|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
If I worked for a company that had health insurance based on the pool of employees, I would not want to pay the extra premium for the smokers in the pool. They can go somewhere else. It's their decision to smoke and it's my decision not to subsidize it.
And that's your right to feel that way. But do you object to paying extra for the overweight people? You should, cause obesity and obesity related diseases is the number 2 cause of health problems (I think - no link on that, but if not #2, it's right up there).
And, would you object to having diabetics employed at your business? Where do you stop?
Now, you might say smoking is a choice, and it is. But most obesity is a choice also. And many times diabetes comes from your personal choices in life as well. Just as a smoker can quit, people can become not obese, and people can limit their chances of diabetes............there are many more examples.........so who's next?
What about a group of 25 to 30 year olds that don't want to work with a 55 yr. old, cause the 55 yr. old will have more health concerns than them? Is it ok for companies to limit the ages of employees? Well, you say, you can't discriminate on age. What about a company that decides it's only going to hire women that have had their tubes tied (for guys it's a vasectomy, can't think of the word for women right now)........that's not discriminating against women. Would that be okay? I mean, women that get pregnant cost a lot to a health insurance company...........why not hire infertile women exclusively? That's not "sex" related discrimination. That's called hiring people that won't cost you money in health care.
And I can definitely see where you would be adamantly against hiring people that have tans. Tans/tanning is by choice, and we all know that making that choice can cause skin cancer.......so, you would be against hiring people that are tanned, of course, right?
All I'm saying is let's be careful who we throw under the bus, because before long it could be you, or me, that gets thrown under as well. Before long, you say? Yeah, 2 years ago, who would've guessed that NYC would ban transfats? 5 years ago, who would've thought the state of Ohio would ban smoking in public places? 20 years ago, who would've thought getting a dui would put you in jail?
Now, look 2 years into the future, then look 10, then 20.
I'll laugh when we legislate smoking to be illegal altogether........state gov'ts will be bankrupt within a year of that happening. Then we'll see new taxes on other "sins", like drinking (already highly taxed, yes) or fast food. We'll see taxes on the drugs that deal with cholesterol, we'll see taxes on suntan lotion etc, all to make up for the lost revenue.
And remember, at that point in time, you may not be hired because you used to have a tan, or because you used to eat burgers, and remember, you were in favor of one of the first "not hireable" moves.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
Well, you're attempting to argue about "rights", and here's what rights are in play with this: You have the Right to put into your body whatever LEGAL substance you so choose to. They have the Right to not hire people that choose to use certain substances. A substance being legal for use does not mean anything other than you cannot be arrested for using it. If you smoke, I have every right to not allow you in my home or in my car.... and I have every right to not hire you into my organization. Now, if you want to go into the vagueness of "priciples" and what not as far as how you feel it *should* be (which is not how it actually is), then by all means continue on, but as far as actual Rights are concerned..... you're wrong. And if you want to talk about people not getting hired (or getting fired) over a DUI that occured when not on the job.... go talk to some cab companies and trucking companies  The "taking a drink" part doesn't wash though as Alcoholism is a disease, thus it gains freedom from discrimination for being a "medical condition". So, the path is clear.... if you want to smoke AND work for the Clinic, you merely need to convice a doctor to put it in writing that it is for medical reasons that you need to smoke and then you would be untouchable. Until then though, you're s.o.l.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
It has nothing to do with "vices".
It has to do with people being dicriminated against over "legal activities".
Not taking a bath is a "legal" activity ... most people would be just fine with a company firing a guy who refused to wash.
Quote:
So,in turn,do they hire anyone who's ever had a DUI? Who drink? Have traffic violations?
They could ... they do ask if you've had any felonies on most resumes. I've seen applications for "delivery" type jobs that ask about your driving record.
Quote:
How can ANYONE support refusing to hire someone who participates in "perfectly LEGAL" activities,unless they're willing to also refuse to employ everybody who has "broken a law"?
It's up to the company to decide really. If they don't want to take on a DUI offender, that's their choice too. I think part of it has to do with, "will this effect the company now" ... Most companies probably aren't going to take on a guy with repeat DUI offenses within the last 3 years, knowing he's very likely to do it again while with the company. They might take on a one time offender, knowing that he may of learned his lesson and won't do it again.
Quote:
It's about discriminating against someone for participating in a "legal activity".
Do you have a problem with Ball clubs including a "no risky behavior" clause in a players contract then? I mean that's "legal activity" ... but it could also effect the performance of an employee at their job in sports ... just like smoking could effect the performance of an employee and potentially raise the costs of insurance premiums for the company.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Interesting.........you bring up some good points, but especially your last one about the "risky behaviour" thing for sports teams..............almost enough to make me rethink my opinion................good reply. However, my point still stands, in my mind, as to "where will it end"? What will be next.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
See, I'm a little on the fence with it too Arch.
For one, it is a little discriminatory, as you are talking about legal activity and people doing it while not at work.
The problem with smoking though is, that it can potentially effect a worker at the workplace (the biggest being higher insurance premiums that the company would have to pay in the future), and because of that ... a employer should have just as much of a right not to hire a person that might negatively influence his company.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
Oh, I don't like the idea myself... I think it sucks.... but I do defend the legality of it.
The Clinic is well within its rights to do this.
Whether or not it's morally correct to do it or not, however, is entirely a different matter. Unfortunately, as most well know.. when business compasses collide with moral compasses.. almost unwaveringly the business compass comes out the victor.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
See, I'm a little on the fence with it too Arch.
For one, it is a little discriminatory, as you are talking about legal activity and people doing it while not at work.
The problem with smoking though is, that it can potentially effect a worker at the workplace (the biggest being higher insurance premiums that the company would have to pay in the future), and because of that ... a employer should have just as much of a right not to hire a person that might negatively influence his company.
Agreed - private companies should be able to control that - however, does it end at smoking? Or at high cholesterol? Or at you ride a motorcycle? Or at "you eat too many burgers"? Where does it end? Let them get away with this, which, from the posters on here seems like it's legal, where will they go with the next legal "disbarment from employment"?
I don't know...........
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,232
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,232 |
Quote:
The difference is the Clinic is doing what I feel the ban should be... a business making its own decisions over how it is run..... not a bunch of whiny voters andlobbyist telling a private business what its patrons can and cannot do on its own property.
Stooping "what happens" on their own property" is no doubt a fine idea.
But this goes beyond that. This is a question of NOT what happens "within" their business nor on their property. This is an attempt to stop people who are following every law of the land from being gainfully employed. Two seperate things.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 880
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 880 |
Quote:
Link
Cleveland Clinic bans hiring of smokers
Thursday, June 28, 2007 11:49 AM
CLEVELAND (AP) -- The Cleveland Clinic, which has targeted fatty foods at its lunch counters and scooted smokers away from its buildings and sidewalks, now will ban the hiring of anyone who smokes.
The move is part of a healthy work force initiative that included the appointment Thursday of Dr. Michael Roizen, author of a series of best-selling books on making healthy lifestyles, as the first chief wellness officer of the research hospital.
Beginning Sept. 1, Ohio's second-biggest employer with 36,300 employees will no longer hire smokers. The policy will not affect current employees, who can get free stop-smoking help from the clinic. Prospective employees will be tested for tobacco use along with drugs.
The ban is “essentially a challenge to every other major health-care organization that we want them to focus on wellness as well as illness too,” Roizen said Wednesday.
The step comes after the clinic removed trans fats from its cafeteria menus and sugar-sweetened beverages from its vending machines.
Rick Wade, a spokesman for the American Hospital Association, said since virtually all hospitals ban smokers from their buildings and banning the hiring of smokers was the next logical step.
Other employers also are taking steps to get employees to stop smoking.
Scotts Miracle-Gro Co. based in Marysville, Ohio, near Columbus, stopped hiring smokers last year and ordered employees who do smoke to quit.
For additional health information, visit OhioHealth
As a former smoker, I don't have a problem with this BUT if they include other lifestyle choices like overeaters. I would contend that smokers aren't nearly as expensive as MORBIDLY obiese people.
I would support both exclusions but not one without the other.
![[Linked Image from thumb0.webshots.net]](http://thumb0.webshots.net/t/34/34/0/73/58/2594073580091396520Miskbz_th.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Agreed. If they want to ban smokers, fine. My question is, what's next? What/who is the next group to be banned? And it will happen............
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,032
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,032 |
Personally, I think a company should be able to forbid you from taking smoke breaks. Forbid them from smoking anywhere other than work though... I don't like that so much.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,232
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,232 |
Quote:
Personally, I think a company should be able to forbid you from taking smoke breaks. Forbid them from smoking anywhere other than work though... I don't like that so much.
I agree with you 100%. This will open a HUGE "Pandora's Box" if this trend continues.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
I don't like it either, but as of right now they have every right to do so.
Actually, they've *always* had the right to do so, it is just that only in the last few years that any company has begun to explore exercising that right.
I believe Lincoln Electric has been this way for a couple of decades now.
MedicalMutual of Ohio, WebMD, Scotts Miracle-Gro and I think even MTD have had the practice for quite a while now.... and at least in the case of MedMutual it is not just smoking, but "Tobacco Use" to include chewing tobacco. And I know for a fact (I was employed there at the time) that the policy was given in advance and existing employees were given a year and all the assistance in quitting that they could want/handle to go tobacco-free to preserve their jobs.
Believe me, the legality of it HAS been tested. Nothing will come of it. It WILL hold up in court (yet again).
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,126
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,126 |
Does this mean they will fire all current employees that smoke?
It's supposed to be hard! If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,032
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,032 |
If you read the article it said that current employees would not be fired for it and would not be required to quit. It is for new employees only.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
So, in that light they've taken a rather lenient approach... at least compared to MMO.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 901
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 901 |
I find it incredibly stupid. As Arch says where will it end. Controlling what and how people do things AT WORK is one thing. If it affects them during the workday then same there. What someone does outside of work has no bearing on the workplace.
Like Arch says what about seriously obese people? For a fact they cost more, and sometime special handicap items need to be purchased and installed for them. I see the clinic article above and wonder....wellness director? Taking suger drinks out of the clinic?? What about when they want to test workers for high suger levels? I can see it now..."you'r fired because we believe you ate a donut during lunch."
I mean what about them saying you have to prove you walked or ran 2 miles last night or you are fired. What can't prove it??? Well we are having a "wellness" seminar at 6pm.... you need to be there. You can walk then under the direction of your "wellness supervisor".
Hey Big Brother!! Can you hear me?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,232
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,232 |
Quote:
If you read the article it said that current employees would not be fired for it and would not be required to quit. It is for new employees only.
In that light,it's a double standard that very well may NOT hold up in court.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,682
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,682 |
Quote:
Oh, I don't like the idea myself... I think it sucks.... but I do defend the legality of it.
It is....they could widen this to anybody who drinks.
I think it is a bad state but it is what it is....the positive to all of this is companies will push once too often and finally run into the "brick wall" that will rebound and eliminate all this nonsense.
I really think that if a good team of people looked into this policy, it could be deemed unfair and against a persons rights as protected by the constitution.
Testing for illegal behavior is one thing. Testing for a legal behavior is another.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
Quote:
What someone does outside of work has no bearing on the workplace.
Ordinarily, that would almost certainly be the case.... BUT, here is the difference:
Regardless of when or where they smoke, or how much, it DOES affect their Health. This combined with statistics that will show that Smokers use more time off for health related issues than non-smokers AND that smoking increases the Company's cost of Health Care and you have a very concrete case for arguing that what the employee is doing on their own time DOES directly affect the company... and thus the company has a right to protect itself.
Pit, as for Grandfathering exsisting employees... I have no idea on that, perhaps Peen could comment there, though I would suspect that it is not, and will not be, viewed as an equality issue at all. It just means that they will not be accepting any new ones.... but you can bet your bottom dollar that the first whiff of a controversy over it and that policy will shift in the span of 10 minutes and then as a result of people wanting to whine about it, a whole lot of folks will be faced with "Quit or be Fired".
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864 |
Quote:
Quote:
I have been calling for the fat police for years.
No more MOTOR SCOOTERS LARD BUTT!!!!!
If you can't walk, tough noogies LOOSE WEIGHT!
I am by no means as slim as I was in college, but jesus I can still run, jump, swim etc.
Be careful what you say. I was in my early 30's and weighed 200 lbs with 8% body fat. Times change and if your not careful you can change with them.
If I am ever confined to a motor scooter and it was NOT injury related. I would be highly disappointed inmyself and find solice in more ice cream....mmmmm ice cream. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864 |
BTW Pdawg,
I was just kidding and totally trying to stir the pot. I realize that some people are just built bigger and have a much harder time loosing weight than some.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,682
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,682 |
Quote:
have no idea on that, perhaps Peen could comment there, though I would suspect that it is not, and will not be, viewed as an equality issue at all.
The issue of equality doesn't factor. It is a hiring standard the company decided to adopt.
They could however run into problems if they started to terminate people who do smoke because as of this time, it is a legal activity and the US Government and State Governments collect taxes.
It is really not much different than airlines putting height and weight restrictions on hired employees.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,642
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,642 |
Quote:
It is really not much different than airlines putting height and weight restrictions on hired employees.
Damn height restrictions!!!! *grumbling*
![[Linked Image from i75.photobucket.com]](http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i302/lrhinkle/d5eaf0b9-e429-4211-b53f-b843bfcf6aa9_zps2ac17420.jpg) #gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803 |
Quote:
BTW Pdawg,
I was just kidding and totally trying to stir the pot. I realize that some people are just built bigger and have a much harder time loosing weight than some.
You are right. My Mom is a prime example. She is very overweight yet doesn't eat much and what she does eat is very healthy. Me on the otherhand am just a fat slob. I don't exercise like I should and eat and drink stuff that I shouldn't.
I do get upset with broad generalizations, especially since my son is very active, eats right and is overweight (he is thinning out). The thing is I just went to the doctor and found out I have gained 30 pounds (now 300 again). I have some excuses do to meds and a bad back but there is no way I should weigh this much. I am a burden to society as far as overweight people do cost more to insure and I am on medicade. I do need to take control of my weight for my own health as well as the responsibility I have towards others.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 164
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 164 |
How ironic, CCF bans smoking, yet have a McDonalds inside the hospital for patients and family members, as does Mercy Medical Center (owned by University Hospitals) in Canton.
Heart disease is a leading cause of moratality in this country and a major cause of an increase in insurance premiums (not to mention malpractice lawsuits), but McDonalds is available in hospitals.
Obese people are a greater problem than smokers. And, no, I am not a smoker.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803 |
Quote:
Obese people are a greater problem than smokers. And, no, I am not a smoker.
I believe you are wrong. However, obesity is a big problem.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 164
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 164 |
Heart disease is one of the leading cause of death in America.
However, obesity and smoking are both contributing factors.
I don't blieve I am wrong on which is more costly. How many high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and depression medications are written and advertised on tv. The majoirty of which are a result of obesity. Not to mention the growing number of diabetics in the country and all of the indirect costs associated with the aforementioned conditions. All of which insurance companies absorb the cost.
I think if you broke down the numbers, the costs associated with smokers vs. obesity would not even be comparable.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803 |
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365 |
I am just waiting for some place to try to discriminate against people who have unprotected sex, or not hire somebody because they have had more than two sex partners in the last ten years. Then people will all start screaming. they will add questions to your job application asking you how many sex partners you have ever had, and how many times you have had unprotected sex. I mean you might run up huge medical bills if you come down with aids, so they will only hire virgins, or married people who have only had one sex partner in their life time.
I bet we would see many more people standing up for their rights then.
Smoking is legal
Sex is legal
Smoking in your bed is legal
Having sex in your bed is legal
Smoking in a bar is not legal (during business hours)
Having sex in a bar is not legal (during business hours)
Whats the difference between the two??? Non smokers who like sex, or having a few partners are not screaming YET.
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
I also wonder about the legality of "per-employment screening for legal substances"
Why? You can not be hired by some companies because you have poor credit...
As excl pointed out, discriminatory hiring based on perfectly legal grounds has been going on forever in a wide variety of fields.......
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
I don't know if anyone has thought about this or not but,,, people who smoke can only smoke on their break. People who don't smoke have the same amount of time that a smoker does. 15 minutes per 4 hours of work in an 8 hour day. So If I so choose to smoke for 15 minutes 2x a day then so be it. We are all allowed to take a break for 15 mins.
Most places if your boss sees you just standing around, he will assume your slacking off, but if your smoking, your on a smoke break.
Reality and perception of reality are 2 different things.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Pit, Your acting as if this is a law that ALL companies must follow. This is one employer, who is by law allowed to choose the requirements for their employees.
You wouldn't hire a 70lb stick thin weakling to work in a warehouse where there is heavy manual lifting involved.
You wouldn't hire a toothless hillbilly to be a spokes person for your beauty products line.
Hooters doesn't hire men to be servers.
It's simple, here are the requirements to work here, if you meet those requirements, feel free to fill out an application. If not, keep looking.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Most places if your boss sees you just standing around, he will assume your slacking off, but if your smoking, your on a smoke break.
Reality and perception of reality are 2 different things.
Amen to that brother.. In college I waited tables and I'd stop in the bar once in a while to check on sports scores... on more than one occassion I was "warned" by my boss that I was standing around.. also on these same occassions I was standing right beside a waiter who was taking a smoke break... and nothing was said to him... 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864 |
Even worse than that is community "smoke break" where cliques are formed and because your not a smoker your on the outside of said clique.
BS I tell ya
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
Quote:
Hooters doesn't hire men to be servers.
Actually, *that one* went to court and the company lost.... Hooters cannot not hire someone because of gender.... but any male hired as a server is held to the same standard as the women, which means the same uniform of nylon stockings, ornage shorts and branded t-shirt tied up above the mid-riff.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,440
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,440 |
I guess I don't see the big deal about this. If it was the government saying you couldn't smoke like the smoking ban than I would have a big problem. This is a company that is making a choice. Something the smoking ban isn't doing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
You're openning up an entire can of worms that needs to be closed quickly.
I mean,what's next?
We don't hire anyone that is overweight?
We don't hire anyone who has a tatoo?
We don't hire anyone with high cholesteral?
I could go on,but I think you catch my drift.
If I was having a needle stuck in my spine... I'd much rather have a fat nurse with a tatoo doing it than a nurse who is a 2-pack a day smoker who hasn't had one in 6 hours and right in the middle of a huge nicotein fit.....
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,682
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,682 |
but any male hired as a server is held to the same standard as the women, which means the same uniform of nylon stockings, ornage shorts and branded t-shirt tied up above the mid-riff.
I don't think that is correct.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
well, ya might want to double check the findings then because that is how I remember it being handed down. I was working at one as a cook when that case went to court, so we all definitely heard about it at every turn. THat said, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if what we heard ended up being exaggerrated.... but that is what I was told of the outcome, that any male wanting to take a job as a "Hooter Girl" would be subject to the same rules as they are and that the restaurants would not be required to come up with a separate uniform for male members as the specified uniform is what was always worn by all of their servers, no exceptions.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Cleveland Clinic bans hiring of
smokers
|
|
