"Tobacco-Free Hiring?"

[NovemberBride]

To respond to the legality argument, it is perfectly legal. There is a great deal of misconception over what is legal with respect to employer/employee relationships in the US. Private employers in the US can discriminate for any reason they want unless it is relates to a protected class (race, sex, religion, age). If a private company only wants to hire people who's favorite color is blue, that's perfectly legal. Just because it is legal to do something (smoke), doesn't mean it is a right that can be enforced in the workplace. Whether it is right or wrong is up for debate, but under current law in the US this policy is completely legal.

 

[ksinger]

To respond to the legality argument, it is perfectly legal. There is a great deal of misconception over what is legal with respect to employer/employee relationships in the US. Private employers in the US can discriminate for any reason they want unless it is relates to a protected class (race, sex, religion, age). If a private company only wants to hire people who's favorite color is blue, that's perfectly legal. Just because it is legal to do something (smoke), doesn't mean it is a right that can be enforced in the workplace. Whether it is right or wrong is up for debate, but under current law in the US this policy is completely legal.

LOL! Yes. And I seriously doubt anyone is going to make being greedy, heartless, amoral, or just plain capricious, illegal, especially since people can hide from the judgement of other people while protected by structure and anonymity of "the corporation". What a deal! All those things are and always have been, prime drivers of American business. Quite a lucrative strategy really, in the final analysis.

 

[Pandora II]

To respond to the legality argument, it is perfectly legal. There is a great deal of misconception over what is legal with respect to employer/employee relationships in the US. Private employers in the US can discriminate for any reason they want unless it is relates to a protected class (race, sex, religion, age). If a private company only wants to hire people who's favorite color is blue, that's perfectly legal. Just because it is legal to do something (smoke), doesn't mean it is a right that can be enforced in the workplace. Whether it is right or wrong is up for debate, but under current law in the US this policy is completely legal.

Wow, I'm really shocked by this. In the UK there is almost no job you can discriminate in any way on, our labour laws are extremly protective of the employee.

Just out of interest, if I was drug-tested by a company I would test positive for narcotics I presume given that I take the equivalent of 60mg morphine a day for my spinal problems. I've done this for over 7 years and I function perfectly normally on them. Would I fail the test? Would I be less likely to be employed? What about having bipolar disorder - would that count against me?

 

[ksinger]

To respond to the legality argument, it is perfectly legal. There is a great deal of misconception over what is legal with respect to employer/employee relationships in the US. Private employers in the US can discriminate for any reason they want unless it is relates to a protected class (race, sex, religion, age). If a private company only wants to hire people who's favorite color is blue, that's perfectly legal. Just because it is legal to do something (smoke), doesn't mean it is a right that can be enforced in the workplace. Whether it is right or wrong is up for debate, but under current law in the US this policy is completely legal.

Wow, I'm really shocked by this. In the UK there is almost no job you can discriminate in any way on, our labour laws are extremly protective of the employee.

Just out of interest, if I was drug-tested by a company I would test positive for narcotics I presume given that I take the equivalent of 60mg morphine a day for my spinal problems. I've done this for over 7 years and I function perfectly normally on them. Would I fail the test? Would I be less likely to be employed? What about having bipolar disorder - would that count against me?

Well, I know employers can't ask you about your health issues, so unless you volunteered that you're bipolar, it would not count against you. Now, if you told them, to avoid litigation, I suspect they might come up with some other seemingly innocuous reason for not hiring you, even though they really might just not be wanting to hire the crazy person - or the cancerous person or the diabetic.... (and that is snark, NOT that I think you're crazy) That's why people are so totally protective here about their health status, and the privacy laws have gotten so strict (see my story above about the insurance company sharing personal claims info with the employer, who then used it to discriminate) The point being that someone doing the hiring CAN discriminate just fine, but they tend to try to hide it when they do.

And yes, depending on the job, the narcotics could cause problems, because in the US, anyone needing/asking for them, is automatically assumed to be "drug seeking". It's why we chronically undertreat pain in this country. Bias.

 

[that_someone_special]

I'm sorry, anyone that is a smoker and tries to claim that they "don't smell like smoke" is brainwashed. Please. You smell. The air around you smells, your breath smells, and after a while you can't smell it on yourself, others can. Perfume and breath mints don't make it better.

 

[ForteKitty]

There's a big difference between discriminating against someone who is sick (who would ever choose to be sick?), and someone who chooses to smoke. And yes, I believe smoking is a choice. Nobody shoved a cigarette in their mouth in the first place. If they developed an addiction, it's still their responsiblity to seek help if they really want to quit. If they dont, that's their choice.

It's not a fair comparison. I dont know anyone who would choose to be sick.

 

[Jennifer W]

To respond to the legality argument, it is perfectly legal. There is a great deal of misconception over what is legal with respect to employer/employee relationships in the US. Private employers in the US can discriminate for any reason they want unless it is relates to a protected class (race, sex, religion, age). If a private company only wants to hire people who's favorite color is blue, that's perfectly legal. Just because it is legal to do something (smoke), doesn't mean it is a right that can be enforced in the workplace. Whether it is right or wrong is up for debate, but under current law in the US this policy is completely legal.

Wow, I'm really shocked by this. In the UK there is almost no job you can discriminate in any way on, our labour laws are extremly protective of the employee.

Just out of interest, if I was drug-tested by a company I would test positive for narcotics I presume given that I take the equivalent of 60mg morphine a day for my spinal problems. I've done this for over 7 years and I function perfectly normally on them. Would I fail the test? Would I be less likely to be employed? What about having bipolar disorder - would that count against me?

Well, I know employers can't ask you about your health issues, so unless you volunteered that you're bipolar, it would not count against you. Now, if you told them, to avoid litigation, I suspect they might come up with some other seemingly innocuous reason for not hiring you, even though they really might just not be wanting to hire the crazy person - or the cancerous person or the diabetic.... (and that is snark, NOT that I think you're crazy) That's why people are so totally protective here about their health status, and the privacy laws have gotten so strict (see my story above about the insurance company sharing personal claims info with the employer, who then used it to discriminate) The point being that someone doing the hiring CAN discriminate just fine, but they tend to try to hide it when they do.

And yes, depending on the job, the narcotics could cause problems, because in the US, anyone needing/asking for them, is automatically assumed to be "drug seeking". It's why we chronically undertreat pain in this country. Bias.

Interesting. It's lawful in the UK to make appointment dependent on a health screening process, so asking about health issues is acceptable. Employers aren't responsible for employees' health in that we don't need health insurance. However, if health issues stem from what could be described as a disability, it then becomes unlawful to discriminate on that basis. Difficult in practice to demonstrate that you were discriminated against because of your disability.

In UK firms using drug testing (there are some) if you have a prescription, you can provide a copy to the occupational health service carrying out the testing and that substance will be excluded from your results. To do otherwise falls foul of the Disability Discrimination Act, for exactly the point that pain would otherwise be under treated, and pain is often part of a chronic disability.

Discrimination at the selection stage is also different to discrimination at dismissal (constructive or otherwise). Here, you have more protection when you're in employment than when seeking it.

 

[ksinger]

There's a big difference between discriminating against someone who is sick (who would ever choose to be sick?), and someone who chooses to smoke. And yes, I believe smoking is a choice. Nobody shoved a cigarette in their mouth in the first place. If they developed an addiction, it's still their responsiblity to seek help if they really want to quit. If they dont, that's their choice.

It's not a fair comparison. I dont know anyone who would choose to be sick.

Really? I think it IS a pretty fair comparison. I have a good friend who had diabetes since his 20's (he is now in his early 50s), and who, by his own admission, has made consistently poor choices over the years regarding it. He never really controlled his weight, the kinds of food he ate, and virtually ingnored his condition to the degree that he could, for about the first 7 years after diagnosis. He didn't choose to be sick, but he made many many poor choices along the way after diagnosis. He now is in kidney failure and will be on dialysis for the rest of his life. Are you telling me that you would not judge this man harshly, for all his choices? There are many here who would, and I imagine many employers would just LOVE to say no to him. And yet, even now, he is a very productive and valuable employee and one of the most genuinely wonderful, intensely caring human beings I've ever met, period. To most out there he is a statistic, and can be discussed somewhat as if HE doesn't exist, really, but to me he is a dear dear friend. HE is why I am wary of making judgements in this area.

 

[suchende]

There's a big difference between discriminating against someone who is sick (who would ever choose to be sick?), and someone who chooses to smoke. And yes, I believe smoking is a choice. Nobody shoved a cigarette in their mouth in the first place. If they developed an addiction, it's still their responsiblity to seek help if they really want to quit. If they dont, that's their choice.

It's not a fair comparison. I dont know anyone who would choose to be sick.

Really? I think it IS a pretty fair comparison. I have a good friend who had diabetes since his 20's (he is now in his early 50s), and who, by his own admission, has made consistently poor choices over the years regarding it. He never really controlled his weight, the kinds of food he ate, and virtually ingnored his condition to the degree that he could, for about the first 7 years after diagnosis. He didn't choose to be sick, but he made many many poor choices along the way after diagnosis. He now is in kidney failure and will be on dialysis for the rest of his life. Are you telling me that you would not judge this man harshly, for all his choices? There are many here who would, and I imagine many employers would just LOVE to say no to him. And yet, even now, he is a very productive and valuable employee and one of the most genuinely wonderful, intensely caring human beings I've ever met, period. To most out there he is a statistic, and can be discussed somewhat as if HE doesn't exist, really, but to me he is a dear dear friend. HE is why I am wary of making judgements in this area.

Would you feel the same way if we had universal healthcare in the United States and it wasn't a question of employees & their families having high healthcare costs (so the only reasons to hire smokers were productivity, concerns about missing work due to smoking-related illness, smell, etc)?

 

[suchende]

Another point of distinction between smoking and other legal discrimination: some researchers think that just being around smokers (even when they aren't currently smoking) might increase your risk to disease by exposing you to dangerous chemicals via "third-hand smoke."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35318118/ns/health-addictions/

 

[Circe]

Another point of distinction between smoking and other legal discrimination: some researchers think that just being around smokers (even when they aren't currently smoking) might increase your risk to disease by exposing you to dangerous chemicals via "third-hand smoke."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35318118/ns/health-addictions/

I actually think I trust the World Health Organization study that said that second-hand smoke only had an effect in mass quantities a little bit more (i.e., no quantifiable results from second-hand smoke unless you, say, worked in a bar pre-smoking ban). Personally, I'm a lot more concerned about car exhaust, which, living in LA, means you basically smoke two packs a day even if you hate tobacco, just going off the effect on your air quality and lung function. I'd love to see less anti-smoking hysteria, and more focus on creating viable systems for public transportation ... but I realize that's probably up there with my desire for a pony. Alas.

 

[ksinger]

Another point of distinction between smoking and other legal discrimination: some researchers think that just being around smokers (even when they aren't currently smoking) might increase your risk to disease by exposing you to dangerous chemicals via "third-hand smoke."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35318118/ns/health-addictions/

I actually think I trust the World Health Organization study that said that second-hand smoke only had an effect in mass quantities a little bit more (i.e., no quantifiable results from second-hand smoke unless you, say, worked in a bar pre-smoking ban). Personally, I'm a lot more concerned about car exhaust, which, living in LA, means you basically smoke two packs a day even if you hate tobacco, just going off the effect on your air quality and lung function. I'd love to see less anti-smoking hysteria, and more focus on creating viable systems for public transportation ... but I realize that's probably up there with my desire for a pony. Alas.

Snort. Yeah, these days you're lucky to get a pothole fixed. Invest in infrastructure? You ARE in Unicornville.

I will say that out here in the hinterlands though, public transportation is quite a bit more of a thrash than in less sprawling cities. FIRST someone would have to have the foresight and restraint (2 factors sorely lacking in our leaders at every level) to NOT allow urban sprawl, which strains budgets for infrastructure, like water, electricity, police and fire coverage, not to mention making effective public transport so much more difficult.

 

[suchende]

Another point of distinction between smoking and other legal discrimination: some researchers think that just being around smokers (even when they aren't currently smoking) might increase your risk to disease by exposing you to dangerous chemicals via "third-hand smoke."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35318118/ns/health-addictions/

I actually think I trust the World Health Organization study that said that second-hand smoke only had an effect in mass quantities a little bit more (i.e., no quantifiable results from second-hand smoke unless you, say, worked in a bar pre-smoking ban). Personally, I'm a lot more concerned about car exhaust, which, living in LA, means you basically smoke two packs a day even if you hate tobacco, just going off the effect on your air quality and lung function. I'd love to see less anti-smoking hysteria, and more focus on creating viable systems for public transportation ... but I realize that's probably up there with my desire for a pony. Alas.

I found this: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol83/mono83-7.pdf that might be what you're referring to. It seems to find that involuntary smoking causes cancer in large amounts, and that there's competing evidence about how much. It doesn't seem to really conclusively address other health concerns in humans like respiratory inflammation (though it does include some data on animals suffering from respiratory inflammation, again, at pretty high exposure levels). Seems like it's still pretty unsettled.

 

[dragonfly411]

I think that it should be allowed in health care or food facilities. In health care, the smell and residue can have effects on those who work in a facility.

In a restaurant that smell and or the residue could get on your food. Ick.

Otherwise, I really don't see it as fair. At the same time though, alcohol is legal but you can lose a job for it, or not be hired because of it. So I guess it depends. Tobacco doesn't alter your ability to complete work, unless you get ill from it, which is highly likely. You're more likely to get lung infections, bronchitis, etc. That takes you out of the job. I guess I'm rather torn. This isn't like sexual preference, which harms no one, or multiple children, which also harms no one else. This is something that harms the person who is doing it and those around them.

 

[iheartscience]

I think that it should be allowed in health care or food facilities. In health care, the smell and residue can have effects on those who work in a facility.

In a restaurant that smell and or the residue could get on your food. Ick.

Otherwise, I really don't see it as fair. At the same time though, alcohol is legal but you can lose a job for it, or not be hired because of it. So I guess it depends. Tobacco doesn't alter your ability to complete work, unless you get ill from it, which is highly likely. You're more likely to get lung infections, bronchitis, etc. That takes you out of the job. I guess I'm rather torn. This isn't like sexual preference, which harms no one, or multiple children, which also harms no one else. This is something that harms the person who is doing it and those around them.

Sexual minorities are not protected from discriminatory hiring practices, at least not on a federal level. And I'm glad you're changing your tune on homosexuality. Last I heard you didn't agree with it and were telling your lesbian friends not to hit on you.

 

[NovemberBride]

To respond to the legality argument, it is perfectly legal. There is a great deal of misconception over what is legal with respect to employer/employee relationships in the US. Private employers in the US can discriminate for any reason they want unless it is relates to a protected class (race, sex, religion, age). If a private company only wants to hire people who's favorite color is blue, that's perfectly legal. Just because it is legal to do something (smoke), doesn't mean it is a right that can be enforced in the workplace. Whether it is right or wrong is up for debate, but under current law in the US this policy is completely legal.

Wow, I'm really shocked by this. In the UK there is almost no job you can discriminate in any way on, our labour laws are extremly protective of the employee.

Just out of interest, if I was drug-tested by a company I would test positive for narcotics I presume given that I take the equivalent of 60mg morphine a day for my spinal problems. I've done this for over 7 years and I function perfectly normally on them. Would I fail the test? Would I be less likely to be employed? What about having bipolar disorder - would that count against me?

Pandora,

The UK (and the rest of the developed world in general) have much more employee-friendly labor laws than the US. I see this all the time in my job (I am corporate counsel for a company with a world-wide presence). It is much harder and more costly to fire employees in jurisdictions outside of the US.

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

I work for a major non-profit who's mission is fire safety awareness. All employees have to sign an affidavit stating that they are or are not smokers. Non-smokers receive additional benefits such as an extra day off every year and more favorable health insurance rates.

Smoking is a choice and therefore should be exempt from discrimination protection. It shouldn't be held in comparison to protected classifications such as race, gender, or disability.

 

[dragonfly411]

I think that it should be allowed in health care or food facilities. In health care, the smell and residue can have effects on those who work in a facility.

In a restaurant that smell and or the residue could get on your food. Ick.

Otherwise, I really don't see it as fair. At the same time though, alcohol is legal but you can lose a job for it, or not be hired because of it. So I guess it depends. Tobacco doesn't alter your ability to complete work, unless you get ill from it, which is highly likely. You're more likely to get lung infections, bronchitis, etc. That takes you out of the job. I guess I'm rather torn. This isn't like sexual preference, which harms no one, or multiple children, which also harms no one else. This is something that harms the person who is doing it and those around them.

Sexual minorities are not protected from discriminatory hiring practices, at least not on a federal level. And I'm glad you're changing your tune on homosexuality. Last I heard you didn't agree with it and were telling your lesbian friends not to hit on you.

Thing - As I made clear before. I disagree with the concept of it because it doesn't agree with what I believe. That doesn't mean I don't like people who are, and I feel like it is very much a world of to each his own and if you love someone that is who you love. Please don't try to start some argument based on a past comment that was taken the wrong way. I can enjoy gay/lesbian people and believe that they should have rights without agreeing with their sexuality personally. Also, I didn't know whether they were protected or not, but was pointing out that something that affects a person's health and those around them is completely different than who someone loves. I'm glad I know that fact though because I believe they should be protected, they are not hurting others around them by loving the person/people they love.

 

[iheartscience]

I think that it should be allowed in health care or food facilities. In health care, the smell and residue can have effects on those who work in a facility.

In a restaurant that smell and or the residue could get on your food. Ick.

Otherwise, I really don't see it as fair. At the same time though, alcohol is legal but you can lose a job for it, or not be hired because of it. So I guess it depends. Tobacco doesn't alter your ability to complete work, unless you get ill from it, which is highly likely. You're more likely to get lung infections, bronchitis, etc. That takes you out of the job. I guess I'm rather torn. This isn't like sexual preference, which harms no one, or multiple children, which also harms no one else. This is something that harms the person who is doing it and those around them.

Sexual minorities are not protected from discriminatory hiring practices, at least not on a federal level. And I'm glad you're changing your tune on homosexuality. Last I heard you didn't agree with it and were telling your lesbian friends not to hit on you.

Thing - As I made clear before. I disagree with the concept of it because it doesn't agree with what I believe. That doesn't mean I don't like people who are, and I feel like it is very much a world of to each his own and if you love someone that is who you love. Please don't try to start some argument based on a past comment that was taken the wrong way. I can enjoy gay/lesbian people and believe that they should have rights without agreeing with their sexuality personally. Also, I didn't know whether they were protected or not, but was pointing out that something that affects a person's health and those around them is completely different than who someone loves. I'm glad I know that fact though because I believe they should be protected, they are not hurting others around them by loving the person/people they love.

I was actually trying to compliment you, not start an argument. Guess the compliment wasn't necessary, though!

 

[iLander]

This debate made me think of this poem:

First They came... - Pastor Martin Niemoller

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Many of you have probably heard this poem before, (from Wiki: "First they came…" is a famous statement attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group. )

To make it relevant to this topic, a liberal rewriting:

First they came for the smokers,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a smoker.

Then they came for the obese,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't obese.

Then they came for the ill,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't ill.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

I do NOT believe that people who are anti-smoking are Nazis (please don't post with that misimpression), so let's give me a minute to explain myself:

I think that anything that infringes on the rights of others is a threat to us all. That is why I chose that poem, because it speaks so exactly to the protection of every member our society.

Here's a story: when I was growing up, my little town couldn't afford to have fireworks one Fourth of July. Why? Because the funds were used that year to provide overtime police protection for a KKK rally that was held. I thought that was an interesting use of the money, because even though the KKK is the most vile, disgusting, human cesspool of an organization, they have rights. Wether I like it or not. Did you ever hear the saying "I don't agree with what you say, but I will fight to death for your right to say it"? That's what I mean. Regardless of everyone's hatred and disgust for these people, the constitution says "And Justice and Liberty for ALL".

Liberty for all. Not just the ones we like or approve of.

As for the anti-smoking movement, and the recent upswing in anti-obesity sentiment, one of the posters asked where is this coming from. Both of these things are brought to you by the insurance industry. The insurance industry made record profits last year (there was no recession for them, check their annual reports) and they would like to keep it that way. Smokers do pay a premium (20-50% more) for health coverage. How long until obese people (or obese children) pay extra? The insurance companies already refuse to cover people that are actually sick (pre-existing), how long until the stop covering (potentially pregnant) women? They already don't cover old people, that's for medicare and medicaid. They are starting to pick on OUR DOGS ( "agressive" breeds are not allowed on some homeowner's coverage) During the AIDS crisis, thousands of gays were dropped by their insurance companies. How long until the insurance companies come after our right to bear arms? Guns are dangerous! Think about it; if we allow them to continue, who/what exactly will they cover? Straight, healthy males without families? My grandmother used to say this about the insurance companies: during the Depression they were the only ones that still had money. In My Humble Opinion: we don't actually have a healthcare crisis, we have an insurance crisis.

And if we're not careful, we might some day have a crisis of our freedoms.

 

[Pandora II]

This debate made me think of this poem:

First They came... - Pastor Martin Niemoller

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Many of you have probably heard this poem before, (from Wiki: "First they came…" is a famous statement attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group. )

To make it relevant to this topic, a liberal rewriting:

First they came for the smokers,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a smoker.

Then they came for the obese,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't obese.

Then they came for the ill,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't ill.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

I do NOT believe that people who are anti-smoking are Nazis (please don't post with that misimpression), so let's give me a minute to explain myself:

I think that anything that infringes on the rights of others is a threat to us all. That is why I chose that poem, because it speaks so exactly to the protection of every member our society.

Here's a story: when I was growing up, my little town couldn't afford to have fireworks one Fourth of July. Why? Because the funds were used that year to provide overtime police protection for a KKK rally that was held. I thought that was an interesting use of the money, because even though the KKK is the most vile, disgusting, human cesspool of an organization, they have rights. Wether I like it or not. Did you ever hear the saying "I don't agree with what you say, but I will fight to death for your right to say it"? That's what I mean. Regardless of everyone's hatred and disgust for these people, the constitution says "And Justice and Liberty for ALL".

Liberty for all. Not just the ones we like or approve of.

As for the anti-smoking movement, and the recent upswing in anti-obesity sentiment, one of the posters asked where is this coming from. Both of these things are brought to you by the insurance industry. The insurance industry made record profits last year (there was no recession for them, check their annual reports) and they would like to keep it that way. Smokers do pay a premium (20-50% more) for health coverage. How long until obese people (or obese children) pay extra? The insurance companies already refuse to cover people that are actually sick (pre-existing), how long until the stop covering (potentially pregnant) women? They already don't cover old people, that's for medicare and medicaid. They are starting to pick on OUR DOGS ( "agressive" breeds are not allowed on some homeowner's coverage) During the AIDS crisis, thousands of gays were dropped by their insurance companies. How long until the insurance companies come after our right to bear arms? Guns are dangerous! Think about it; if we allow them to continue, who/what exactly will they cover? Straight, healthy males without families? My grandmother used to say this about the insurance companies: during the Depression they were the only ones that still had money. In My Humble Opinion: we don't actually have a healthcare crisis, we have an insurance crisis.

And if we're not careful, we might some day have a crisis of our freedoms.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

To respond to the legality argument, it is perfectly legal. There is a great deal of misconception over what is legal with respect to employer/employee relationships in the US. Private employers in the US can discriminate for any reason they want unless it is relates to a protected class (race, sex, religion, age). If a private company only wants to hire people who's favorite color is blue, that's perfectly legal. Just because it is legal to do something (smoke), doesn't mean it is a right that can be enforced in the workplace. Whether it is right or wrong is up for debate, but under current law in the US this policy is completely legal.

Very true. The advantage of this is that at least a person still have the option of NOT working for the company if he/she doesn't agree with the policies. When the gov't infringes on a person or company's rights (e.g. smoking bans), then that option is removed.

 

[dragonfly411]

I think that it should be allowed in health care or food facilities. In health care, the smell and residue can have effects on those who work in a facility.

In a restaurant that smell and or the residue could get on your food. Ick.

Otherwise, I really don't see it as fair. At the same time though, alcohol is legal but you can lose a job for it, or not be hired because of it. So I guess it depends. Tobacco doesn't alter your ability to complete work, unless you get ill from it, which is highly likely. You're more likely to get lung infections, bronchitis, etc. That takes you out of the job. I guess I'm rather torn. This isn't like sexual preference, which harms no one, or multiple children, which also harms no one else. This is something that harms the person who is doing it and those around them.

Sexual minorities are not protected from discriminatory hiring practices, at least not on a federal level. And I'm glad you're changing your tune on homosexuality. Last I heard you didn't agree with it and were telling your lesbian friends not to hit on you.

Thing - As I made clear before. I disagree with the concept of it because it doesn't agree with what I believe. That doesn't mean I don't like people who are, and I feel like it is very much a world of to each his own and if you love someone that is who you love. Please don't try to start some argument based on a past comment that was taken the wrong way. I can enjoy gay/lesbian people and believe that they should have rights without agreeing with their sexuality personally. Also, I didn't know whether they were protected or not, but was pointing out that something that affects a person's health and those around them is completely different than who someone loves. I'm glad I know that fact though because I believe they should be protected, they are not hurting others around them by loving the person/people they love.

I was actually trying to compliment you, not start an argument. Guess the compliment wasn't necessary, though!

Perhaps I read it wrong and apologize if I did.

 

[dragonfly411]

This debate made me think of this poem:

First They came... - Pastor Martin Niemoller

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Many of you have probably heard this poem before, (from Wiki: "First they came…" is a famous statement attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group. )

To make it relevant to this topic, a liberal rewriting:

First they came for the smokers,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a smoker.

Then they came for the obese,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't obese.

Then they came for the ill,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't ill.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

I do NOT believe that people who are anti-smoking are Nazis (please don't post with that misimpression), so let's give me a minute to explain myself:

I think that anything that infringes on the rights of others is a threat to us all. That is why I chose that poem, because it speaks so exactly to the protection of every member our society.

Here's a story: when I was growing up, my little town couldn't afford to have fireworks one Fourth of July. Why? Because the funds were used that year to provide overtime police protection for a KKK rally that was held. I thought that was an interesting use of the money, because even though the KKK is the most vile, disgusting, human cesspool of an organization, they have rights. Wether I like it or not. Did you ever hear the saying "I don't agree with what you say, but I will fight to death for your right to say it"? That's what I mean. Regardless of everyone's hatred and disgust for these people, the constitution says "And Justice and Liberty for ALL".

Liberty for all. Not just the ones we like or approve of.

As for the anti-smoking movement, and the recent upswing in anti-obesity sentiment, one of the posters asked where is this coming from. Both of these things are brought to you by the insurance industry. The insurance industry made record profits last year (there was no recession for them, check their annual reports) and they would like to keep it that way. Smokers do pay a premium (20-50% more) for health coverage. How long until obese people (or obese children) pay extra? The insurance companies already refuse to cover people that are actually sick (pre-existing), how long until the stop covering (potentially pregnant) women? They already don't cover old people, that's for medicare and medicaid. They are starting to pick on OUR DOGS ( "agressive" breeds are not allowed on some homeowner's coverage) During the AIDS crisis, thousands of gays were dropped by their insurance companies. How long until the insurance companies come after our right to bear arms? Guns are dangerous! Think about it; if we allow them to continue, who/what exactly will they cover? Straight, healthy males without families? My grandmother used to say this about the insurance companies: during the Depression they were the only ones that still had money. In My Humble Opinion: we don't actually have a healthcare crisis, we have an insurance crisis.

And if we're not careful, we might some day have a crisis of our freedoms.

This was a fantastic post Ilander.


Again though to me the smoking issue can be understandable IF it would affect other people (I.E. a patient).

I don't agree with judging people based on weight. I've been overweight, and I've been fit. I've actually been judged for both. My family constantly makes me feel TOO thin, though I come from a family that averages at being overweight. I don't believe in judging anyone until you get to know them, and work places should not be allowed to discriminate based on these things UNLESS it affects the person's ability to work OR the health of another person. At the same time, patients CAN request another smoker.... so then I have to say hmmm.

 

[Prana]

iLanders poem reminds me of a song by NoFX called 'Re-gaining Unconsciousness'. Maybe it applies, maybe it doesn't, but it reminds me of all that is happening. I can't post all the lyrics, because there are a lot of swears and inappropriate words, and I'm sorry if what I do post offends anyone, but that is not my intent.

First they put away the dealers,
keep our kids safe and off the street.
Then they put away the prostitutes,
keep married men cloistered at home.

Then they shooed away the bums,
then they beat and bashed the queers,
turned away asylum-seekers,
fed us suspicions and fears.
We didn't raise our voice,
we didn't make a fuss.
It's funny there was no one left to notice
when they came for us.

Looks like witches are in season,
you better fly your flag and be aware
of anyone who might fit the description,
diversity is now our biggest fear

Now with our conversations tapped
and our differences exposed,
how ya supposed to love your neighbor
with our minds and curtains closed?
We used to worry 'bout big brother,
now we got a big father and an even bigger mother

 

[House Cat]

There's a big difference between discriminating against someone who is sick (who would ever choose to be sick?), and someone who chooses to smoke. And yes, I believe smoking is a choice. Nobody shoved a cigarette in their mouth in the first place. If they developed an addiction, it's still their responsiblity to seek help if they really want to quit. If they dont, that's their choice.

It's not a fair comparison. I dont know anyone who would choose to be sick.

Addiction IS an illness of the brain.

You might have a drink every once in a while. Consider yourself lucky that the area of the brain that controls addiction didn't light up like wildfire and make you NEED alcohol.

There are many people who choose to be sick, when they aren't in their right mind. Mental illness causes this everyday, millions of times per day. Ever see someone with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia say they're aren't sick and stop taking all of their meds? I have. So, no, addiction isn't the same as heart disease, but it is almost exactly the same as any other mental illness. Unless you are arguing that mental illness isn't real and that it is a choice, then it is to be accepted that addiction is a very real illness of the brain.

 

[House Cat]

To respond to the legality argument, it is perfectly legal. There is a great deal of misconception over what is legal with respect to employer/employee relationships in the US. Private employers in the US can discriminate for any reason they want unless it is relates to a protected class (race, sex, religion, age). If a private company only wants to hire people who's favorite color is blue, that's perfectly legal. Just because it is legal to do something (smoke), doesn't mean it is a right that can be enforced in the workplace. Whether it is right or wrong is up for debate, but under current law in the US this policy is completely legal.

Wow, I'm really shocked by this. In the UK there is almost no job you can discriminate in any way on, our labour laws are extremly protective of the employee.

Just out of interest, if I was drug-tested by a company I would test positive for narcotics I presume given that I take the equivalent of 60mg morphine a day for my spinal problems. I've done this for over 7 years and I function perfectly normally on them. Would I fail the test? Would I be less likely to be employed? What about having bipolar disorder - would that count against me?

If you have a prescription for the meds that show up on your drug test, they say you have passed. Of course, they may not hire you if you have benzo's in your system, because then they know you suffer from anxiety. They may not want to hire someone who suffers from chronic pain either, so if they see opiates, they may choose not to hire, prescription or not.

I would never reveal my bipolar diagnosis to a potential employer unless I was going to work for an organization like NAMI or DBSA. Stigma is still alive an well in this country. It is still believed that I will shoot up a school or drown my children by half of the people living here. This is just one small example; I recently stopped listening to a local radio station because the morning show did a segment on a donut shop that was mental hospital/illness themed. At one point one of the dj's was speaking to a caller who was a psych nurse. The dj was literally referring to people with bipolar disorder as "crack pots" and "nut jobs." He then went on to ask the psych nurse if people with bipolar disorder would have the ability to understand the concept of a "bipolar donut." So as long as the media is promoting this attitude, our employers won't be too open minded to hiring people with our diagnosis.

There would be no way for me to prove that the potential employer chose not to hire me due to my diagnosis. They know this and that is where things get very touchy.

 

[Prana]

To respond to the legality argument, it is perfectly legal. There is a great deal of misconception over what is legal with respect to employer/employee relationships in the US. Private employers in the US can discriminate for any reason they want unless it is relates to a protected class (race, sex, religion, age). If a private company only wants to hire people who's favorite color is blue, that's perfectly legal. Just because it is legal to do something (smoke), doesn't mean it is a right that can be enforced in the workplace. Whether it is right or wrong is up for debate, but under current law in the US this policy is completely legal.

Just to comment on this, there are laws in place (I cannot provide any proof) in CT at least, that state that private employers who have 10 employees or less ARE legally allowed to discriminate against race, sex, religion and age.

 

[suchende]

I find it odd that posters are alluding to/quoting the Niemöller piece to defend putting government controls on private entities. Maybe just a sign of how entangled the Federal gov't has gotten with big business.

 

[iLander]

I find it odd that posters are alluding to/quoting the Niemöller piece to defend putting government controls on private entities. Maybe just a sign of how entangled the Federal gov't has gotten with big business.

Actually my effort was to make people aware of the manipulations of a big business (insurance co) and to resist those manipulations (or speak out against them) if they are so inclined.

As far as the government entangled with big business, I think we've only seen the tip of that iceberg. The recent Supreme Court ruling allowing corporations to donate limitless money directly to political campaigns will eventually result in a corporation-owned government. But that's for another thread, and may be too political for PS. So don't get me started on that one!