Not hiring smokers?

Aoxomoxoa said:
I am happy to say that we have industrial tribunals in this country and any company that tried that shit would lose for sure.
Click to expand...
Apples to oranges Tom. You have the NHS in the UK. We don't have the equivalent here. Here health insurance is employer based and costs them a substantial amount of company overhead. Nearly $7000 per year in my total compensation from my employer is for my family health care insurance.

So I would argue that if employers have to foot this cost then they have a right to descriminate against employing those whose habits knowingly contribute to that costs. Now if Employers were not footing that bill then you'd be right, it's none of their business.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Where do you end up with this sort of shit? Will future employers insist on a personal genome sequencing to check for genetic defects?
Click to expand...
Not in the US. That's all ready been determined to be uncostitutional. How ever you do have a good question. Keep in mind though that as long as employers have to foot the bill for health care costs for their employees then they do have a right to not permit certain types of behavior that add to that costs. Now you could call that a pitfall of having an employer based national health care system and your criticism would be spot on.
 
LORD of the FISHFLYS said:
And I speak as someone who's never smoked and never will. I support smokers with everything, but if a restaurant wants to say no smokers (by choice, not by law) then go for it. If they want to make smoking mandatory, sure why not. If they say you have to come to work with a purple dildo in your mouth I won't say one thing against it(legally speaking).
Click to expand...
I disagree. Second hand smoke is a proven public health problem and thus the State has a right to regulate it. You don't have the right to pollute the air I breath with your toxic smoke. Nor should I be forced to breath your toxic smoke.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
In the UK, smoking is banned from all public premises. I thought that was true in the US as well.
Click to expand...
Not at all. Some States have made such bans and some municipalities and county governments have implemented such bans but such bans are not universal across the nation.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Not at all. Some States have made such bans and some municipalities and county governments have implemented such bans but such bans are not universal across the nation.
Click to expand...

Luckily in California the ban is just about everywhere... but it does vary from state to state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States

As of April 5, 2013, according to the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation, 81.3% of the U.S. population lives under a ban on smoking in "workplaces, and/or restaurants, and/or bars, by either a state, commonwealth, or local law,",[1] though only 48.9% live under a ban covering all workplaces and restaurants and bars.[2] A smoking ban (either state or local) has been enacted covering all bars and restaurants in each of the 60 most populated cities in the United States except these 16: Arlington, Texas, Atlanta, Fort Worth, Jacksonville, Memphis, Miami, Las Vegas, Nashville, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Tampa, Tulsa, and Virginia Beach.[3][4]
Click to expand...

As of June 2013, 28 states have enacted statewide bans on smoking in all enclosed public places, including all bars and restaurants: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.
However, these states exempt a variety of places from their respective smoking bans. All except six (Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, Vermont, and Washington) exempt tobacconists. All except four (Michigan, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wisconsin) allow hotels and motels to designate a certain percentage of smoking rooms. Many also exempt or do not cover casinos (9), private clubs (7), cigar bars (13), or certain small workplaces (8).
Click to expand...
 
tekkychick said:
But what you aren't getting - LEGALLY businesses cannot discriminate based on race, gender, and (in a lot of cases) sexual orientation. We already restrict businesses from just hiring or serving who they want.

And restaurants aren't allowed to let smokers in. We do restrict.

You may feel that is wrong; but that's the law.

I'm just saying we don't need a new group of people - smokers -to be discriminated against in hiring - IF they only smoke in their private time.
Click to expand...
Again, that's not rational. You're not considering the substantial cost smokers have to companies that have required employee health care programs. If they and the non-smoking co-workers have to pay increased costs due to the substantially higher health care costs smokers have then they do indeed have a right to a say as to whether they hire smokers.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Again, that's not rational. You're not considering the substantial cost smokers have to companies that have required employee health care programs. If they and the non-smoking co-workers have to pay increased costs due to the substantially higher health care costs smokers have then they do indeed have a right to a say as to whether they hire smokers.
Click to expand...

Guess we'll just have to disagree on this one.
 
tekkychick said:
Slippery slope... people of child-bearing age are more likely to use insurance to have kids; older people more likely to have heart attacks or cancer; heavier people may have health issues. There are smokers who don't use much medical care until after they are retired. A young punk who goes riding motorcycles may use more of that insurance than the smoker will.
Click to expand...
That may be but the point doesn't change. If employers are paying for health care cost than they have paid for the right to determine which behaviors are to costly for them to support. My suggestion is if you don't like employers making these kinds of decisions than maybe we should consider changing our system to get employers out of the health care coverage business?
 
The Dude said:
National healthcare, then no discrimination in the work place
Click to expand...
Well national health care has it's pros and cons but you'd be right in saying that if we had a national health care program based on our taxes and we (i.e. the taxpayers) footed the bill, and not employers, then I would agree that it would be none of an employers damned business if you smoked.
 
I'm not even at the legal age in my state to work (18) since I'm much younger than that, but it is a violation of human rights to prohibit smokers from working at your company. It is like not allowing woman or Mexicans to work at your company. I can see where this is going though, I happen to hate the smell of cigarettes too.
 
Walrus said:
I'm not even at the legal age in my state to work (18) since I'm much younger than that, but it is a violation of human rights to prohibit smokers from working at your company. It is like not allowing woman or Mexicans to work at your company. I can see where this is going though, I happen to hate the smell of cigarettes too.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. It cost a company a fortune to train a worker. Why should they be forced to waste that money on someone who gets sick more often and then dies sooner?
It is nothing like not hiring mexicans, unless you are implying they get sick more often and die sooner, are you?
 
Rune, I'm aware of the costs, but it's the same with alcoholics, many drink heavily after work and nobody notices until a few months later when they start licking their lips and their brain dumbs down (part of the addiction to want alcohol from what I read).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top