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 18,732,244 times
Reputation: 7751

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?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-11-2012, 09:49 AM
 
4,255 posts, read 3,174,110 times
Reputation: 991
Firefighters in Massachusetts can be fired for smoking off the job. Has been that way for a few yrs now.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 09:51 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,076 posts, read 18,732,244 times
Reputation: 7751
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?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 09:58 AM
 
9,734 posts, read 8,716,196 times
Reputation: 6371
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?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 10:00 AM
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
9,396 posts, read 14,467,300 times
Reputation: 6254
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 10:00 AM
 
Location: Ohio
22,798 posts, read 16,075,920 times
Reputation: 19294
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
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 10:01 AM
 
3,347 posts, read 2,819,190 times
Reputation: 1719
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 10:01 AM
 
4,255 posts, read 3,174,110 times
Reputation: 991
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
But, is that right?

I dont feel it is, thats just my opinion , not the law.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 10:35 AM
 
13,535 posts, read 8,505,266 times
Reputation: 6348
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 10:54 AM
 
Location: Brooklyn
40,051 posts, read 31,913,103 times
Reputation: 10553
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.
Rate this post positively 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.

© 2005-2021, 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