• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

You smoke? You're fired!

Tmy said:
I swear smokers act as if they have a constitutional right to blow smoke in everyones faces and stick us with the cancer bills.
Click to expand...

This I agree with...but that's the problem with government-run healthcare. It removes personal responsibility from the equation.
 
Nyarlathotep said:
I mind it. Though I will admit that I find it maddening that more people don't mind it. It's another example of how companies are slowly beginning to confuse 'employees' with 'serfs'.
Click to expand...

If more people minded it, they wouldn't do it.

Unless, of course, they're doing it because of some sort of government regulation.
 
Nyarlathotep said:
If you are talking to me, let me point out that so far on this thread I have seen no one, myself included, demand government action on the company.
Click to expand...

Then how did you interpret the phrase, "how far companies can go in regulating workers' behavior when they are off the clock"? To me, that smacks of a demand for government intervention.
 
Grammatron said:
Then again they are paying money and if the issue is health insurance, then perhaps the employee can opt-out of the insurance and smoke on their time?
Click to expand...

Except here, there are government regulations that prevent them from doing so. Last job I took, I tried to opt out and there was no legal way that could happen. I've heard of it happening other places, so I couldn't tell you when it can or cannot be done, but at least some places are being deprived of this option.
 
Re: Re: Re: You smoke? You're fired!

rhoadp said:
The company's stated reason for weaning smokers is cost. Does the business owner incur any cost due to the burned crosses? From someone doing it in his own time? I don't know; perhaps bad publicity leading to lower sales.
Click to expand...

That could be a reason. People see the guy and recognize him from the evening news and refuse to buy anything from him. But say it isn't; should the business owner be able to fire him anyway?
 
shanek said:
This I agree with...but that's the problem with government-run healthcare. It removes personal responsibility from the equation.
Click to expand...

a) no it doesn't

b) It is in the goverment's interests for you smoke.
 
shanek said:
This I agree with...but that's the problem with government-run healthcare. It removes personal responsibility from the equation.
Click to expand...

But this is a private compamy, not govt.

And we dont have a govt run healthcare system.
 
Tmy said:
But this is a private compamy, not govt.

And we dont have a govt run healthcare system.
Click to expand...

Our government pays 50% of the health care dollars every year. You cannot possibly be this ignorant. The whole defense behind seat belt laws, smoking bans, the fast food tax, etc. is because these people's irresponsibility is costing us money.

Besides, you said that smokers "stick us with the cancer bills." The only way they could do that is through government. Otherwise, you could simply not pay for their health care; only yours.
 
shanek said:
Our government pays 50% of the health care dollars every year. You cannot possibly be this ignorant. The whole defense behind seat belt laws, smoking bans, the fast food tax, etc. is because these people's irresponsibility is costing us money.

Besides, you said that smokers "stick us with the cancer bills." The only way they could do that is through government. Otherwise, you could simply not pay for their health care; only yours.
Click to expand...

BINGO! "We" pay 50% of the bills cause our system is a big scam to use tax dollars to line the pockets of the private health care system.

Just cause the govt is a customer doesnt mean its government run. Its not like we have nation health care. Now THAT would be a govt run system.
 
I don't agree with everything Shanek says (though I can't remember ever disagreeing with him), but he's spot on this time.

And as a Cigar/Pipe smoker, I'd resent any company that wouldn't hire me because of my hobby, but I wouldn't take away their freedom to pick who works for them.
 
Why don't they just...illegalize cigarettes? As far as I'm concerned, they should leave smokers alone and go straight for the neck: outlaw the production and distribution of cigarettes.
 
Phrost said:
I don't agree with everything Shanek says (though I can't remember ever disagreeing with him), but he's spot on this time.

And as a Cigar/Pipe smoker, I'd resent any company that wouldn't hire me because of my hobby, but I wouldn't take away their freedom to pick who works for them.
Click to expand...

And if all of them decide they won't hire pipe smokers?

Well, you can give that up.

What about if they decide not to hire anyone who ever smoked a pipe?

Good thing Libertarians believe in welfare, eh? Whoops!
 
Glacian said:
Why don't they just...illegalize cigarettes? As far as I'm concerned, they should leave smokers alone and go straight for the neck: outlaw the production and distribution of cigarettes.
Click to expand...

Oh, yes, that's worked so well with marijuana, heroin, and cocaine...and it worked so well for alcohol in the '20s...
 
TragicMonkey said:
And if all of them decide they won't hire pipe smokers?
Click to expand...

Then they'll all be shooting themselves in the foot, closing themselves off from a pool of good workers. This would leave the door wide open for competition to come in, grab these good workers, and give the other companies a run for their money. Heck, those workers themselves could even get together and do it.
 
TragicMonkey said:
And if all of them decide they won't hire pipe smokers?

Well, you can give that up.

What about if they decide not to hire anyone who ever smoked a pipe?

Good thing Libertarians believe in welfare, eh? Whoops!
Click to expand...

Wow, that's a great slippery slope argument you've got there.

OMG what if they start executing anyone who's ever looked at a cigarette???#!111

Libertarians believe in individual freedom and individual responsibility. If I chose to smoke, and the culture shifted in such a way that nobody was hiring smokers, I guess I'd either give it up, or employ myself.

Either way, it's not my place (or yours) to abuse government to force business owners to hire people who have traits they may not like. If you want to apply pressure to them, do it through the free market (don't buy their products) or through freedom of speech (organize boycotts, protests, etc).
 
Nyarlathotep said:
I mind it. Though I will admit that I find it maddening that more people don't mind it. It's another example of how companies are slowly beginning to confuse 'employees' with 'serfs'.
Click to expand...
Or sharecroppers.

Just one more reason why heath insurance should be directly purchased by the end consumers, employers should have absolutely no part in this transaction.
 
Re: Re: You smoke? You're fired!

shanek said:
Their business, their right.
Click to expand...
In most US states this is not a true statement about public companies. Example: "Their business, their right" does not give them the right to avoid the hiring of minorities. Many states have "right to work" laws which prevent this kind of thing. Whether or not it will be enforced when it comes to cigarettes is yet to be seen....
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: You smoke? You're fired!

shanek said:
Granted. Call them scumbags all you want. But the phrase "how far companies can go in regulating workers' behavior when they are off the clock" certainly states there should be some sort of government intervention here. There shouldn't be.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, it appears to me that the company is violating privacy rights and acting illegally. What right do they have to regulate free (vs. enslaved) people's behavior when they are not currently involved in a business transaction with this company (whether it be driving a company truck or calculating some accounting transactions for the company for pay during agreed upon business hours) or to search private property?

But the employee has something over them, too: the thread of losing their labor. And if enough employees get sick of this and leave, these scumbags will get the message.
Click to expand...
Its usually not that simple. Often in most communities there are less jobs available then people looking for work. Some people may also have strong ties to the area (family, partially paid up house) or have been foolish enough to borrow heavily against their 401(k) and not be in a postion to leave. (They would have to pay back the loan immediately or it would count as a early distribution with heavy penalties.) Or they may have dependent children and not feel able to leave for that reason.
 
Re: Re: Re: You smoke? You're fired!

Nyarlathotep said:
Would you be just as prone to defend the company if the owner decided he wanted to create a forbidden book list of tomes the workers were forbidden from reading even at home? I.e. he wanted to make good little Republicans out of all his workers so he decided to forbid anything by Micheal Moore or Al Franken. And the employees would be fired if management saw them reading such a book off the clock in a library? Its much the same thing.
Click to expand...
No, it's not the same thing - there is an important difference. Smoking has a demonstrable effect on health and health costs have a major effect on a company's costs. I just read somewhere (maybe here) that as much as $1500 of the cost of a car is related to health car. So a smoker has a direct effect on a company's ability to compete.

What books an employee reads has no effect on his job performance. Well, OK, it might but there is no direct causality like there is with smoking.

THAT is the difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom