|
|
|
|
Share/Bookmark this Topic:
|
| Message |
Author |
by smallbird
on Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:46 pm |
|
JoshNJ wrote: libertarian99 wrote: Can you imagine what would happen if they took one look at a job candidate and said, "Sorry, but we won't even consider your application because you have a double chin and too much belly fat, which is a recipe for heart disease. Insurance rates are our first concern."
I think it would be insensitive to the obese person to hear those comments, but the reason doesn't seem any different than not hiring a smoker in Florida.
And you don't think it's insensitive to people who have real lives to hear that they won't be hired because they smoke cigarettes (which, as of this writing, are still legal products)? |
|
|
smallbird
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Jan 03, 2007
Posts: 367
|
| |
Back to top |
|
|
| |
|
by JoshNJ
on Tue Oct 06, 2009 9:06 am |
|
smallbird wrote: And you don't think it's insensitive to people who have real lives to hear that they won't be hired because they smoke cigarettes (which, as of this writing, are still legal products)?
I think both are insensitive comments, but that is where they cease to surprise me. |
|
|
JoshNJ
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Apr 12, 2006
Posts: 312
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by libertarian99
on Tue Oct 06, 2009 5:58 pm |
|
This policy will eventually backfire on the state. If this county achieves its goal of promoting employment discrimination against smokers and other employers follow suit, the state will inevitably end up with a very large group of people who can't find jobs anywhere and have no choice but to rely on the state for welfare, food stamps and Medicaid. Increasing the number of people who can't make a living is really not in the state's best interest, but they will eventually find that out the hard way.
Ironically, the local government will have to spend a lot of money to learn this very painful lesson. Cotinine tests cost money, and it won't be enough to test job applicants. They will have to institute a random testing program of existing employees in order to keep their workforce in line.
A random testing program will intrude on the privacy of non-smokers, who will be forced to go pee in a cup on demand in order to prove they are still non-smokers. There is no way an employer can institute this policy without invading everyone's privacy by collecting their body fluids, which non-smokers won't be very happy about.
Nevertheless, being required to hand over body fluids will be a good payback for all the non-smoking sheeple who stood by and applauded while the smokers' personal privacy was being intruded upon.
I think Florida's desperation has a lot to do with the large number of elderly retired people who live there. That puts a huge strain on their health care system. However, it is not nice or politically correct to aggressively attack the elderly, try to drive them out or even mention that their health care issues are a problem. So instead they go after smokers, the one group they feel they can safely attack without repercussion. |
|
|
libertarian99
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: May 01, 2009
Posts: 453
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by libertarian99
on Tue Oct 06, 2009 6:40 pm |
|
smallbird wrote: JoshNJ wrote: libertarian99 wrote: Can you imagine what would happen if they took one look at a job candidate and said, "Sorry, but we won't even consider your application because you have a double chin and too much belly fat, which is a recipe for heart disease. Insurance rates are our first concern."
I think it would be insensitive to the obese person to hear those comments, but the reason doesn't seem any different than not hiring a smoker in Florida.
And you don't think it's insensitive to people who have real lives to hear that they won't be hired because they smoke cigarettes (which, as of this writing, are still legal products)? |
|
|
libertarian99
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: May 01, 2009
Posts: 453
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by runamok
on Tue Oct 06, 2009 6:47 pm |
|
libertarian99 wrote: I think Florida's desperation has a lot to do with the large number of elderly retired people who live there. That puts a huge strain on their health care system. However, it is not nice or politically correct to aggressively attack the elderly, try to drive them out or even mention that their health care issues are a problem. So instead they go after smokers, the one group they feel they can safely attack without repercussion.
Not only is in not nice or PC, politicians know one thing about the elderly for sure. They show their disdain for issues that affect them adversely as a group by voting in droves. |
|
|
runamok
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Dec 20, 2004
Posts: 1293
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by libertarian99
on Tue Oct 06, 2009 7:00 pm |
|
Gannon is obviously motivated to discriminate against smokers based on her own personal issues, as outlined in this quote:
"We believe that smoking is the driver of our healthcare costs. A person who smokes has chosen to do that," said Gannon, a non-smoker who said both her parents died of smoking-related illnesses. "The public is really paying."
I'm not sure how she thinks employment discrimination against smokers is a way to pay tribute to her dead parents. Can't help wondering how she would have felt if her parents had been unable to put food in her mouth due to the fact that, as smokers, no one would hire them. |
|
|
libertarian99
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: May 01, 2009
Posts: 453
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by libertarian99
on Tue Oct 06, 2009 8:10 pm |
|
I hope these people who advocate employment discrimination really start pushing to include employees' spouses in the fray. That's where they're really going to run afoul of the law, because an employee's spouse doesn't have any employment contract or duty to the employer.
Allowing an employer to insert themselves between an employee and their spouse is even more offensive than just trying to control the employee's off-duty behavior. At least the employee has voluntarily entered into the deal. I know if I was married to someone and their employer claimed the right to control my behavior in my own home, it would create serious marital problems.
Another interesting aspect of extending no-smoking rules to an employee's spouse is just the fact that the employer is dictating who an employee can or cannot marry. I'm surprised that people haven't been more outraged over this issue. Maybe it just hasn't affected enough people yet. |
|
|
libertarian99
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: May 01, 2009
Posts: 453
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by JoshNJ
on Wed Oct 07, 2009 8:21 am |
|
libertarian99 wrote: I hope these people who advocate employment discrimination really start pushing to include employees' spouses in the fray. That's where they're really going to run afoul of the law, because an employee's spouse doesn't have any employment contract or duty to the employer.
Allowing an employer to insert themselves between an employee and their spouse is even more offensive than just trying to control the employee's off-duty behavior. At least the employee has voluntarily entered into the deal. I know if I was married to someone and their employer claimed the right to control my behavior in my own home, it would create serious marital problems.
Another interesting aspect of extending no-smoking rules to an employee's spouse is just the fact that the employer is dictating who an employee can or cannot marry. I'm surprised that people haven't been more outraged over this issue. Maybe it just hasn't affected enough people yet.
I'm not sure if you would consider this behavior control of the spouse, but I know people who work for certain financial firms and they are not allowed to have online trading accounts without the employer's consent. And this extends to the employee's spouse. If the behavior affects the company directly, then I think they will step in and try to control employees and their spouses.
Not exactly the same as the subject at hand, but I thought it was interesting to note. |
|
|
JoshNJ
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Apr 12, 2006
Posts: 312
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by garhkal
on Wed Oct 07, 2009 5:11 pm |
|
libertarian99 wrote: smallbird wrote: JoshNJ wrote: libertarian99 wrote: Can you imagine what would happen if they took one look at a job candidate and said, "Sorry, but we won't even consider your application because you have a double chin and too much belly fat, which is a recipe for heart disease. Insurance rates are our first concern."
I think it would be insensitive to the obese person to hear those comments, but the reason doesn't seem any different than not hiring a smoker in Florida.
And you don't think it's insensitive to people who have real lives to hear that they won't be hired because they smoke cigarettes (which, as of this writing, are still legal products)? There's a lot of irony in the fact that the WHO and all their various cronies are willing to inflict psychological damage in the name of public health. Apparently mental health doesn't count.
That is kind of ironic.. |
|
|
garhkal
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Apr 24, 2009
Posts: 392
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
|
