Employees Fired For Smoking
- Thread starter Elle
- Start date
crabcake
But wait, there's more...
I've often wondered about the legalities of companies who discriminate against smokers. I can see them being miffed about added health care costs if there really are any, but does that policy extend to users of other tobacco products (i.e., dip/chew)? :shrug: And not every smoker has higher health care costs ... so what about alcohol? Not every person who consumes alcohol is an alcoholic ... are they gonna ban and test for that too? :shrug:
Elle
Happy Camper!
There was a senator on the Early Show this morning and he bought up a good point, next thing you know it will be firing obese people and people who go to bars on their free time or have a cold one watching the game or race. Where do you draw the line on personal time activities?
Spoiled
Active Member
From my experience, smokers often take on-the-clock smoke breaks... It was against company policy to do so where i worked, but they did it anyways. They did it often, was very annoying, they would tell me to cover for them when they left as well. They were paid more than I was too 
Railroad
Routinely Derailed
When I was smoking and working in a corporate/government setting, I felt very insulted and invaded when the issue of my smoking became somebody else's concern. I felt that I had the right to smoke, just as they had the right to not smoke. I tried to be considerate of non-smokers by not smoking around them. I have had healthcare issues for years, but none of them directly related to my smoking. I've been a non-smoker for almost 2 years and am proud of it, but I don't plan to take up a rabid anti-smoking mentality as so many others have.
I don't think anyone would argue that a healthy workforce costs less to maintain than one with a lot of problems. But trying the "Big Brother" approach is IMHO wrong - dead wrong, and a violation of the kinds of freedoms we are so proud to have in this nation.
Political Correctness - PC.
Public Cancer - PC.
PC=PC
GRRRR!
I don't think anyone would argue that a healthy workforce costs less to maintain than one with a lot of problems. But trying the "Big Brother" approach is IMHO wrong - dead wrong, and a violation of the kinds of freedoms we are so proud to have in this nation.
Political Correctness - PC.
Public Cancer - PC.
PC=PC
GRRRR!
Last edited:
I think you missed the point. This guy is regulating LEGAL activities employees engage in outside of business hours.From my experience, smokers often take on-the-clock smoke breaks... It was against company policy to do so where i worked, but they did it anyways. They did it often, was very annoying, they would tell me to cover for them when they left as well. They were paid more than I was too
You'd think these busybodies would be excited about people smoking - that they'd encourage it. Here's why:
Supposedly smokers die at a younger age (although these folks who make the news by finally kicking over at 114 or some unGodly age are almost always smokers). But the whiners say that smoking decreases your life expectancy so we'll follow that premise.
People dying at a younger age means they've kicked in for our Social Security scheme their whole working life, but will never use all their benefits. So this means more money in the coffers for "the children" coming up the pike, for whom Social Security is in "crisis" (or at least it was until George Bush agreed to address it - now it's just fine).
What's most amusing is that if a gay man were to be fired for engaging in risky behavior (and gay men are the #1 group at risk of contracting AIDS) can you imagine the outcry?
Supposedly smokers die at a younger age (although these folks who make the news by finally kicking over at 114 or some unGodly age are almost always smokers). But the whiners say that smoking decreases your life expectancy so we'll follow that premise.
People dying at a younger age means they've kicked in for our Social Security scheme their whole working life, but will never use all their benefits. So this means more money in the coffers for "the children" coming up the pike, for whom Social Security is in "crisis" (or at least it was until George Bush agreed to address it - now it's just fine).
What's most amusing is that if a gay man were to be fired for engaging in risky behavior (and gay men are the #1 group at risk of contracting AIDS) can you imagine the outcry?
Spoiled
Active Member
You want the job, you sign the papers... Which probably state something in regards of this, unhealthy behavior, etc... Obviously there was some paperwork involved, which is why this isnt resulting in a large lawsuit or something...alex said:
My point is smokers, as i have found, in addition to costing more for health insurance are a drain on the work place due the point previously mentioned.
The employer should just skip all this crap and take a DNA blood sample before hiring anyone. Then he can say, "Your tests came back positive for traits of diabeties, cancer, and heart disease - we won't be hiring you after all. Have a nice day!" 
crabcake
But wait, there's more...
Employees where I work are given a 15 minute break in the morning and one in the afternoon, plus lunch. When I go smoke, 9 times out of 10, I take something work-related with me for my smoke/15-min breaks. I find I'm more likely to actually smoke the whole thing vs. cut it short cuz I get bored standing around.Spoiled said:From my experience, smokers often take on-the-clock smoke breaks... It was against company policy to do so where i worked, but they did it anyways. They did it often, was very annoying, they would tell me to cover for them when they left as well. They were paid more than I was too
Spoiled
Active Member
Like i said, i was speaking from what i saw where i worked..crabcake said:Employees where I work are given a 15 minute break in the morning and one in the afternoon, plus lunch. When I go smoke, 9 times out of 10, I take something work-related with me for my smoke/15-min breaks. I find I'm more likely to actually smoke the whole thing vs. cut it short cuz I get bored standing around.
Lenny
Lovin' being Texican
Don't laugh, it's being actively discussed. Who do you want defending your right NOT to have to provide the DNA sample? ACLU? DU? NAACP?Sharon said:The employer should just skip all this crap and take a DNA blood sample before hiring anyone. Then he can say, "Your tests came back positive for traits of diabeties, cancer, and heart disease - we won't be hiring you after all. Have a nice day!"