Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire More Anti-Smoking Employer News

Looks like its spreading, I can see it now: No more junk food, pizza is forbidden on lunch hour. If one is 10lbs overweight, then they are placed on probation!

Anti-Smoking Employers Firing Smokers

MtnHtr

George Orwell was a prophet!

Why not just raise the cost of health insurance for the smokers, and let them foot the bill......

Roads

That takes common sense!

"Obituary for Common Sense"
Today we mourn the passing of an old friend by the name of Common Sense. Common Sense
lived a long life but died from heart failure at the brink of the millennium. No one really
knows how old he was since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.
Common Sense selflessly devoted his life to service in schools, hospitals, homes, factories and
offices, helping folks get jobs done without fanfare and foolishness.
For decades, petty rules, silly laws and frivolous lawsuits held no power over Common Sense. He
was credited with cultivating such valued lessons as to know when to come in out of the rain,
the early bird gets the worm, and life isn't always fair.
Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you earn),
reliable parenting strategies (adults are in charge, not kids), and it's okay to come in second.
A veteran of the Industrial Revolution, the Great Depression, and the Technological Revolution,
Common Sense survived cultural and educational trends including feminism, body piercing, whole
language and "new math."
But his health declined when he became infected with the
�If-it-only-helps-one-person-it's-worth-it" virus. In recent decades his waning strength
proved no match for the ravages of overbearing federal regulation.
He watched in pain as good people became ruled by self-seeking lawyers and enlightened
auditors. His health rapidly deteriorated when schools endlessly implemented zero tolerance
policies, reports of six year old boys charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate, a
teen suspended for taking a swig of mouth-wash after lunch, and a teacher fired for
reprimanding an unruly student. It declined even further when schools had to get parental
consent to administer aspirin to a student but cannot inform the parent when the female
student is pregnant or wants an abortion.
Finally, Common Sense lost his will to live as Lifetime Values became contraband, churches
became businesses, criminals received better treatment than victims, and federal judges stuck
their noses in everything from the Boy Scouts to professional sports.
As the end neared, Common Sense drifted in and out of logic but was kept informed of
developments, regarding questionable regulations for asbestos, low flow toilets, "smart" guns,
the nurturing of Prohibition Laws and mandatory air bags.
Finally when told that the homeowners association restricted exterior furniture only to that
which enhanced property values, he breathed his last.
Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents Truth and Trust; his wife, Discretion; his
daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason. He is survived by three stepbrothers: Rights,
Tolerance and Whiner.
Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.

I read the anti smoking thing in the papee the other day.
stunned, to say the least!
But here is another view.
Did these people sign some kind of contract that stated that they were not allowed tosmake?
Does nicoret gum, or smokeless tobacco included?
I guess the company has a right to what their employees do on the job, but how does smokin OFF the job impact the company?
second hand smoke is as bad or worse and we have reall no control over that.
Just thinking( I've been warned about that from time to time!)
catnthehat

Bxroads,
Great idea. Let the smokers pay the bill for the health problems they created. Why should we pay for their poor health? Good idea. I always laugh when we go in a restaurant and they ask if you'd like smoking or non-smoking. Ha, ha. That does one about as much good a peeing in the corner of a swimming pool. Same water, same air.
I am always humored when a smoker comes up with so many lame excuses as to why smoking isn't unhealthy, etc. They are in such denial. Sad, sad, sad.
Hunter01

Hunter01,
Gee, I sure hope you're not over-weight, or own guns, or drive the interstate, or have a grandfather with prostate cancer...because, YOU'RE NEXT!

Sounds just like a liberal.

Liberalism - The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy.

I think the employer is making a HUGE mistake when he attempts to control his empoyee's, (or are they subjects) off duty activities. I have always had a real problem with drug testing policies even though there was never any risk of me showing positive. If he wants to know if I use drugs, he can ask me; if he can not trust me to tell the truth, why does he have me in his workforce?
While I have begun to see the need to test for illegal substances, it is still the "camels nose under the tent".
When you start denying employees the right to participate in legal activities in their off duty time, where does it stop?
Should we test for the metabolytes of alcoholic beverages on Monday and fire the employee for having a beer on Friday evening?
Should we tap into the insurance and DMV database and fire the employee for a speeding ticket on the way to church on Sunday morning?
Should we monitor the local McDonald's drivethru and fire the employee for having extra cheese on his burger?
Should we ask how long his grandparents lived and their cause of death?
Should we ask if he shoots guns, or rides motorcycles, or perhaps jogs on a trail where a homocide occured ten years ago?
Perhaps we should check the employees external reproductive organs for DNA other than the spouses? Extramarital sex IS far more risky to the health than smoking.
Blacks are at higher risk of stoke or heart attack. Bill Cosby says Blacks have a higher risk of unwed pregnancy than Whites. There are medical expenses associated with these statistics. Should we remove blacks from our workforce?
I'm sorry, I must of slept through history class. But I vaguely remember hearing about something called prohibition.
It sure sounds like we are moving in the direction of making that mistake all over again.
I am the last person to wish for a more intrusive federal gov't, but we already have a plethora of antidiscrimanation laws pertaining to employment rights. Perhaps the feds should throw out all of those existing laws and write one new law which simply states, " It is illegal to discriminate against any person for any reason, for purposes of employment, with the exceptions of illegal activities and capability or job performance".
Of course, that sentance would have to be stretched to several thousand words and have 78 amendments tacked on before it got through Washington.

There is a fairly well defined body of law as to what off-duty activities an employer may have any say in. Of course, it varies by state and type of employment. In general, an employer must be able to show a nexus, or connection, between the activity and the employer's interest. Job performance may seem fairly obvious, but the employer's reputation may also be relevant, depending on the type of business and situation. If the employee's off-duty activities can harm the business, the employer may have grounds for prohibiting them. As far as drug and alcohol testing, it is required by federal law for most transportation employees. I don't have a problem with that. This law came about after cases where an airline crew was found to have been drinking, and the crew of a subway was found to have been high following a crash, and other such situations. I have debated this with employees more times than I care to remember. My position has been, I don't make the laws I just administer them. If you don't like it find another line of work. I got tired of the "free spirits" who wanted the consistency and protections of working in a bureaucracy, but only on their own terms. I don't believe in blanket drug and alcohol testing for all employees. Not only is it too intrusive, but it isn't worth the expense and hassle for the employer. As far as legal/illegal, that is not always so simple. Should an employer be able to fire an employee over an illegal act if it has nothing to do with the job? In many states the answer is "no". Again, there has to be a nexus to the job.

Paul

"Let smokers pay for health problems they created." Okay. Lets charge fat people for the health problems they created. Let homosexuals pay more for being more at risk for aids. Lets charge more to black people because they are more prone to cardiovascular disease at an early age. Let's charge more to anyone who drinks, liver disease being a leading killer and all. Let's charge more for health insurance to people who own guns, as we all "know" that you're "10 times more likely to be kille by your own gun", right?

As for non-smoking areas in a restaurant. We all know that the smell of smoke is offensive to many of those who don't smoke, or who used to smoke. THAT is the reason for non-smoking areas in places that still allow smoking. If you THINK that you are getting any kind of exposure to any dangerous chemicals because you spent 1 hour in a restaurant where a couple people were smoking 30 feet away (the peeing in the swimming pool theory), then you are a pretty scared (and uninformed) person. The concentrations received would be so small, and over such a short period of time, you'd be a bigger risk of endangering your health by walking through your garage with the car idling.

Nobody is saying that smoking is healthy, but this "alarmist" point of view that someone is polluting "my air" if someone happens to be smoking within sight, while very dramatic and "Hollywoodish", is quite silly. Laws against smoking in restaurants and bars were enacted primarily if you remember, to protect EMPLOYEES in those places who did not have a choice to leave, not the casual visitor (at least that was the smoke bashing argument at the time).

But sure, let's wave our hands in the air, kick, cry and thrash about, because, after all, it is politically correct to bash smokers at the moment, and it presents perfect opportunity to feel superior to someone else, if only for a moment......

You're right......Sad, sad, sad. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Next is you, fat guy. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Hey Shorty, Mr. Idiot/ignorant.
I've got more knowledge in my thumb about science and health than you have in your entire body. I'm in top physical shape, will walk, run the butt off of you any day of the week, and I'm 55 years old. I don't drink, or smoke, live a great, clean, moral life, eat the right foods and help my fellow man in any way each and every day. Smoking doesn't cause all diseases, of course jerk, but it contributes to many health problems. Anyone who is to ignorant and blind to see that needs to get his head out of the sand.
Oh, and by the way, my wife doesn't drink or smoke either, and she has color cancer, going through 30 tough chemo treatments. I don't blame that on smoking, but I'm not dumb enough to think many health problems aren't causesd by smoking.
I pay for the welfare folks, and the war I don't support too, (I'm a Viet Nam vet too). I pay higher insurance cuz of folks who are reckless with their lives, cars, and health. I don't like it, it happens, it isn't right, but I do it. Smokers who pay theri sin taxes deserve and need to pay it. They choose to smoke and pay/waste their money watching it going up in "smoke."
So this non-smokin, non-drinkin, non-overweight, interstate driver who had a grandfather and father who both died from a heart attack from smoking, will tell you that genes have things to do with what happens to things like have happened to my wife, not smoking and eating the wrong foods and drinks.
Get a frickin life boy.

Hunter01

Smokers DO pay higher insurance premiums than non-smokers. Minnesota smokers paid 182-million in sin taxes last year. If Minnesota can be considered average, that puts the national total over 9-billion - the point being it's a lot of dough.

I dont mind if people smoke as long as they dont mind me breaking wind in their face to return the courtesy. Smokers seldom consider the needs of others vs. their addiction to nicotine. They should be taxed, and charged higher premiums for health insurance, life insurance and passive second hand smoke damage insurance. They should be able to rent special motel rooms and rental vehicles that smell like [bleep] or something equally repulsive just to give them a small idea of how they smell to the rest of us.

A pox upon smokers <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Oh, and we can make them use different water fountains.......and make them sit in the back of the bus.......

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

A M E N SIR!

And establish a special place just for them.

Put a sign up over the gate.

ARBEIT MACH FREI


BCR

Rdinak,

"Smokers seldom consider the needs of others..."

How do you tell the difference between a polite smoker and a non-smoker? The way I figure, both of them are sitting there not smoking.

Is it a telepathy thing ya got going <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />?

ah yes boggy 'work will make you free'
the liberals truly are the new Nazi�s aren't they. I am sure they would love to put all of the smokers in camps as well as anyone that has ever smoked since you never know when they might start again.
tom

Good one Jog, I liked your comment on non-smoking, non-smokers. Makes sense too.

Hunter01