|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
Quote:
What if she doesn't actually smoke, but rather she lives with a heavy smoker, which is why her clothes always smell?
In the article, it states some companies are firing people if their spouse is a smoker.   
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Quote:
Just remember that they are on both sides of the isle. One set tries to get everyone to conform to their morals and the other tries to conform people to their view of healthy choices.
Both parties feel like it is okay to take away other peoples rights as long as it is the rights they want.
It is just too bad that almost everyone falls into the "nannies and do gooders" label during one argument or another.
Can you clarify this? It made no sense to me.
Next, I think you are a little confused on my stance here. I do believe that owners of companies should be able to make decisions on what happens in their buildings and who they hire. Obviously, problems with discrimination, etc., do cause concerns when dealing with these issues, but that is another conversation.
I think this is, however, part of the outcome from the nanny laws in this country. I don't like it, but these companies have every right to do it.
Just don't believe that it will stop with smokers......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349 |
Quote:
Quote:
So all your arguments aside, and I'm not saying you guys are all wrong or anything, but from my perspective, smokers are people I don't really want to be around...
That's what used to make America great -- the freedom of choice.
Ok, so this kind of goes back to the thread we have had about bars being able to choose how to run their own business' in the way they see fit. Daman runs his own business, he cant stand to be around smokers, so he can make a choice for his business that he will not hire smokers ,right?
I personally think it is ridiculous to tell employees what they can do in their own time,but I guess I kind of see the point of the business owners who are refusing to hire smokers. I also wonder how much of this is coming from pressure by health insurance companies.
KING
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,577
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,577 |
I got a great idea, lets just get rid of jobs so there is no discrimination, we'll all just go back to growing our own food, cutting our own logs for shelter and such. 
#gmstrong
Live, Love, Laugh
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
I don't think anybody is arguing that they don't have the right to do it, it doesn't mean you can't have issues with it, and argue the reasoning for these types of bans.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Quote:
I got a great idea, lets just get rid of jobs so there is no discrimination, we'll all just go back to growing our own food, cutting our own logs for shelter and such.
You may be laughing, but that is sounding better and better to me every day. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 478
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 478 |
basically I was saying that.
Liberals try and regulate good health (smoking .....)
Conservative try and regulate morals (marriage ......)
The idiots are on both sides of the isle.
On this issue, I do not think that that the companies are in the wrong.
On the smoking ban. As much as I agree with the results. I do not think that it was right and fair.
And yes I agree that it will not stop with smokers. The idiots are everywhere. Very few have the higher ground in these arguments, as they flip between the offended and the do gooders depending on the issue.
it is one of the great problems with our politics. Everyone wants to be able to tell everyone else how they should live their life.
Honestly, by my own personal experiences I cannot see why someone would want to smoke, but I try not to judge them for it, and respect their right to smoke.
And no I do not claim to have the higher ground. My thinking can be just as convoluted and hypocritical at times as everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Quote:
I got a great idea, lets just get rid of jobs so there is no discrimination, we'll all just go back to growing our own food, cutting our own logs for shelter and such.
As long as I can brew my own liquor, let's go for it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349 |
Quote:
I don't think anybody is arguing that they don't have the right to do it, it doesn't mean you can't have issues with it, and argue the reasoning for these types of bans.
See I am saying they do have the right but I take issue with that right,in a way. I can see a business owner being able to say " dont come in here smelling like smoke" but I dont think they should have the right to regulate what you do at home. The being distracted at work theory that someone else came up with is ridiculous. So what,now companies will not hire you if you are newly married,or have kids,or a hot gilfriend because those things can be on your mind while you are at work.
KING
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,577
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,577 |
Wasn't laughing, i think this is ridiculous that we even allow companies to do this. We're becoming more and more like Russia every day.
#gmstrong
Live, Love, Laugh
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Yeah, I think that's valid. Let's take me for example, I don't smoke during the week, but on the weekends if I've had a couple of beers, I like to smoke.
I have made one claim with my employer's health plan in 15 years, and it was for an eye infection that was a minimal cost to the plan. I very rarely call in sick.
These companies would not allow me to be hired, which makes no sense to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
My company isn't banning you from smoking but they served notice that at next year's open enrollment for our Medical Insurance we will be given a swab test (that apparently can tell if you have used tobacco in the last 6 months) and if you fail you will be charged an additional premium on your medical insurance.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Quote:
My company isn't banning you from smoking but they served notice that at next year's open enrollment for our Medical Insurance we will be given a swab test (that apparently can tell if you have used tobacco in the last 6 months) and if you fail you will be charged an additional premium on your medical insurance.
Now here's where it gets tricky,....what happens when they start testing "grandfathered" enrollees--and you can see that coming--, and they come up positive, but don't smoke. Fine lines,...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349 |
Quote:
Yeah, I think that's valid. Let's take me for example, I don't smoke during the week, but on the weekends if I've had a couple of beers, I like to smoke.
I have made one claim with my employer's health plan in 15 years, and it was for an eye infection that was a minimal cost to the plan. I very rarely call in sick.
These companies would not allow me to be hired, which makes no sense to me.
Also, your employer is paying for your health insurance regardless of whether you use it or not. So I am wondering if insurance companies are telling companies we will give you a lower rate if you hire non smokers only. Like my company, we have a drug and alcohol testing policy, in 4 years not one single person has been sent for a drug test(except for post accident hospital visit). The company doesnt really care whether people do drugs or drink on their own time(as long as not coming to work drunk or high). They just have the policy because by having the policy they get a better rate on their Workers Comp insurance.
KING
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Bingo Kingo,... 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
cause them to lose their health insurance and affect their health and that of their families.
Sorry, the second half of this this line made me chuckle. As if smoking doesn't affect the health of them and their families. 
As far as employment bans I don't think it's a good idea, although I wouldn't deny a private company from setting such a policy, it's their business, their rules, and their health costs. Now public held companies are different.
And the idea of forcing spouses to uphold the rules of your employment if down right communist.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,391
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,391 |
This whole argument is kind of vague.
How do you "define a smoker"?
1. Is a smoker someone who has 1 or 2 on the weekends with a beer?
2. Is a smoker someone who has 1 or 2 in the evenings at home?
3. Or do you define a smoker as a chain-smoking addict who needs one every 20 minutes to function?
Depending on how you personally define it, the level of actions or policies will certainly differ.
I highly doubt companies would care about either 1 or 2.
3 is a different story. A chain-smoking addict has these VERY REAL effects on the workplace
- Constant breaks to go have a smoke. Less time working means a less productive employee.
- Higher risk for health problems. No debate here. This has the potential for higher health care costs.
- Constant odor. Even smoking outside doesn't hide it. Although the least of any worries (lots of people have odors for various reasons), it is still part of the equation that scenarios 1 and 2 might have but not to the same degree.
If I owned a business, I'd be a LOT less likely to higher a chain smoker for sure. That's a business decision and should be protected as not discriminatory.
On the flip side, if I had a long-term employee who took up smoking, I would investigate methods for helping rather than just firing. I guess it's a fine line.
But the root of the question still remains....How do you define a smoker???
------------------------------
*In Baker we trust*
-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,585
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,585 |
Quote:
Yep, remember people saying when all this started that they were going to go after what people did in the privacy of their own homes and people laughed at them?
I have been preaching that for 30 years. Buy the time enough people in this country catch on, it will be to late
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405 |
Quote:
Exactly. This is a perfect example of someone wanting to enact a rule or law with no comprension of the end results.
Lately, this has been the MO of all government. Regulate until there is nothing more to regulate...then wonder what happened to jobs, tax revenue, and American productivity in general.
"My signature line goes here."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,585
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,585 |
Quote:
Quote:
I got a great idea, lets just get rid of jobs so there is no discrimination, we'll all just go back to growing our own food, cutting our own logs for shelter and such.
As long as I can brew my own liquor, let's go for it.
Sorry but you will be denied medical coverage or treatment from any doctors if you drink.
oh and if the woman you want to marry has a family history of ANY health problems you will not be allowed to produce children either. 
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,431
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,431 |
Careful GM don't want to plant any ideas. I really and honestly believe that we as Americans deserve this government that we have . We have allowed the mollycoddling to take hold and flourish and what was once done on the left coast has now permeated into our day to day lives. Gone are the days of personal choices and personal freedoms . Seems Mr. Orwell was off by a decade or so.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,391
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,391 |
Quote:
Gone are the days of personal choices and personal freedoms .
So then do you support businesses rights to not chose to hire smokers?
------------------------------
*In Baker we trust*
-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 512
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 512 |
My opinion is if business owners are allowed to do this then business owners should also be allowed to have a smoking establishment if they wish
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,836
Steeler
|
|
Steeler
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,836 |
Quote:
My opinion is if business owners are allowed to do this then business owners should also be allowed to have a smoking establishment if they wish
Ding ding! Winner!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,886
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,886 |
Quote:
My opinion is if business owners are allowed to do this then business owners should also be allowed to have a smoking establishment if they wish
Agreed. 100%
What's missing in all this "anti smoking" rhetoric is, smoking will never be banned for one simple reason: the tax money it brings in.
States want everyone to quit smoking everywhere, but there is not a state around that could even come close to balancing the budget if it weren't for the smoking tax. Now, I'm not saying anything is right or wrong here, just pointing out a simple fact. (yet again, people trying to pass laws with no understanding of the underlying effects).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,431
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,431 |
Quote:
My opinion is if business owners are allowed to do this then business owners should also be allowed to have a smoking establishment if they wish
Could not agree more . If it is ok one way then why not the other ?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,908
Bengal
|
|
Bengal
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,908 |
Jc This happened to me just this summer. I couldn't even get an interview with Reynolds because I smoke. I should have lied, but the question was so out of the blue, it took me by surprise. She explained that it was for insurance purposes. I told her I wouldn't need health insurance since I'm married.... didn't matter. I think it's unfair. But when you look at the other "protected classes", Race, sex, age, etc.... they are all thing you can't change about yourself. I don't see the government stepping in for us anytime soon. They want us all gone anyways. In other news, I did recently get a very good job for anybody out there interested. It's very close to home and I am more than familiar with the industry. Ironically, I'm using Reynolds software there on a daily basis! 
![[Linked Image from media.lehighvalleylive.com]](http://media.lehighvalleylive.com/tv_impact/photo/birds-of-war-3b1e411c023703c8_custom_120xauto.jpg) Birds of War
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,585
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,585 |
Quote:
Careful GM don't want to plant any ideas. I really and honestly believe that we as Americans deserve this government that we have . We have allowed the mollycoddling to take hold and flourish and what was once done on the left coast has now permeated into our day to day lives. Gone are the days of personal choices and personal freedoms . Seems Mr. Orwell was off by a decade or so.
Instead of dumping tea in the harbor this time, can we dump all politicians 
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,693
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,693 |
Quote:
My opinion is if business owners are allowed to do this then business owners should also be allowed to have a smoking establishment if they wish
The 2 are not connected though.
No smoking at an indoor business establishment is a state law. It is not a "right's" issue.
Ohio is an "At will" state .... meaning that an employer and employee have a working relationship for only as long as both agre to. (unless contractually bound) As an employee, I can leave my employment at any time, and for any reason without legal ramification. Likewise, as an employer, I can terminate the employment of any emplyee for any reason, as long as that reason does not violate EEOC laws. If i feel that you don't look good in a blue shirt, and you wear one to work ..... I can fire you. If you bring a pastromi sandwish to work and I don't like the smell of it .. I can fire you. If I hate red cars ... and find out that you drive one ...... firing you is perfectly acceptable in the eyes of the law. I could even fire a Steellers fan for showing up at work with a Steelers key ring.
Now, obviosly most of these would never happen ... and there are usually much better reasons given to terminate one's employment. Llegally, however, an employer can terminate an employee's employment for smelling like smoke (no matter how faint the smell) if they really want to.
I should note that unemployment compensation could reasonably be expected to be paid in these cases ... so employers generally state much better reasons in terminating someone's employment.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
Quote:
No smoking at an indoor business establishment is a state law. It is not a "right's" issue.
Right, but I don't think anyone is talking about smoking in a business establishment. We are talking about smoking AT HOME and being fired for it.
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Like he said, at will employees can be fired for any reason not protected by EEOC, which includes smoking. Anytime. Anywhere.
I fail to see why this is even an issue. Owners of private businesses should be able to maintain the right to hire or not hire any person they choose, for any reason, unless that reason falls under one of the classes protected by state or federal government. Currently, smokers are not a protected class, nor should they be. Some states have legislation that gives them similar rights with regards to hiring, firing, insurance premiums, etc.
There is very little correlation between this and the ban on smoking in public establishments in Ohio. The smoking ban was voted into law by the people of the state. Until there is a law passed in Ohio protecting smokers from being fired or not hired solely based on the fact that they smoke, they will not and should not receive any such consideration.
My supervisor at my last job was a chain smoker. He spent more time per day smoking than he did working. He was outdoors at least three times per hour, for 5-10 minutes at a time, standing around smoking. He would walk across the street to our other building just so that he could smoke while he walked. He stunk and he didn't get anything done because he had to constantly be puffing on a cigarette. Thats just one example of the kind of problem smokers may cause in the workplace, and a legit reason why a private employer might not want to hire them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458 |
I think its pathetic the way non-smokers, ex-smokers, and whoever else make life more and more difficult for those who choose to smoke-----limit the places that they can go, limit the places that they can work----that is extremely sad.
People love to scapegoat other people and point fingers----right now cigarette smokers are real easy targets.
I wish to wash my Irish wristwatch......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 661
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 661 |
I agree with ya Tyler.
Smokers are an easy target. What about fat people, they are an insurance problem also. They are going to the docs for joint pain, knee problems etc.
And people complain about taking cig breaks, they can't take cig breaks, smoking is prohibited in Ohio in the workplace, only supervisors do that, and no one will rat them out because if they tell and get caught, they will get canned.
Smoking is only on company breaks.
What about the fat people who don't smoke but can only move half the speed and have half the stamina of a more fit person? I smoke and can work circles around a fat person in a physical job.
I hate to call people fat, but being a smoker nowadays seems to be just as a bad word as a fat person. Looked down upon.
How in the world can you fix something...
If you don't know how it's supposed to work?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,074
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,074 |
You are wasting your time. You can't talk to brain dead zombies who just go through life following.
They are the reason this country will fail.
Bank on it.
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: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
Quote:
The smoking ban was voted into law by the people of the state.
Right -- which is what I'm saying shouldn't have even happened. Why couldn't business owners make their own choices on the matter?
Quote:
Until there is a law passed in Ohio protecting smokers from being fired or not hired solely based on the fact that they smoke, they will not and should not receive any such consideration.
That isn't the point. There won't be a law passed to protect people that smoke on their own time. This is Ohio -- the most righteous state in the Union, ya know? 
Quote:
Thats just one example of the kind of problem smokers may cause in the workplace, and a legit reason why a private employer might not want to hire them.
Yes, we've been through this...it stinks. It can produce more downtime on the job. Blah, blah, blah. But, if a person smokes at home, it doesn't hurt an employer one little bit. It seems you think the slippery slope is okay. If so, I hope you're a very young guy so you live through the period where they legislate everything you can and cannot do in the privacy of your own home.
I'm going to fire my stinky shoe employee today. I can't take it anymore. 
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
Quote:
You can't talk to brain dead zombies who just go through life following.
They are the reason this country will fail.
Bank on it.
I know. I've seen where they've taken us this far. I really do wonder who raised these people.
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
And people complain about taking cig breaks, they can't take cig breaks, smoking is prohibited in Ohio in the workplac
Isn't the law just for indoors? Meaning the smokers step outside for smoke breaks? That's what they all do here, hence they aren't working for 10-20 minutes every hour.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
No, just not for indoors. That part depends on the employer or establishment. Some places don't allow smoking on their property at all. Some still allow you to step outside.
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
Quote:
The smoking ban was voted into law by the people of the state.
Right -- which is what I'm saying shouldn't have even happened. Why couldn't business owners make their own choices on the matter?
They were given the opportunity to vote in the matter. Perhaps those who opposed the smoking ban should've worked harder to see that it wasn't passed. But they didn't. You know what? As much as I appreciate the effects of the smoking ban in terms of smoke-free atmosphere when I go out to a bar or restaurant, I didn't feel that it was the best way to go about things either. But a majority of Ohioans thought it was, so now its a law.
Quote:
Quote:
Until there is a law passed in Ohio protecting smokers from being fired or not hired solely based on the fact that they smoke, they will not and should not receive any such consideration.
That isn't the point. There won't be a law passed to protect people that smoke on their own time. This is Ohio -- the most righteous state in the Union, ya know?
It's exactly the point. I agree with you that there probably won't be a law passed to protect smokers (and I don't think that there should be protection for anything that's a lifestyle choice, except perhaps for obesity in that I haven't read enough personally to know the magnitude of the role genetics plays in the situation). But like I said, its exactly the point...smokers are not a protected class, so they shouldn't be afforded special protection.
Quote:
Quote:
Thats just one example of the kind of problem smokers may cause in the workplace, and a legit reason why a private employer might not want to hire them.
Yes, we've been through this...it stinks. It can produce more downtime on the job. Blah, blah, blah. But, if a person smokes at home, it doesn't hurt an employer one little bit. It seems you think the slippery slope is okay. If so, I hope you're a very young guy so you live through the period where they legislate everything you can and cannot do in the privacy of your own home.
Legislation is not the issue. We're talking about choices made by owners of private businesses. If and when it comes to the government legislating what I do in my home, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
Quote:
I'm going to fire my stinky shoe employee today. I can't take it anymore.
As a private business owner you would be perfectly within your legal rights (provided your employee wasn't working under a contractual basis). I wouldn't in a million years try to suggest that you were doing something against the law. Would it suck for the employee? Sure. Maybe he should've bought new shoes.
Re: smoking on work grounds, what we were told at the job I was at when the smoking ban went into effect was that you couldn't be within 20 feet of doors or windows. I don't know if the same holds true for patrons of bars and restaurants, as smoking patios generally seem to be right outside the door.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,032
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,032 |
I'm all for banning smoking in public places. I'm also all for an employer not allowing employees to take smoke breaks at work.
I do not think this should be permissable however, though its not that much different than doing testing for drugs as a condition of employment. While you may never be under the influence at work, it can impact your ability to be employed. Before long they'll stop hiring people that have all kinds of conditions that make their health insurance premiums go up.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Barring smokers from employment
isn't right
|
|
![[Linked Image from i190.photobucket.com]](http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z33/booger52/phpGGRdhwAM.jpg)
![[Linked Image from mypsn.eu.playstation.com]](http://mypsn.eu.playstation.com/psn/profile/Letherface.png)
