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.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,757,602 times
Reputation: 3587
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecovlke
Sue them for discrimmination. They can ban smoking on their premises, but I fail to see how they can not hire someone based upon them being a smoker.
As for smoking being the #1 health issue that can be controlled I'm not biting. We know it isn't healthy. We know full well the health issues it causes, but I've not once seen data that factored in air quality; work place safety issues (such as volatile chemical exposure) and factored that in with a smoker who got lung cancer.
Enough!
Obesity is probably the #1 health issue that can be controlled. Obesity is an epidemic in this country and it's growing. The health related issues tied to obesity outweighs those of a smoker. Hypertension, diabetes, multiple cardiac problems, physical restraints due to weight, and there's more.
Just sue the socks off of these companies. Who the hell are they to stick their nose in someone's private life.
Employers may choose to hire whom they wish EXCEPT on the basis of race, sex, national origin, age or, in some places, sexual orientation and marital status. Smokers, drunks and drug addicts are not a legally protected class. Neither are fat asses (obese). Employers not only can refuse to hire such people but may even decide to fire them as well (although I do not support that).
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,757,602 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
That's a slippery slope, if they can justify not hiring because you smoke they could justify not hiring for just about any reason. What's next? Hiring bans on the obese or other medical problems?
They can hire whom they want. They can refuse to hire whom they want for ANY REASON at all except those who are a legally protected class (sex, race, age ect). If they don't want red heads or people with blue eyes, they can refuse to hire them.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,757,602 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by odinloki1
perhaps all the nonsmokers at work don't want to smell the tobacco stench all day that smokers carry around with them and they're leaving for other places to work
Exactly. Where I work, we all have company trucks to do our jobs and when your truck is in the shop for repair or maintenance, the boss tells you to use the truck of another employee who is off or on vacation. I refuse to use the vehicle of a smoker because the stench makes me want to vomit and the ashtrays are filthy. I will go to the union if they try to force the issue.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,757,602 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
Americans with Disabilities. Companies take risks everyday with employees.
There is a difference between being disabled by a medical condition or something you were born with- such as my son being left handed- and being a drug addict or a tart fat ass slob who eats donuts all day and sucks on cigarettes. Employers should wisely avoid such people.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,757,602 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogerbacon
If smokers and the obese can be excluded because of higher medical costs then it follows that women who are of child-bearing age could also be excluded since pregnancy is most health insurers' biggest payout.
Insurance should not pay for pregnancy AT ALL. Insurance is there to cover unplanned and unseen events. Pregnancy does not fit that. The only time insurance should cover birth is if something complicates it.
Smokers simply cost employers much more than non-smoking employees do. No scapegoating; numerous studies have proven all aspects of this.
One problem with smokers in the workplace (now that they must go outside to prevent polluting the air of non-smokers) is that you are not a productive worker if you are often stepping outside to take a long "smoke break." Although this estimate seems very low compared to what I see in the workplace: "Smokers average about four 15-minutes smoking breaks a day" Smokers Waste an Hour Every Day on Smoking Breaks Alone - Employers Fighting Back, Says ASH, which wastes an entire hour out of every day. That's 10 hours every 2 weeks, or more than an entire day. That's a ton of productivity lost in an economy where productivity-per-worker is the primary measure of success.
Another problem is time lost to sickness. "Young healthy people who smoke had substantially more lost work days than their non-smoking colleagues..." Young healthy smokers take significantly more days off work than non-smokers They also cost the company more in direct costs: "The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) puts a $3,391 price tag on each employee who smokes: $1,760 in lost productivity and $1,623 in excess medical expenditures." Cost of Smoker Employees vs Non Smoker Employees
Smokers must pay more for health insurance due to their much higher rates of illness, and with employer-subsidized insurance the employer typically pays a set percentage of the cost. Therefore the smoking employee costs more to insure.
In an economy when 100 qualified workers are competing for every job, no employer wants to settle for someone who guarantees less productivity and higher costs. And since smoking is a drug addiction that can be cured, there really is no excuse for it.
Location: planet octupulous is nearing earths atmosphere
13,621 posts, read 12,728,425 times
Reputation: 20050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecovlke
Sue them for discrimmination. They can ban smoking on their premises, but I fail to see how they can not hire someone based upon them being a smoker.
As for smoking being the #1 health issue that can be controlled I'm not biting. We know it isn't healthy. We know full well the health issues it causes, but I've not once seen data that factored in air quality; work place safety issues (such as volatile chemical exposure) and factored that in with a smoker who got lung cancer.
Enough!
Obesity is probably the #1 health issue that can be controlled. Obesity is an epidemic in this country and it's growing. The health related issues tied to obesity outweighs those of a smoker. Hypertension, diabetes, multiple cardiac problems, physical restraints due to weight, and there's more.
Just sue the socks off of these companies. Who the hell are they to stick their nose in someone's private life.
i don't know about you,? but you just gave me the craving for a big mac with a "big up">> order of fries. and a apple pie with a big slurpy to wash it all down.. i say mc donalds should sell cigaretts to go with all that great food.
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.
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.
