BUSINESS: Company Bans Employees From Smoking - Anywhere

and another enemy of the state is proclaimed.....smokers are a threat!!!

Originally posted by wang
Jupiter, you show you ignorance people who smoke are addicted to nicotine yes, but i promise there is something your addicted to be it caffine, anti-depressants, pain killers etc etc.

Yes, there are many, many forms of addiction here and in the rest of the world. Some addictions more serious than others, I'm sure you would agree. Or do you think all addictions are equally detrimental? I don't think they are, nor does our government and society in general. For instance, I haven't heard insurance costs going through the roof because people were drinking too much tea or coffee.

And what about second-hand coffee spillage? Has anyone done any tests and confirmed the health risk in that?

Originally posted by dawnstar


Dependency will always lead to servitude and enslavement.

You dont know how true this is! It is one of the reasons our government enables us to continue smoking. Not to mention, there are huge profits to be made by the tobbacco industry, medicine, pharmacuticals, advertising and a host of industries all tied into smoking.

ummm......it's also the reason why the government has continued to allow the companies to keep rising thier prices and ranking in the profits....and making up the difference with the programs like medicaid.....

Now, they have a reason to stick their noses in EVERYONE'S personal business. Let's make one thing clear right now.......no insurance company or government program is paying for my medical bills now, and quite frankly, haven't done me much good in the 45 years of my lifetime. For the most part, I am stuck here just putting up with whatever sickness I may have. And, considering that what I have, my brothers appearantly also has, well......it's probably genetic more that anything we are doing ourselves! I can't work, there's no money for the doctors, without the doctors, I highly doubt if I could get disability and even if I did, they would want me going to the doctors, even though there's no money.....
So as far as I am concerned, the government, the employers, the insurance company's and well, society can keep their noses out of my life all together. They have no right to be in it. And, they probably have no right to be meddling in the affairs those other middle income families who comprise 50% of the personal bankruptcies.

Can't really work anyways, so why the heck should I be concerned about what the emploers are doing...go for it.....
But, they will keep on infringing on everyone's rights until even most of the wealthiest have very little in monetary wealth and lose their freedoms also.

[edit on 3-2-2005 by dawnstar]

I fear this is a slippery slope we should not tread down. If they can make you stop smoking in the privacy of your own home becuase of health issues whats next? What about eating meat and salt both many claim are unhealthy for you why not ban that. Why not take it a step further Gay men have a higher risk of catching a STD and Higher percentages of African Americans,and Hispanics were infected than were whites.

We not just fire people that sleep with many partners they have a much higher chance of getting a STD. Or perhaps fire people that are overweight all that would surely bring down those medical coverage rates.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
If they can make you stop smoking in the privacy of your own home becuase of health issues whats next?

Nobody's 'making' anybody do anything!
All they're saying is if you want to work here, you gotta be a non-smoker.

The great thing about living in America is you've got choices.

Nobody's shoving the job down anyone's throat. If you want to work there, go for it and abide by their requirements. If you don't want to work there, well then, don't!!!!
Duh.




[edit on 3-2-2005 by jupiter869]

Great new lines to add to your resume and/or application:

Lifestyle: non-smoker, physically fit, non-drinker, straight, monogamous, low BP, low cholesterol, vegetarian

Interesting choice by the company. The substance is legal. Does not impede your ability to handle your job...Lowering costs to maintain or increase profit at the expense of employees would be an interesting argument for the company in court. Right now I feel the decision would be in the smokers favor. If you have your own insurance and its not through the company do you still get fired? Also, the company is taking on the responsibility to provide insurance to its employees so...hmmm...hopefully, the judge rules in favor of the smokers.

I have to agree that, if upheld, the decision by this company would be setting a dangerous precedent.

Originally posted by jupiter869

Nobody's 'making' anybody do anything!
All they're saying is if you want to work here, you gotta be a non-smoker.

The great thing about living in America is you've got choices.

Nobody's shoving the job down anyone's throat. If you want to work there, go for it and abide by their requirements. If you don't want to work there, well then, don't!!!!
Duh.


[edit on 3-2-2005 by jupiter869]

Why dont they use that same arguement to only allow people that are in shape,vegetarian and heterosexual. Since " If you want to work there, go for it and abide by their requirements"

Oh I know why they dont do that , because its only ok to discriminate against smokers in this day and age.

Last time I checked it was pefectly legal to smoke just as it is to be fat, eat meat and be gay.

I'd like to know what the government's reaction would be if a business decided that they would just employ smokers. That way, well, the second hand smoke wouldn't be harming any innocent people, would it? And, well, maybe the business owner smokes, and feels he has every right to smoke on his property. Gee, up here in NY, we could have companies that you could smoke in, and then some that you couldn't, with the majority of them be non-smoking establishments. So, the non-smokers would have plenty of options to chose from, alot more than the smokers.
Wonder how many non-smokers would be crying discrimination then, even if one or two companies in a town did it?

But, my advice to anyone who finds themselves in a position where their job is in peril because the business is afraid of the effects of that smoke on their health is to look into the other substances that they are expected to allow themselves to come in contact with. Even computers give off a nice supply of pcb's. Investigate the health effects of those things, and well, raise the issue to their boss, tell them that when they elimate those dangers, you'll consider changing your lifestyle.
And, well, if they start on your diet, well, tell them to take a hike and walk out the door. God, the government doesn't even know what consists of a healthy diet, what they say is good for you today, ends up being bad a year from now. We shouldn't have to jump to their beckon on that, they're liable to kill us themselves!! Gee, I listened once, when I was pregnant, it took me about a decade to get rid of all the excess weight that I have put on, and then I doubt if I would have been able to if I hadn't started back up smoking and let that be a subistute for all the food my body got used to having.

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
What you do on your own time is your own business. A better solution would have been for the smokers to pay more for there health care.

If a pro baseball team can force it's players to not take certain legal suplements (andro, creatine, etc) then it is well within the rights of a private enterprise to have a no smoking condition.

Think about it - to get a lot of jobs, you are not allowed to be a drinker or gambler, not allowed to take physical suplements, do certain types of recreational activities etc.

What it comes down to is that you can get another job if you want. No one if forcing you to work there.

Pro baseball use to have their own Nergo league too I dont think we should do anything based on what they do. But supplements directly effect their preformance in their jobs. Last time I checked you could smoke in baseball all you wanted. If you want to hurt your game they aint going to stop you.

Also look how much good banning the use of Creatine did them Steroids far worst runs rampant in Pro Baseball.

I think there are a couple key points here. It isn't that the company won't *hire* any employees that smoke. That is entirely their decision in my opinion, put it on page 1 of the job app; big letters: We are a non-smoking company. The fact is that they hired these employees, knew that they were smokers, and then had all intents to fire them for it.

The other point is that what you do (legally, anyway) on your own time is really your business and noone else's (as long as you arent hurting anybody else or infringing on their rights).

What's next? Like ShadowXIX and others commented: sexual tendancies, weight, etc?

as posted by marg
This is becoming ridiculous and an invation of privacy.

Umm no, marg. It is not an invasion of "privacy". Your on company property, and on company time: there is NO "privacy". You left "privacy" at home when you locked the door to go to work.

Apparently you haven't been to New York?
Try driving a vehicle while using a cell phone and see if you have your "privacy" violated.
Go to Virgina and be found in public with your pants half hanging to your knees, with your butt-crack exposed and see if your "privacy" isn't violated.
The list goes on.

Your "privacy" is at home. No where else and certainly not on the job, nor in public.




seekerof

[edit on 3-2-2005 by Seekerof]

This is the base of what many (unwittingly) term the 'NWO' in various alarmist and misinformed ways. (The NWO is a working concept, not a system, it is financial, not military... but yada yada you don't need my views on that)


Everyone knows that if you apply for a job in certain areas and you are, lets say, 'scruffy' the company may ask you to get a haircut and come in clean shaven. For the most part, that's fair enough. You are a representative of that company and the image they want to permit. Even though most people will think that is completely acceptable they don't often think to reflect that because that person now works for that company, they can longer be who they want to be in terms of appearance in their social life. Appearance is very important to people. People have refuse jobs on these terms. Until now, this was usual. Get a haircut or forget the job. Your choice, no one really gave a toss, it's a fact of life. At that level there is an element of choice. If you’re not prepared to conform to the company standard then look elsewhere. Fair enough.

Over the last few decades image has overtake everything as the number one aspect of how many people consider another “worthy”, and also how they see their worth in others eyes. This is seen in the explosion of plastic surgery and the general feeling that if I just had/could change/ didn’t have such and such it would really make me happy.
Stemming from the failure of material goods to provide happiness and yada yada.



This is where the 'NWO' or whatever you want to call it comes in. (Not really, but it'd take me another post to draw the dots for the mentally impaired.)

The ultimate loophole is that, if you work for them, the corporations rule over you. Your rights to free expression, free speech are great, but if you work for us forget it. They don't exist while you are an employee of "Whoever Corp". That's the thing, the amount or mergers and takeovers, hostile or otherwise, means the ultimate employers, the ultimate owners of corporations is getting smaller and smaller. And smaller and smaller.

Everybody needs to work right? Your life fits our bill or you don't work.

Avoids neatly a shed load of rules and regulations and all that pesky stuff. You work for us, you live within our rules.

Who’s going to dictate the terms of employment in the future? It sure as hell isn’t the prospective employee. They’re not going to be trying to please you anymore. No more recruitment drives and golden handshakes. You’re going to be begging them. And they know it.


Btw, I’m not extrapolating this from nothing. Apparently there are already companies in the US that forbid their employees from drinking alcohol, ever. (From a book admittedly, might take me a bit to get a link.)

But of course there’s the mandatory drug test. No matter your opinion on the absurdity of certain aspects of the drug war. You cannot as an individual be active in dissent to that law. You work for us. Tough luck. Get used to it.

You’re not an individual. You work for us.




*disclaimer* I'm a little drunk right now.
My boss won't like it tomorrow.

Sod him.



[edit on 3-2-2005 by kegs]

Originally posted by Seekerof

Umm no, marg. It is not an invasion of "privacy". Your on company property, and on company time: there is NO "privacy". You left "privacy" at home when you locked the door to go to work.


[edit on 3-2-2005 by Seekerof]

But this company dont want its workers to smoke even in the privacy of their own home. If it was just at work that they didnt want you to smoke thats one thing bu they are trying to dictate what you legally do in the privacy of your own home.

They should be paying you 24yrs a day if they are going to tell you what you should do 24yrs a day.

In relation to which you speak of, ShadowXIX, then the company is seemingly in error, per se', but let me give another example that I know you will understand, since you are military oriented, as I am.

In the military, once you are signed, you are what is deemed as "owned," and are considered government property. As such, if you are either employed by the government (ie: a navy yard, repair facility, etc.) or you are a soldier or sailor or airman and decide to go to the beach and you get seriously/severely sunburned (which has been discussed or brought up before within ATS), you can be reprimanded and/or Article 15'd for having that sunburn: falling under the act of: willful destruction fo govenment property.

I do not fully understand the reasoning why this company would assert that an employee must not smoke at home, but I would agree with their banning of said employee from smoking on thier premises and/or on the job. My thinking is that there is something to this article and company that is or has gone unmentioned that is causing the company to require its employees to not smoke at home. I'm not sure, but the article is vague when it comes to giving the reasoning for the "at home" bit.





seekerof

[edit on 3-2-2005 by Seekerof]

The at home part was the only thing I had a issue with. I can fully understand certain rules when you are at the work place since you are payed to be there.

The article also made mention of the guy wanting to turn his attention to workers weight next but had the guy stating that people "legally obese" are protected by law which made it seem like there is little he could do.

Interesting story about the military personal and the sunburn, man that must really sucked for the guy. Was that alittle out side the orginal intent of destruction fo govenment property or does that type of thing happen more then you would think?

[edit on 3-2-2005 by ShadowXIX]

There's been times when university professors or others who are in professions that portray leadership or scholarship, where the person has put their foot in their mouth and said something stupid. Is this infringing on the freedom of speech issue. Remember the University professor who opened his mouth and said that maybe the reason there is less women in science is within the genetics?

I think maybe it would all boils down to who said or did what and their position in the society, weather or not thier actions reduces their work performance, and what the consequences their actions DIRECTLY caused to society. And, well, the effects that the decision to invade the rights of the other has on society as a whole should also play a role when justifying something like this.

So, you say that smoking, obesity, ect. increases the health costs? Reallly? By how much? Can you you even come close to determining the number? Don't you have to isolate that rise from all the other things that are increasing that cost also, including the chemicals within the place of work?
And, well, let's suspose that some employer bought the professor's story about women. They are gentically predisposed to be worse at math and science? Or science found out that this certain gene over here will make it likely that you won't be good around the children, even though you were raised with seven siblings that you tended to every day afterschool since your were 14 years old and you have overcome that genetic tendency. Would it be justifiable to shut the doors on opportunities just because of a gene within your dna strand. I think our genetics might impede our abilities in alot of areas, but we have worked since childhood to defy the little buggers and have succeeded in the endeavour.
I don't think it will stop with smoking or obesity, or alchohol, the business world will soon have the technology to be able to pick the cream of the crop (at least genetically) for whatever job they wish. And, well, we may find ourselves in a position that well, because SCIENCE says our genes say we are good for occupation a, b, and c....well we might find ourselves only being offered jobs a, b, or c.
And, remember, this is a health insurance company!!! If they find their system is a success (in their eyes, meaning that they can still keep an adequate number of employees), they just might decide to pressure their busniess customers and other insurance agencies to follow suit. So, if you don't want to dance to their beat, well, forget about your employer (no matter where you go) providing you with insurance. And, then well, of course the overall cost of health care will go down, since they just blocked alot of people out of the system, although money will still be taken from any earnings they may make, to pay for yours.

[edit on 4-2-2005 by dawnstar]

Originally posted by Seekerof


Umm no, marg. It is not an invasion of "privacy". Your on company property, and on company time: there is NO "privacy". You left "privacy" at home when you locked the door to go to work.

Seekerof the company are doing test, meaning that they are monitoring what you do in the privacy of your home, also meaning that they want you not to do it at home, in your (private time) yes is an invasion of privacy.

I have not problem with people telling others no to smoke in public places, hey my mother is a live time smoker, but what you do at home is your business.

When others want to monitor your privacy other doors and other (things) will be open to control by strangers.

This is just the beginning.

I am a caffeine addict, but I don't smoke never had, and I don't drink but onces in a while when drinking coffee become an issue I will be making the head lines news.

Originally posted by Seekerof

as posted by marg
This is becoming ridiculous and an invation of privacy.

Your "privacy" is at home. No where else and certainly not on the job, nor in public.




seekerof

[edit on 3-2-2005 by Seekerof]

Seekerof, they are testing their employees for any sign of nicotine...this means if they go out and smoke three packs in the comfort of their home they get nailed. Thats not an invasion of privacy? I worked for Delta Airlines for years and once a month the "Delta Bus" would pick up people at random, pilots included and took us to their lab where they did blood tests on us, looking for illegal drugs. I have to say due to the nature of the job we had it was acceptable and no one ever complained. But nicotine??? this is a real invasion of privacy.