here's a link to the story in the "Idaho Statesman," the states leading newspaper:

Ada County mulls new hiring policy to screen out smokers | Boise, Garden City, Mountain Home | Idaho Statesman


Please note three things:



1. This quote:

"It’s a stretch, but not inconceivable, that smokers could seek protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act, said Pamela Parks, administrator for the Idaho Human Rights Commission. Some smokers could argue that they have an addiction to nicotine, a legal drug.

“We’ve never considered smoking as a disability, but if someone came forward with the right set of facts,” perhaps a case could be made, Parks said."

2. "The American Civil Liberties Union calls workplace policies that target workers’ off-duty habits “lifestyle discrimination,” allowing employers to act as the “health police.”

3. The number of comments below the story which object to this prospective policy. Yes, it's just one place in Idaho, but it does show that people are beginning to be concerned about how far the nanny-stater's will go.


The Idaho Human Rights Commission is an independent agency created by the Legislature to look out for the rights of Idaho's citizens. It is not a pro-smoking advocacy group.

Is the tide beginning to turn against the nanny-staters?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-11-2012, 09:49 AM
 
4,255 posts, read 3,481,099 times
Reputation: 992
Firefighters in Massachusetts can be fired for smoking off the job. Has been that way for a few yrs now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 09:51 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,076 posts, read 20,535,499 times
Reputation: 7807
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterboy7375 View Post
Firefighters in Massachusetts can be fired for smoking off the job. Has been that way for a few yrs now.

But, is that right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 09:58 AM
 
9,727 posts, read 9,732,136 times
Reputation: 6407
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
Ada County, ID is considering not hiring tobacco users. Here's a link to the story in the "Idaho Statesman," the states leading newspaper:

Ada County mulls new hiring policy to screen out smokers | Boise, Garden City, Mountain Home | Idaho Statesman


Please note three things:



1. This quote:

"It’s a stretch, but not inconceivable, that smokers could seek protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act, said Pamela Parks, administrator for the Idaho Human Rights Commission. Some smokers could argue that they have an addiction to nicotine, a legal drug.

“We’ve never considered smoking as a disability, but if someone came forward with the right set of facts,” perhaps a case could be made, Parks said."

2. "The American Civil Liberties Union calls workplace policies that target workers’ off-duty habits “lifestyle discrimination,” allowing employers to act as the “health police.”

3. The number of comments below the story which object to this prospective policy. Yes, it's just one place in Idaho, but it does show that people are beginning to be concerned about how far the nanny-stater's will go.


The Idaho Human Rights Commission is an independent agency created by the Legislature to look out for the rights of Idaho's citizens. It is not a pro-smoking advocacy group.

Is the tide beginning to turn against the nanny-staters?


What if I don't want to sit in a cubicle next to some bum whose clothes always reek like a ghetto bar on Saturday night?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 10:00 AM
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
9,394 posts, read 15,696,091 times
Reputation: 6262
I agree with #2 and #3.

I think in the case of the firefighting job it makes sense. Want your men and women to have high lung capacity because they're gonna be exposed to a lot of smoke on the job as it is, no need to make it worse.

But for some guy doing data entry for the county? I don't think it's gonna affect his performance, and before someone says "well he could end up getting very sick" yeah that could also happen if he eats his weight in McDonalds every day, are ya saying we should prohibit workers from eating fast food too?

I can almost agree with banning smoking while on the job, but what you do at home should be your own damn business.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 10:00 AM
 
Location: Ohio
24,621 posts, read 19,173,997 times
Reputation: 21743
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
Is the tide beginning to turn against the nanny-staters?
Sometimes you will find that the easiest way to play a game (and win) is to learn the rules of the game.

Turning the tide....

Mircea
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 10:01 AM
 
3,345 posts, read 3,076,068 times
Reputation: 1725
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinm View Post
What if I don't want to sit in a cubicle next to some bum whose clothes always reek like a ghetto bar on Saturday night?
Then it is your right to find other employment

Personally, I have less of a problem with being around smokers than drunks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 10:01 AM
 
4,255 posts, read 3,481,099 times
Reputation: 992
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
But, is that right?

I dont feel it is, thats just my opinion , not the law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 10:35 AM
 
13,900 posts, read 9,775,066 times
Reputation: 6856
I don't think that is right. I have no problem with companies or organizations incentivising healthy lifestyles, but just not hiring someone who's qualified because they smoke is a leap to far for me. I'm also an ex-smoker.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 10:54 AM
 
Location: Brooklyn
40,050 posts, read 34,610,917 times
Reputation: 10616
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
"It’s a stretch, but not inconceivable, that smokers could seek protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act, said Pamela Parks, administrator for the Idaho Human Rights Commission. Some smokers could argue that they have an addiction to nicotine, a legal drug.
...As part of the Creating Jobs for Unemployed Lawyers Act, no doubt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:09 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top