RE: Smokers ned not apply

RE: Smokers ned not apply (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Alumbrado -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/4/2007 12:11:46 PM)
quote: You had to work for someone else and they thought BDSM was vile, against all that they believe in and refused you a job based on your CHOICE to pursue the activity? Would you not feel slighted? Feel slighted? Sure. Call on the nanny state to pass more laws forcing that employer to hire me against their will? Not on that issue, and not on smoking. I'd prefer to save those sorts of regulations for other cases of discrimination.

domiguy -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/4/2007 12:14:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SubinMaine quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy Your argument lacks clear thinking....Why would a life insurance company want to know if you scuba dive, are a pilot, hang glide or participate in any form of motorized racing....All of these activities are 100% legal....But the choices that we make...Have can have an impact on our lives....Smoking is no different....It is a proven killer...People who smoke are generally "sicker" than their non- smoking counterparts....they smell like ass...They take time off from work for non scheduled cig breaks...They have a higher chance of getting into a car crash. You're right, however it's our choice to choose whether to purchase life insurance or not. You use the life insurance angle a lot...but this isn't about life insurance. It's about being turned down for a job that you may be very much qualified for because you have a perfectly legal habit. Unless you are a trust fund baby or come from a very well to do background or held an incredible job with enormous income and were able to save enough money so you no longer HAVE to work, it's wise to remember that everyday people need to work. Discrimination is, essentially, against the law. That being said, everyone is going to die at some point in their lives, can't escape it, some sooner than others, that is a fact. Yes, smoking is a choice, and once made, can very quickly turn into an addiction. It's not a nice habit, it's not a healthy habit not one smoker on here is arguing the effects it can have on their health. Again, i pose the question...with the puritanical "holier than thou" attitudes that are being used as argument, what would happen if you lost your business? You had to work for someone else and they thought BDSM was vile, against all that they believe in and refused you a job based on your CHOICE to pursue the activity? Would you not feel slighted? You are missing the point. The life insurance company may choose not to do business with you...Because of your occupation or the activities that you choose to endorse. Why shouldn't your employer do the same. If I really wanted a job...Say working at Domiguy industries....I know their policy of not hiring smokers....I would quit...And show up in a sexy lil' number with no bra or panties. It actually is a not a very good analogy...But let's just say I wanted to work for the Christian Coalition...and they made it clear that any form of bondage and sodomy might keep me from landing the position that I desire....Then it wouldn't really be a good fit would it? I don't think there is a blood test to determine if I have flogged someone in the last twenty days or so...So I might just lie....and wait to be dismissed after the office Christmas party. In any regards the two are completely unrelated...In that smoking is bad for my health and bdsm, depending on how often I feed my caged slave, is usually relatively harmless. Your argument should focus on the positives that smokers bring to the workplace.

Alumbrado -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/4/2007 12:18:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Being tone deaf makes it impossible for you to fulfill your job duties performing in a band, doesn't it? Not if the nanny state orders the employer to accomodate the employee by over dubbing, lip synching, having others perform the work for them, etc. quote: The question is, as I understand, is: Notwithstanding the ability to perform the job, what other factors are legitimate to discriminate against? Last time... BFOQs. If the employer is discriminating without being able to demonstrate a connection, that is one thing. If the employer is claiming a connection, such as higher cost of doing business in the case of smoking, getting the nanny state to substitute your opinion for the employer' judgement seems overly intrusive, and at odds with the notion of personal freedoms.

instynctive -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/4/2007 12:23:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy Your argument should focus on the positives that smokers bring to the workplace. If that smoker excels at and enjoys their job, it shouldn't matter that they smoke. No more than it should matter what color their skin is. Or which god they pray to. Or what gender their mate is. Or who they voted for in the last election.

SubinMaine -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/4/2007 12:32:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy Your argument should focus on the positives that smokers bring to the workplace. That much we, at least, agree on.... Just because a smoker indulges in the vice, doesn't automatically make him/her lazy or unproductive. Health care costs are slowly being transitioned from the employer to the employee...i remember paying only $5 a week for incredible coverage and an additional $2 for dental, one job actually helped smokers who wanted to quit by offering cessation classes and helping to cover the (in those days) crazy cost for nicotine patches....those days are long gone and it's a shame. We're turning into a society of perfect little plastic robots who have to behave, look, speak and conduct themselves within certain guidelines. That's scary... Making it the smoker's responsibility to carry his/her own insurance is a good compromise (if not a costly one for the smoker)...at least the smoker is given a chance to make a decision as to whether the job means that much to them...they'll either cover their own expenses health insurance wise, or quit and let the company cover 80% of the cost. Would that be a solution or is there a problem with compromise? I just don't see any valid argument in treating someone who has a different standard as inferior and useless shrug

HaveRopeWillBind -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/4/2007 1:31:23 PM)
While our current government is certainly not without faults it is getting an undeserved amount of blame in this thread. The issue of not hiring smokers is entirely being pushed by HMO's and other medical coverage insurers. They have been pressuring employers to not hire smokers because the coverage carriers think that will increase their profits. Since most employers who cover their employees with provided or partially paid insurance are already facing high coverage costs an increase could be the difference between profitability and operating at a loss. Obviously they are going to take the easy out and simply not hire new employees who smoke. The medical carriers have done the same thing before with motorcycles. In the past they have pressured employers to either not hire or offer no medical coverage to employees who chose to ride motorcycles. The fact that this is a 100% legal activity made no difference to the carriers. They simply saw it as a way to avoid paying out high coverage costs for the few who sustained catastrophic injury while riding a motorcycle. The fact that the average rider involved in an accident sustains lower cost injuries than the average auto driver involved in an accident made no difference at all. (I know, I can already hear many of you reading this screaming, "No way does a bike rider get less injured!" But the fact is there has only been one study that actually separated bike accident victims and auto accident victims and the results were that the riders got killed less frequently and sustained less injury overall. This was a study done by UNC, Chapel Hill, NC in the early 90's over a 3 yr period.) In no case however has an insurance carrier suggested not hiring those who drive cars, a quite dangerous activity when you consider how many are killed in autos every year. So I suppose the carriers have only decided to target activities that may be unpopular with some. As for blaming the government for this consider what happened recently in Ohio. An anti-smoking group asked a couple of state legislators to introduce a bill banning smoking in public places. This was instigated by bar and tavern employees complaining about being forced to work in an unhealthy environment. Since campaign financing was dangled as inducement the bill was written up and introduced. But the legislators also were smart enough to realize this was a hot topic issue so they wrote the bill as a public referendum and the choice was put to a vote by the people of Ohio. The majority of the Ohio citizens who voted chose to ban smoking in public buildings and/or businesses. This was entirely a people's choice. Yet you still hear constantly about how the government of the state of Ohio is to blame for intruding on citizens' rights. In fact the federal and state governments are still subsidizing the smoking industry in many ways. If the government was to quit paying farm subsidies and was to levy a tax on cigarettes to cover the cost of treating smoking related diseases of the uninsured then a pack of cigarettes would run around $57 last time I saw this number calculated. At that price no anti-smoking laws would be needed anywhere. Very few could afford the luxury of the habit. As a former smoker who quit years ago simply because I wanted to reach middle-age in a healthy state I would much rather see cigarettes charged at their actual cost rather than any preventative legislation. Then it's an entirely economics driven issue as it should be in this country.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/4/2007 2:10:09 PM)
Well, this looks like a big grey area of law. I don't smoke, and I don't like smoking behavior in others either. But I do defend people's right to do something perfectly legal on their own time and I do think we have to limit the reach of employer discrimination in this area. Here's a list of states that protect this smoking behavior: http://slati.lungusa.org/appendixf.asp Now, I think we can guess the American Lung Association's stance on this issue, but as a person from a state that protects these legal rights, I'd like to comment that I find my own states views on this quite sensible. This is a first blush, cursory examination of the issues and I haven't scrutinized the laws yet to confirm that they state precisely what I think they state. California has put a ban on smoking in places of business and some other public spaces. But at the same time, California protects employees against discrimination on the basis of legal behavior they might engage in off site and away from work. That's a perfectly sensible way to handle the matter - smokers don't bother others on the job, but employees are protected from discrimination for doing legal things - like smoking - on their own time and in their own private spaces. Both public behaviors and spaces and private behaviors and spaces are protected in the precise ways they should be protected. Works for me.

idiott -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/4/2007 5:26:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: nighthawk3569 Wow.. I've truly rambled. I need coffee.. Caffine is addictive, too. It'll probably be next on the list. Maybe all you coffee drinkers need to join forces with the smokers to stop this nonsense. Likewise the fast-food consumers...before your 'burger and fries' become illegal. Alcohol consumers need to get on the bandwagon, too, before it's illegal to have a 'cold one' while you watch the game. Next, anyone who likes to indulge in a little sex, ocassionally(or more often, even), should get involved before that's declared off-limits. *Seems gun owners and smokers are at the forefront of the 'ban everything' move, for now...but rest assured, whatever your 'thing' is, sooner or later, it will come under fire.* *Many Americans, especially those under 50, don't know what freedom really is. Since the early 60's, our 'rights' have been rapidly eroding...now almost non-existant...as compared to earlier times.* *Wake up, America!* *'hawk* here, here ... well said

CrimsonMoan -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/4/2007 5:42:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: idiott quote: ORIGINAL: nighthawk3569 Wow.. I've truly rambled. I need coffee.. Caffine is addictive, too. It'll probably be next on the list. Maybe all you coffee drinkers need to join forces with the smokers to stop this nonsense. Likewise the fast-food consumers...before your 'burger and fries' become illegal. Alcohol consumers need to get on the bandwagon, too, before it's illegal to have a 'cold one' while you watch the game. Next, anyone who likes to indulge in a little sex, ocassionally(or more often, even), should get involved before that's declared off-limits. *Seems gun owners and smokers are at the forefront of the 'ban everything' move, for now...but rest assured, whatever your 'thing' is, sooner or later, it will come under fire.* *Many Americans, especially those under 50, don't know what freedom really is. Since the early 60's, our 'rights' have been rapidly eroding...now almost non-existant...as compared to earlier times.* *Wake up, America!* *'hawk* here, here ... well said I have to agree as well. Trust me someone tries adn take the burger they are getting a beating. The coffe not so much , but touch my fats food, my soda, my alcohol and we are gonna have serious issues. The govt is just far TOO invovled in wht goes on behind closed doors. Shit remember that jack ass sodomey law in Texas that FINALLY got shot down. It was illegal for two CONSENTING adults to engage in anal sex? Come on now if the law makers can come up with something liek that whats to stop them from anything else? The constitution? Bah remember he who has the most toys or in this case money makes the rules and wins

instynctive -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/4/2007 5:45:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrimsonMoan Shit remember that jack ass sodomey law in Texas that FINALLY got shot down. It was illegal for two CONSENTING adults to engage in anal sex? Sodomy (which is defined as "any unnatural sex act", which means anything outside of the missionary position for the purposes of procreation, effectively making homosexuality completely illegal), is still illegal in more southern states, and I rememebr not too long ago, North Carolina was making a push to enforce that law.. they were just trying to figure out how to legally peep into windows...

feylin -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/4/2007 5:46:49 PM)
fast reply to no one in particular: I do smoke, get a lot of business gossip and good jokes on breaks, trade work tips and seem to be less uptight than my co-workers who get coffee on their breaks and sit at their desk. Personally, I would love it if my company stopped hiring people with UMs. That day care thing is a breeding ground for germs and one mom or dad brings in something and infects the entire floor. (Added bonus: I could stop having to "ooh" and "aah" over all those dang holiday pictures littering the place (Look! A parasol!). I have pictures of Ireland, much more pleasing.) [8D] That was mostly jest, may the diaper brigade not show up on my doorstep with pitchforks. Bring your UM to work day is coming...I can barely control my excitement. Wait..I smoke..I'll probably be sick that day...and miss the bird-flu-carrying-crying-sniffling-gotta-pee-gang. Plan ahead, people. [:D]

CrimsonMoan -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/4/2007 5:52:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: instynctive quote: ORIGINAL: CrimsonMoan Shit remember that jack ass sodomey law in Texas that FINALLY got shot down. It was illegal for two CONSENTING adults to engage in anal sex? Sodomy (which is defined as "any unnatural sex act", which means anything outside of the missionary position for the purposes of procreation, effectively making homosexuality completely illegal), is still illegal in more southern states, and I rememebr not too long ago, North Carolina was making a push to enforce that law.. they were just trying to figure out how to legally peep into windows... See i totally missed that. And this is why the south needs to grow up i mean seriously. If two adults want to shove rediculously huge toys up each other is that any of my business? not in the least goes double for them

instynctive -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/4/2007 6:06:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrimsonMoan See i totally missed that. And this is why the south needs to grow up i mean seriously. If two adults want to shove rediculously huge toys up each other is that any of my business? not in the least goes double for them This is also what happens when you get those radical right-wing, bible thumping shiite christians in charge of things. They need to outlaw homosexuality because it's a sin. So much for separation of church and state. But show a hot scene between two writhing lipstick lesbians and they've got their peckers out.

JohnSteed1967 -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/4/2007 8:22:11 PM)
one side of the coin for business is a healthy employee is a productive employee, and less time spent away from the job sick. on the other as long as they keep the wage slaves healthy that is that much longer that they can exploit them. If the employee develops lung cancer because he smoked for 30+ years then you have to see that the employees family loses a wage earner, spends money on doctors and drugs fighting the cancer. Then the Insurance company is out of money paying for drugs and doctors and care. Then if the cancer is fatal, the employee or employees family, spends money on a lot, a vault, a coffin, a tombstone, prepetual care for the grave site. the cost of embalming the body, the cost of the funeral. SO after all that you want to keep smoking?

maybemaybenot -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/4/2007 8:37:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: feylin fast reply to no one in particular: I do smoke, get a lot of business gossip and good jokes on breaks, trade work tips and seem to be less uptight than my co-workers who get coffee on their breaks and sit at their desk. Personally, I would love it if my company stopped hiring people with UMs. That day care thing is a breeding ground for germs and one mom or dad brings in something and infects the entire floor. (Added bonus: I could stop having to "ooh" and "aah" over all those dang holiday pictures littering the place (Look! A parasol!). I have pictures of Ireland, much more pleasing.) [8D] That was mostly jest, may the diaper brigade not show up on my doorstep with pitchforks. Bring your UM to work day is coming...I can barely control my excitement. Wait..I smoke..I'll probably be sick that day...and miss the bird-flu-carrying-crying-sniffling-gotta-pee-gang. Plan ahead, people. [:D] As for bring your UM to work day. It's been around awhile. Take Our Sons and Daughter to Work day is one day I always call in sick or shedule a vacation day. This year it was on 04/26... I went to the casino and had a lovely day.[:D] Don't get me wrong I like the lil UMs. But I don't need nor want them at my workplace, unless it is in an on site day care center. mbmbn

instynctive -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/4/2007 8:38:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnSteed1967 Then the Insurance company is out of money paying for drugs and doctors and care. I hardly think the insurance company is out much money, if any.. all the millions they rake in per month, a couple hundred thousand here or there isn't going to stop them. It's all a scam anyway. Medical care is more expensive than Joe Public can afford... but here's the "magic" of insurance! Fork out a couple hundred a week for years and never need to use it... millions of people paying insurance companies every month.. I'm lucky.. my employer picks up 99% of the tab on insurance, but just with my small office, they are paying close to $5k a month.. There's $60k a year from one small, locally owned company in Maine. Insurance companies never pay the full amount anyways.. it's almost like retail (the price Joe Public pays) and wholesale (the price insurance co's pay). "Boo hoo" all you want on the woes and financial troub;e of ins. co's, but I assure you their exec's are driving the same cars that Exxon/Mobil exec's are. The reason for having insurance is for stuff like that. In fact, I will be making an appointment with my doctor tomorrow to take a look at my wrist because I injured it last week and re-injured it today.. so does that mean I have to stop doing chores around the house?

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/4/2007 8:40:34 PM)
Obesity will be next based upon this criteria then. Orion quote: ORIGINAL: JohnSteed1967 one side of the coin for business is a healthy employee is a productive employee, and less time spent away from the job sick. on the other as long as they keep the wage slaves healthy that is that much longer that they can exploit them. If the employee develops lung cancer because he smoked for 30+ years then you have to see that the employees family loses a wage earner, spends money on doctors and drugs fighting the cancer. Then the Insurance company is out of money paying for drugs and doctors and care. Then if the cancer is fatal, the employee or employees family, spends money on a lot, a vault, a coffin, a tombstone, prepetual care for the grave site. the cost of embalming the body, the cost of the funeral. SO after all that you want to keep smoking?

SubinMaine -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/5/2007 3:46:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnSteed1967 Then if the cancer is fatal, the employee or employees family, spends money on a lot, a vault, a coffin, a tombstone, prepetual care for the grave site. the cost of embalming the body, the cost of the funeral. SO after all that you want to keep smoking? i don't get the argument here...eventually, you're going to die, no matter the cause so, the cost to bury a person along with perpetual care for a grave site is going to occur in one form or the other, whether they smoke or not...

Alumbrado -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/5/2007 8:30:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: instynctive quote: ORIGINAL: CrimsonMoan Shit remember that jack ass sodomey law in Texas that FINALLY got shot down. It was illegal for two CONSENTING adults to engage in anal sex? Sodomy (which is defined as "any unnatural sex act", which means anything outside of the missionary position for the purposes of procreation, effectively making homosexuality completely illegal), is still illegal in more southern states, and I rememebr not too long ago, North Carolina was making a push to enforce that law.. they were just trying to figure out how to legally peep into windows... Nope, not in the south or any other state since the USSC ruled that the government had no business inside people's bedrooms. 'State's rights' went out with end of the Late War of Northrun Aggression, don'tcha know...[;)] But if you want some bad news, there are several southern states that have made it a crime to buy and sell dildos and other sex toys before they get into the bedroom.

farglebargle -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/5/2007 9:56:12 AM)
Damn You To Hell Abraham Lincoln!!!

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875