You asked, you got... smokers fired, now the...

[Clandestino]

i just saw on cbs new the company who was firing smokers is now after the obese...

no links to the news story yet...

[Guru of Nothing]

I assume this company does NOT allow vending machines in the workplace, because that would make for some legal irony.

Edited for accuracy - I meant to include the word NOT.

[Yonivore]

I assume this company does allow vending machines in the workplace, because that would make for some legal irony.
That's a big assumption. I would venture it's a safer assumption they've given this new policy direction quite a bit of thought and worked to minimize their exposure to such "legal irony."

But, we'll see.

[whottt]

i just saw on cbs new the company who was firing smokers is now after the obese...

no links to the news story yet...


I hope you are joking.
And if you aren't...sucks to be fat.

Hey Joe, stop eating.

PS: Smoking is a great appetite supressant :lol

[JoeChalupa]

I hope it is a big fat lie.

[Hook Dem]

Maybe the fat asses will understand the smokers plight now!

[Duff McCartney]

Maybe the fat asses will understand the smokers plight now!

What plight?

[Hook Dem]

What plight?
I don't know what your problem is but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce!

[JoeChalupa]

If they are given ample time to lose weight or get a doctor's excuse and they don't comply....that's it their gone!!! :)

[Hook Dem]

No more chalupas or tacos! :lol

[Nbadan]

If they are given ample time to lose weight or get a doctor's excuse and they don't comply....that's it their gone!!!

You could take all this even one step further. For instance, today's genetic testing can determine what disease a person can be predisposed of developing. So the question becomes, can companies use this type of testing against you to legally discriminate because of the expectation that you will develope this disease and it will hurt your long-term productivity and thus the companies financial best interests?

[spurster]

They should go after the workers with families next. Not only do families mean more people to get sick and increase health care costs, but, instead of spending time with their families, these ingrates should be working harder to add to the CEO's paltry multi-million salary.

[Yonivore]

They should go after the workers with families next. Not only do families mean more people to get sick and increase health care costs, but, instead of spending time with their families, these ingrates should be working harder to add to the CEO's paltry multi-million salary.
I know you meant that somewhat tongue-in-cheek. However, it really does boil down to the fact that private employers should be able to hire and fire at will for whatever damn reason they see fit and publicly-traded corporations should be able to hire and fire at the will of the stockholders.

Only Government employers (or people who would hope to enter into government contracts) should be held to any anti-discriminatory laws or policies.

Period.

[Clandestino]

i second that.. that is the point..why do you so called liberals want government control on everything?

[Useruser666]

http://img165.exs.cx/img165/2040/gattica3ai.jpg

[Samurai Jane]

I know you meant that somewhat tongue-in-cheek. However, it really does boil down to the fact that private employers should be able to hire and fire at will for whatever damn reason they see fit and publicly-traded corporations should be able to hire and fire at the will of the stockholders.

Only Government employers (or people who would hope to enter into government contracts) should be held to any anti-discriminatory laws or policies.

Period.

I thought private companies were already subject to anti-discriminatory laws. :wtf

[Useruser666]

If they fire you because you you're fat, just keep eating until you're disabled and then they have to rehire you and can no longer discriminate against you.

[Hook Dem]

If they fire you because you you're fat, just keep eating until you're disabled and then they have to rehire you and can no longer discriminate against you.
If death doesn't occur first!

[Yonivore]

I thought private companies were already subject to anti-discriminatory laws. :wtf
Not exactly, but I'm saying they shouldn't be in any case.

As a matter of fact, you might be surprised to know that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and its amendments) doesn't apply to private businesses that do not have a business relationship with the federal government. To this point, discrimination suits have relied on a liberal (double entendre intended) judicial intepretation of the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution to punish corporations.

It started with a case in the South where a Black, from State A, was denied service at a restuarant in State B. A suit was brought that basically argued that by denying a resident from one state to spend his money in another the restuarant was violating the interstate commerce clause. Oversimplification but it works. Read the Civil Rights Act of 1964 you'll be astonished.

That or Jesse Jackson and his Rainbow Coalition can extort the corporation into adopting anti-discriminatory policies.

[whottt]

Yoni, allow me to introduce you to the Declaration of Independence...


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."


I'm sorry that you don't seem to understand that human beings have greater rights than any business in this country...our government was not founded to protect the rights of private businesses...It was founded to protect the people, to enforce the constitution, to live up to the standards decreed in the Declaration of Independence.

I won't argue too hard that employers should have the right to hire and fire whoever they please, in most cases....

But I will argue vehemently against their rights to openly discriminate based on what an insurance companies dictates, and what may or may not happen...

A Businesses rights should always come secondary to the rights of people in this country...

An this is a clear case of a business shitting on that all men are created equal thing....


It's right there in the Declaration of Independence.

[violentkitten]

there isnt a right to smoking and getting sick and then having your employer pay for your treatment in the constitution

[whottt]

Wrong thread...this one is about firing the lardasses...

Pull your head out kittie.

[Yonivore]

Let me introduce you to the U. S. Constitution instead:

The First Amendment - Right of Association (including employer/employee association)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Fourth Amendment - The Right to dispose of your private property in whatever manner you see fit. (including capital assets, salary money for employees, etc...you get the picture.)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Then, there's the kickers --

The Ninth Amendment - Nothing the Constitution says can be construed to deny individual rights to anyone. (including such constructs that say a person has a right to be employed over the rights of an individual to employ that person...personal property rights trump some nebulous employment right that's been cut from whole cloth and which can't be found anywhere in the U.S. Constitution)

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And the Tenth Amendment - If we don't say it in here then the States and the People have the right to do whatever they deem appropriate including private discrimination for whatever reason, purple hair or black skin.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Then, let's discuss things you won't find in the U.S. Constitution...

The right to a job. The right to not be offended. The right to not be discriminated against by anyone for any reason, other than the government or it's agents. And, hundreds or thousands of other assumed rights that never existed...

You won't find it in the Fourteenth Amendement, Section I (The famous "equal protection clause") or in any other section of the U.S. Constitution -- it doesn't exist:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
But for judicial fiat, discrimination would not be illegal.

[Clandestino]

okay, here is the article.. they aren't firing fatties, just offering ways to help them be healthier...

Health Care Company That Fired Smokers Also Targeting Fat. Weyers Won't Fire Employees For Obesity
POSTED: 9:20 am CST January 27, 2005

A Michigan health care company that fired four employees for smoking is also targeting fat.

Howard Weyers, the founder of Weyco Inc., said he wants to tell fat workers to lose weight or else, Reuters reported.

Weyers brought in weight experts to speak with employees, according to Reuters. The company also offers employees a $35 monthly incentive for joining a health club and $65 for meeting fitness goals.

But the company isn't planning to fire employees for unhealthy lifestyle choices, according to a Weyco news release.

"Anyone concerned about limiting employers' rights to specify terms of employment should know that federal law protects people with conditions like obesity, alcoholism and AIDS. But there's no right to indulge in tobacco," the news release said.

Four Weyco employees were fired after the company enacted a new policy this month, allowing workers to be fired if they smoke, even if the smoking takes place after hours or at home.

[Clandestino]

and whott your declaration of independence doesn't mean anything bc you know it only applied to white property owning males at the time it was written...

[whottt]

declaration of independence doesn't mean anything.

I think that sums up what you feel.... from an ideological perspective...

Thanks for my new Sig :)

Luckily enough it was still valid enough to be the basis for the civil rights movement...not to mention our charter document as a sovereign nation...

Unlike you, the rest of us aren't still singing God save the Queen...

Edit: And no doubt those founding fathers were all fat, smoking, drinkers...the three targets of weyco...

Pick your poison.

[whottt]

Let me introduce you to the U. S. Constitution instead:

The First Amendment - Right of Association (including employer/employee association)


The Fourth Amendment - The Right to dispose of your private property in whatever manner you see fit. (including capital assets, salary money for employees, etc...you get the picture.)

That's great, if you can prove Weyco.inc is still individually owned and operated. I don't think it is.

Incorporated being the key phrase...therefore is does not have the rights granted by the constitution. It has an entirely different set of rights and regulations that govern corporations...so you attributing to it, rights granted to US citizens by the constitution, may sound good? It's null and void.

Corporations were one of the things our forefathers were rebelling against and were only allowed to exist in this country so long as their existence benefitted the "people" of this country.

Businesses do not have the same rights as US citizens.





Then, there's the kickers --

The Ninth Amendment - Nothing the Constitution says can be construed to deny individual rights to anyone. (including such constructs that say a person has a right to be employed over the rights of an individual to employ that person...personal property rights trump some nebulous employment right that's been cut from whole cloth and which can't be found anywhere in the U.S. Constitution)

This company has contracts with publicly owned hospitals, it is a corporation, it does not have the right to exist and discriminate against US citizens without good reasons...

and seeing as how they could just pass the increased cost of health insurance for smokers, to their smoking employees...this is a clear bias and clear case of discrimination and it will be a travesty if allowed to stand.



And the Tenth Amendment - If we don't say it in here then the States and the People have the right to do whatever they deem appropriate including private discrimination for whatever reason, purple hair or black skin.

People do, corporations don't.





The right to a job. The right to not be offended. The right to not be discriminated against by anyone for any reason, other than the government or it's agents. And, hundreds or thousands of other assumed rights that never existed...

Those are actually good points...but that doesn't change the ideals upon which this country was founded...and that a business, a coporation is now treading upon select individuals unfairly and with bias.

The job of the government is to protect US citizens, not corporations...






But for judicial fiat, discrimination would not be illegal.

Maybe not technically in this case, it'd just be an unamerican, communist activity. That takes a big dump on everything this country was founded upon.

[whottt]

okay, here is the article.. they aren't firing fatties, just offering ways to help them be healthier...

Health Care Company That Fired Smokers Also Targeting Fat. Weyers Won't Fire Employees For Obesity
POSTED: 9:20 am CST January 27, 2005

A Michigan health care company that fired four employees for smoking is also targeting fat.

Howard Weyers, the founder of Weyco Inc., said he wants to tell fat workers to lose weight or else, Reuters reported.

Weyers brought in weight experts to speak with employees, according to Reuters. The company also offers employees a $35 monthly incentive for joining a health club and $65 for meeting fitness goals.

But the company isn't planning to fire employees for unhealthy lifestyle choices, according to a Weyco news release.

"Anyone concerned about limiting employers' rights to specify terms of employment should know that federal law protects people with conditions like obesity, alcoholism and AIDS. But there's no right to indulge in tobacco," the news release said.

Four Weyco employees were fired after the company enacted a new policy this month, allowing workers to be fired if they smoke, even if the smoking takes place after hours or at home.


So basically you guys are in support of company breaking federal law when you get their back on firing the fatties...I'm glad the US govt still has more credibility then some of it's misguided citizenry.

[whottt]

By the way...it's a scientiffic fact that smokers on average have better memories and cognitive abilities than non-smokers...they also tend to be less prone to stress...

Something to remember when looking down your nose...but then again...you probably won't remember it as well as a smoker will...

[whottt]

By the way...it's a scientiffic fact that smokers on average have better memories and cognitive abilities than non-smokers...

And if you doubt this then please take note of the dumbass founder of Weyco.inc...obviously a non-smoker...

Yet too stupid to realize how he has probably caused tremendous financial issues for his own company...

No doubt his discrimanatory practices and absolute trouncing of the civil liberties of his employess wil cost him a few of his government contracts...

Not to mention the fact that most Americans are overweight...and since smokers tend to not be overweight...I'd say he's managed to alienate a good portion of the American Public...and he's going after people who drink next...by the time he's done only about 10% of the US population won't think he's an asshole.

I'd imagine most CEO's are either fat or hyper competitive personalities prone to smoking, or heavy stress drinkers...I don't think he'll have those guys beating down his door for his services.

[Samurai Jane]

This is a health care company firing employees for unhealthy habits.. perhaps this also goes to company image, not just cost?

Kind of like a modeling agency not hiring ugly women...

[whottt]

This is a health care company firing employees for unhealthy habits.. perhaps this also goes to company image, not just cost?

Kind of like a modeling agency not hiring ugly women...

If these guys were models or selling fitness equipment I could understand that...but this is office staff and no one would have a clue what they looked like, what their private vices were, or what their potential health problems were, if this company wasn't broadcasting those things. Those employees being unhealthy wouldn't be a reflection of the company because by and large they wouldn't be in the public eye.

I could understand them discriminating if there were a legitimate reason for it...but projecting their future health condition, and using blanket stats for smokers, in no way proved whether or not those individuals were good at their jobs...and the higher insurance rates most certainly could have been passed on to those employees themselves...

A clear case of bias, discrimination, and there were absolutely no legitimate grounds(that they announced anyway) for firing those people and it was done because of the fascist tendencies of it's CEO.

What he did was shitty, it was UnAmerican..and I hope Weyco pays for it dearly.

[Hook Dem]

In agreement with Whottt.

[Useruser666]

If the people who worked here are "Home healthcare workers" then I would understand.

[Samurai Jane]

If these guys were models or selling fitness equipment I could understand that...but this is office staff and no one would have a clue what they looked like, what their private vices were, or what their potential health problems were, if this company wasn't broadcasting those things. Those employees being unhealthy wouldn't be a reflection of the company because by and large they wouldn't be in the public eye.

I could understand them discriminating if there were a legitimate reason for it...but projecting their future health condition, and using blanket stats for smokers, in no way proved whether or not those individuals were good at their jobs...and the higher insurance rates most certainly could have been passed on to those employees themselves...

A clear case of bias, discrimination, and there were absolutely no legitimate grounds(that they announced anyway) for firing those people and it was done because of the fascist tendencies of it's CEO.

What he did was shitty, it was UnAmerican..and I hope Weyco pays for it dearly.

Hey, I don't disagree with you.. I think it was pretty crappy too. I'm just trying to understand the situation a bit better. :spin

[Guru of Nothing]

I'm just trying to understand the situation a bit better. :spin

Wrong forum.

[Samurai Jane]

Wrong forum.
Eh?? :wtf

[Yonivore]

That's great, if you can prove Weyco.inc is still individually owned and operated. I don't think it is.
Unless it is state-owned, there are individuals -- with individual's rights -- at the core of the company; be they stockholders or directors or whatever.

Incorporated being the key phrase...therefore is does not have the rights granted by the constitution. It has an entirely different set of rights and regulations that govern corporations...so you attributing to it, rights granted to US citizens by the constitution, may sound good? It's null and void.
Really, tell me where the constitutional rights of an individual are revoked simply because they incorporate. Point me to the statute, please.

Corporations were one of the things our forefathers were rebelling against and were only allowed to exist in this country so long as their existence benefitted the "people" of this country.
Really? Source that.

Businesses do not have the same rights as US citizens.
Business don't have any right -- because they don't need them. Their owners have all the same rights as you and I though.

This company has contracts with publicly owned hospitals, it is a corporation, it does not have the right to exist and discriminate against US citizens without good reasons...
I don't know about the "right to exist" but, as for discrimination -- I've already stated I believe companies with legal or contractual relationships with the federal goverment should be subject to the Civil Rights Act and its amendments (as well as any other federal non-discrimination statute or regulation or rule); you won't get an argument from me. Now, how far that extends to relationships between private (or publicly held companies) and state and local goverments depends on the various state laws, constitutions, and ordinances governing those entities.


and seeing as how they could just pass the increased cost of health insurance for smokers, to their smoking employees...this is a clear bias and clear case of discrimination and it will be a travesty if allowed to stand.
So? smokers and over-eaters are not in a protected class defined by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any other legislation of which I'm aware. Discriminating against them for being fat and/or stinky, in this case, would be akin to discriminating against them for wearing bikini to work. All three conditions are a function of the personal choice of the smoker, eater, and bikini wearer.

Bias and discrimination get a bad rap here. They should only be scrutinized when the criteria against which the bias or discrimination is targeted is a condition beyond the control of the person such as -- race, ethnicity, sex, national origin, etc...

People do, corporations don't.
Corporations don't make employment decisions, people do.

Those are actually good points...but that doesn't change the ideals upon which this country was founded
What? Principles of personal responsibility and individual rights with limited government interference?

...and that a business, a coporation is now treading upon select individuals unfairly and with bias.
Once again, businesses and corporations are unable to tread given they have no feet or ability to tread...only people can tread on other people's rights and, in these cases, just as when you discriminate against one restaurant in favor of another, it is a matter of personal choice. I mean, really, doesn't the Chinese restaurant deserve your money as much as the KFC? Where's your sense of fairness?

The job of the government is to protect US citizens, not corporations...
The job of the government is to ensure all citizens are treated equally, that the U.S. Constitution is the basis of our body of law, that our borders are secure, and to facilitate relationships with other governments. I'm sure I missed something...but protecting you individually isn't the function of government...at least not the federal government; it has something to do with the whole concept of "providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare" idea forwarded in our founding documents.

Maybe not technically in this case, it'd just be an unamerican, communist activity. That takes a big dump on everything this country was founded upon.
I disagree...rule of law is paramount to emotions in this country. It is upholding the very institutions upon which this country was founded to stick to the "technical" and not let the emotions of the day allow us to circumvent the Constitution -- the whole unintended consequences thing, you know.

[Yonivore]

By the way...it's a scientiffic fact that smokers on average have better memories and cognitive abilities than non-smokers...they also tend to be less prone to stress...
It's probably because they don't live long enough to develop the usual diminished mental faculties of old age and, therefore, tilt the sample to lead you to believe they have better memories or are less prone to stress.

Something to remember when looking down your nose...but then again...you probably won't remember it as well as a smoker will...
Who's looking down their nose at smokers? I was one for 13 years. This is a discussion about employer/employee rights.

[Yonivore]

And if you doubt this then please take note of the dumbass founder of Weyco.inc...obviously a non-smoker...

Yet too stupid to realize how he has probably caused tremendous financial issues for his own company...

No doubt his discrimanatory practices and absolute trouncing of the civil liberties of his employess wil cost him a few of his government contracts...

Not to mention the fact that most Americans are overweight...and since smokers tend to not be overweight...I'd say he's managed to alienate a good portion of the American Public...and he's going after people who drink next...by the time he's done only about 10% of the US population won't think he's an asshole.

I'd imagine most CEO's are either fat or hyper competitive personalities prone to smoking, or heavy stress drinkers...I don't think he'll have those guys beating down his door for his services.
I'm decided your too emotional about his issue to be objective. Where do you get that smokers have a right to smoke?

[JoeChalupa]

Well, don't they have a right to kill themselves at their own pace?

[Yonivore]

If these guys were models or selling fitness equipment I could understand that...but this is office staff and no one would have a clue what they looked like, what their private vices were, or what their potential health problems were, if this company wasn't broadcasting those things. Those employees being unhealthy wouldn't be a reflection of the company because by and large they wouldn't be in the public eye.

I could understand them discriminating if there were a legitimate reason for it...but projecting their future health condition, and using blanket stats for smokers, in no way proved whether or not those individuals were good at their jobs...and the higher insurance rates most certainly could have been passed on to those employees themselves...

A clear case of bias, discrimination, and there were absolutely no legitimate grounds(that they announced anyway) for firing those people and it was done because of the fascist tendencies of it's CEO.

What he did was shitty, it was UnAmerican..and I hope Weyco pays for it dearly.
It's about the cost of doing business. And, further, you have the right not do business with him (those who free association nonsense in the Constitution).

[Useruser666]

It would be in the constitution, but somebody tore that piece off and rolled one.

[Yonivore]

Well, don't they have a right to kill themselves at their own pace?
Sure, but, it doesn't mean the company has to endure their slow suicide when they could be employing a healthier person.

[whottt]

Well, don't they have a right to kill themselves at their own pace?


Some of us do it one cig at a time, and some of us do it one Chalupa at a time :).

There's nothing funnier than a bunch of people who sit on their butts(sic) all day posting on a message board, giving lectures on health..

Yoni, I'll be back later to respond...I, who have a job which requires me to work 7 days a week, and be on call 24 hours a day, and who have never called in sick once in 3 years and haven't had a vacation in 2 years, have to go do something job related. Rest assured, I have a lot more to say on this subject.



And I'm not particularly emotional about this subject since it really doesn't effect me...the main thing that it is getting my goat is that I've about had it with the condescending smugness of non-smokers, and they all need a big foot put up their collective ass.

[whottt]

PS...Hope the US military doesn't start using this practice of discriminating against smokers, or we won't have much of a military.

Remember as you wave your flag, that you are in favor of discrimantory policies, that would also penalize the majority of our men and women in uniform.

[whottt]

Be sure to remind him what he's fighting for:

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2004/11/10/image654689x.jpg

[violentkitten]

the freedom to photoshop?

[Useruser666]

Whottt,

Are you saying it's wrong to fire someone because they smoke, or not hire a person because they smoke, or both?

[spurster]

They should go after the workers with families next. Not only do families mean more people to get sick and increase health care costs, but, instead of spending time with their families, these ingrates should be working harder to add to the CEO's paltry multi-million salary.

I know you meant that somewhat tongue-in-cheek. However, it really does boil down to the fact that private employers should be able to hire and fire at will for whatever damn reason they see fit and publicly-traded corporations should be able to hire and fire at the will of the stockholders.

Only Government employers (or people who would hope to enter into government contracts) should be held to any anti-discriminatory laws or policies.

Period.
I think we have found one reason why we need anti-discrimination laws.

[Useruser666]

Soldier smoking.
http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2004/11/10/image654689x.jpg

Soldier non-smoking! :lol

http://img164.exs.cx/img164/5805/soldiernonsmoking6ap.jpg

[whottt]

the freedom to photoshop?

No, the freedom for you to be a dumbass...WTF does photoshop have to do with anything? That pic wasn't photoshopped.

That solider is a smoker...as are the majority of the US military.

[whottt]

Whottt,

Are you saying it's wrong to fire someone because they smoke, or not hire a person because they smoke, or both?

I'm saying that an employer shouldn't have the right to intrude into an employees personal life. If the employee isn't engaged in any illegal activity then the employer has exactly jack shit to say about what he does at home...This includes whether he smokes, what he eats, how much he exercises...etc.

And if they are going to discriminate they damn sure shouldn't be allowed to go around making announcements that is what they are doing...talk about audacity.

[whottt]

Unless it is state-owned, there are individuals -- with individual's rights -- at the core of the company; be they stockholders or directors or whatever.

Really, tell me where the constitutional rights of an individual are revoked simply because they incorporate. Point me to the statute, please.


Show me the constitutional right that gives someone else the right to influence in any way shape or form what someone does within the confines of the law in their own home.

And then show me the birth certificate for Weyland inc.



Really? Source that.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/about_us.html

There's a link for you to not like and disagree with.



Business don't have any right -- because they don't need them. Their owners have all the same rights as you and I though.


Business most certainly do have rights, their own set of laws, their own set of regulations...but I agree technically they don't have rights...which is why I am left wodering why you are arguing as if they do...and claiming it is an individual utilizing his own constitutional rights.

There's a tremendous danger in the POV that you have...one that you may be immune to personally, but that's no excuse for ignoring the reality of the situation...

When you let these large bodies, that have the power over quality of life, and in some cases survival, for many Americans...they must be held in check...and it most definitely should be uncostitutional for them to dicate what a person may or may not do in their private live as long as it is recognized as being legal by the US Government...

You can pretend people aren't dependent on their jobs, but it's just not the truth...people are dependent on them..in some cases permanently chronically dependent on them with little or no choice or alternative...and that's no excuse to allow corporate entities to take advantage of that dependence, that power of dependence to interfere in the private lives of US citizens...or manipulate them to satisfy their own personal whims.




So? smokers and over-eaters are not in a protected class defined by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any other legislation of which I'm aware. Discriminating against them for being fat and/or stinky, in this case, would be akin to discriminating against them for wearing bikini to work. All three conditions are a function of the personal choice of the smoker, eater, and bikini wearer.

Do I have a right to know if you smoke in your own home? Using any rationalization you can imagine? Do I have right to have any say in how much exercise you do per week?

Again...he doesn't have to pay the extra cost of the insurance.



Bias and discrimination get a bad rap here. They should only be scrutinized when the criteria against which the bias or discrimination is targeted is a condition beyond the control of the person such as -- race, ethnicity, sex, national origin, etc...

Corporations don't make employment decisions, people do.

Yep and sometimes people make them on the behalf of corporations...as in this case.





The job of the government is to ensure all citizens are treated equally, that the U.S. Constitution is the basis of our body of law, that our borders are secure, and to facilitate relationships with other governments. I'm sure I missed something...but protecting you individually isn't the function of government...at least not the federal government; it has something to do with the whole concept of "providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare" idea forwarded in our founding documents.

That's a rather broad interpretation of the government for one who is a Republican...I think it's purpose is much simpler than that. It is to protect the people, from external threats, from internal threats and sometimes from itself.


I disagree...rule of law is paramount to emotions in this country. It is upholding the very institutions upon which this country was founded to stick to the "technical" and not let the emotions of the day allow us to circumvent the Constitution -- the whole unintended consequences thing, you know.

The constitution was never intended to give those in a position of power to make unconstitutional requests, demands, and ultimatums to it's citizens.

[whottt]

I'm decided your too emotional about his issue to be objective. Where do you get that smokers have a right to smoke?

I get it the same place I have the right to whatever religious belief I choose, the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness...

[Useruser666]

If I am going to hire a home health care worker to take care of an elderly family member, I will not hire one that smokes. If they say they don't smoke and find out they do, I would fire them. Is that discrimination?

[whottt]

Sure, but, it doesn't mean the company has to endure their slow suicide when they could be employing a healthier person.

The company doesn't have to endure jack shit...if the guy isn't doing his job you can fire him...you don't have a right to force him to reveal whether or not he does something that is totally legal in the Unites States...this includes being fat or smoking.

If the guy isn't doing his job, you fire him...you don't use blanket statistics to strongarm him into what you think is best for him...

[whottt]

If I am going to hire a home health care worker to take care of an elderly family member, I will not hire one that smokes. Is that discrimination?

I'm not quite sure what you mean...your home or theirs?


If theirs, well obviously since it poses a health risk to the elderly person...

If it's not their home...yours...I think you can say that they may not smoke while taking care of your family member...

I don't think you have the right to ask them if they smoke or not. I don't think you have any rights whatsoever concerning what they do in their own home. And this includes asking them to take a test to find out if they do something that is legal...

[Guru of Nothing]

If I am going to hire a home health care worker to take care of an elderly family member, I will not hire one that smokes. If they say they don't smoke and find out they do, I would fire them. Is that discrimination?

Pardon me if the obvious escapes me, but why?

[Useruser666]

Pardon me if the obvious escapes me, but why?

If I ask them if they smoke and they LIE I think I should be able to fire them.
I would find it hard to believe that a person who smokes can go hours without a cig while they are taking care of the elderly person. I rather just pass on that hire than take a chance on it.

GON.

I can't hire a smoker to take care of the elderly family member for a multitude of reasons.

1. I do not want an elderly person who has numerous health problems inhailing second hand smoke day after day.

2. I dont want the person that is supposed to be giving the elderly person their undivided attention to take cig breaks outside. A person who doesn't smoke would not need to take breaks outside. Should I be forced to provide an indoor smoking section?

3. I don't want the house to smell like cig smoke. Is that being unfair?

4. I don't want the associated risks that smoking brings to my property.


I gave all what I think are very reasonable responses. Is that unfair that I can set those qualifications for the hire?

[Guru of Nothing]

Hey, the game is on!

[Yonivore]

I'm saying that an employer shouldn't have the right to intrude into an employees personal life.
I think this is where you're mistaken. You're right, of course, but this doesn't involve intrusion -- the employee is perfectly free to continue the practice of smoking. It is, after all, legal. But, they're gonna have to find another employer. Simply a matter of choice.

If the employee isn't engaged in any illegal activity then the employer has exactly jack shit to say about what he does at home...This includes whether he smokes, what he eats, how much he exercises...etc.
Again, the employer is not telling the employee they can't smoke. Just that they aren't going to employ them if they do.

And if they are going to discriminate they damn sure shouldn't be allowed to go around making announcements that is what they are doing...talk about audacity.
You discriminate every breathing moment. Why is discrimination such a dirty word?

[Yonivore]

Show me the constitutional right that gives someone else the right to influence in any way shape or form what someone does within the confines of the law in their own home.
You won't find it. But, this isn't about influencing a persons behavior in their home. It's about employer/employee rights and whether an employer has the right to employ whomever they want. The employee is perfectly able to continue smoking.

There's a big difference between "quit smoking or I'll fire you," and "quit smoking or I'll kill you." One is infringing on someone's constitution right, the right to life while the other isn't.

And then show me the birth certificate for Weyland inc.
My point exactly. They don't have one and are, therefore, incapable of infringing on anyone's rights. The company is the humans who operate it.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/about_us.html

There's a link for you to not like and disagree with.
I was looking for a legal cite.

Business most certainly do have rights, their own set of laws, their own set of regulations...but I agree technically they don't have rights...which is why I am left wodering why you are arguing as if they do...and claiming it is an individual utilizing his own constitutional rights.
That sound so much like John Kerry. Businesses most certainly do have right,...but I agree technically they don't have rights. Which is it?

I merely stated the employer has rights, that being the person making the decision and having the authority to barter salary for labor.

There's a tremendous danger in the POV that you have...one that you may be immune to personally, but that's no excuse for ignoring the reality of the situation...
What's the danger? There's a real and existing danger in your POV. It's why we have such screwed up ADA rules that force companies to continuing salaries for people who, through their own stupidity, are no longer able to perform a job. It's why we have to hire minorities over more qualified non-minorities simply because they're minorities without any regard to qualifications.

What's the danger of my POV? That a bigoted employer will go out of business because a) he can't find people to work for him and b) he loses business because he's bigoted. I don't see the danger to the employee. Well, they may actually be motivated to engage in healthier lifestyles because they want to remain employed...but, other than that...

When you let these large bodies, that have the power over quality of life, and in some cases survival, for many Americans...they must be held in check...and it most definitely should be uncostitutional for them to dicate what a person may or may not do in their private live as long as it is recognized as being legal by the US Government...
Again, you're off point. The employer is not saying what they can do in ther private life just that they won't employ them if they have certain unhealthy behaviors. It's a business decision.

And, about your second point; drinking is legal. Should a police officer be allowed to operate a bar in his off hours? Porn is legal. Should a church be forced to continue employing a pastor that operates an adult book store on his off days? Should the National Association of Non-Smokers be forced to employ a smoker?

You can pretend people aren't dependent on their jobs, but it's just not the truth...people are dependent on them..in some cases permanently chronically dependent on them with little or no choice or alternative...
Then they should conduct themselves in a manner tha will insure continued employment, if they're that dependent. Other, not so dependent, can quit and go find a job where the boss isn't so picky.

...and that's no excuse to allow corporate entities to take advantage of that dependence, that power of dependence to interfere in the private lives of US citizens...or manipulate them to satisfy their own personal whims.
Okay, I'm through talking about the interference part. They're not dictating what an employee can do when they're not at work. They're just stating they won't employee people who do certain things. It's not unlike a Church saying they won't employee a porn star as Church Administrator. It's called choice.

Now, the minute you want to take responsibility for a company meeting its bottom line, its production goals, and its operational objectives -- then you should have a say in how they run the business. Until then, quit smoking or go find another job...it's your choice.

Do I have a right to know if you smoke in your own home?
If that behavior could affect, through a contractual relationship, the loss of your life, liberty, or property (through higher insurance premiums say), yep, you'd have a right to know. How else could you make an informed employment decision?

Could I lie? Sure. But, you might want to do lab tests to verify whether or not I smoked. Could I refuse? Absolutely. But, I'm betting that'd be a violation of my terms of employment that could be cause for termination.

Using any rationalization you can imagine? Do I have right to have any say in how much exercise you do per week?
No, you don't. But you do have the right to make an employment decision based on factors that you know which may cause your costs of doing business to be higher. So, while you don't have the right to tell me how much exercise I must perform every week, you do have the right not to employ me if I'm unhealthy and at risk of likely driving your cost of doing business up.

Again...he doesn't have to pay the extra cost of the insurance.
Why not?

Yep and sometimes people make them on the behalf of corporations...as in this case.
Which is just a collection of people with a common business enterprise. The person doing the hiring and firing is a proxy for owners or stockholders not the building.

That's a rather broad interpretation of the government for one who is a Republican...I think it's purpose is much simpler than that. It is to protect the people, from external threats, from internal threats and sometimes from itself.
First, I've never claimed to be a Republican and don't consider myself one. Second, governments have never been good at protecting individuals. It's too costly and people fall through the cracks. Government should be fostering an atmosphere where people can take care of themselves and where they are treated equal, under the law. And, provide for a common defense, deal with other goverments on our behalf and such...

The constitution was never intended to give those in a position of power to make unconstitutional requests, demands, and ultimatums to it's citizens.
I agree. But, I don't see where anyone is making an unconstitutional request, demand or ultimatum in this instance.

[Yonivore]

One more thing, and possibly my last post on the topic as I believe we have exhausted our arguments and are in danger of just repeating ourselves endlessly.

You stated that some people are dependent on their jobs and I won't argue that. However, being dependent on something doesn't mean you have a right to it.

We're dependent on food but we can't just walk into a grocery store and take what we want...unless we own the store. Of course, we could grow our own and not be dependent on others.

Many of us are dependent on gasoline or diesel or ethanol or vegetable oil (or whatever people use nowadays) to fuel our cars so we can get to the job upon which we're also dependent but, that doesn't mean we can just pull up to the pump and fill 'er up without paying...again, unless we own the pump.

Under your premise, food, medicine, fuel, shelter, and clothing should be free because we're dependent on them to survive.

When you take a job, you enter into a contract with the employer in which you agree to provide a function in exchange for a salary. The employer gets to say what qualifications you must have in order to perform that function and get paid; it doesn't matter if you think the qualifications are germain to the job -- it's not your job, it's the employers. If the boss says you can't have red hair, wear blue shirts, or smoke if you want to continue in relationship with the employer for pay, then redheads had better buy some dye, ditch the blue shirts and quit smoking -- or -- find another job.

It's that simple.

Of course, you've never asked me if I agree with the employer. And, quite frankly, I'd have to be convinced that smokers were costing me a whole lot before I instituted such a policy. But, that's not what we're arguing about.

[whottt]

One more thing, and possibly my last post on the topic as I believe we have exhausted our arguments and are in danger of just repeating ourselves endlessly.

I pretty much agree with this...different interpretation of the grey area of the constitution and what a corporation is.




Under your premise, food, medicine, fuel, shelter, and clothing should be free because we're dependent on them to survive.

No, I just don't think you should be denied those things because you smoke or are fat....etc.



When you take a job, you enter into a contract with the employer in which you agree to provide a function in exchange for a salary.

I agree...what you don't agree to do, and what you shouldn't have to do, or even consider, is make a lifestyle change that should be none of your employers affair.


The employer gets to say what qualifications you must have in order to perform that function and get paid; it doesn't matter if you think the qualifications are germain to the job -- it's not your job, it's the employers. If the boss says you can't have red hair, wear blue shirts, or smoke if you want to continue in relationship with the employer for pay, then redheads had better buy some dye, ditch the blue shirts and quit smoking -- or -- find another job.

It's that simple.

An employer should have total say over what goes on in the place of employment...he should have no say over what you wear at home...

If you want to wear blue shirts at home, I think it's reasonable to say that you should be able to do that.


Of course, you've never asked me if I agree with the employer. And, quite frankly, I'd have to be convinced that smokers were costing me a whole lot before I instituted such a policy. But, that's not what we're arguing about.

Well to me it is...to me it's the same thing as saying all blacks are dumber than whites..so therefore I am not going to give them a job that is thought intensive...

Not only does it go against the spirit under which this country was formed...it's also a very foolish mindset, it's meant to make a fool of it's practitioners...it's meant to be proved wrong...as it has been time and time again.

[Yonivore]

No, I just don't think you should be denied those things because you smoke or are fat....etc.
No one is talking about denying you those things, we're talking about denying you a job because you smoke or are fat.

I agree...what you don't agree to do, and what you shouldn't have to do, or even consider, is make a lifestyle change that should be none of your employers affair.
No one is telling you to make a lifestyle change. They're saying, I'm not going to hire you unless you make a lifestyle change. The choice is clearly your's to make.

An employer should have total say over what goes on in the place of employment...he should have no say over what you wear at home...
I'm not saying they should have any say in your personal life; just that they should be able to consider the consequences of your personal decisions in their employment decisions.

For instance, (and this is somewhat off the point), if a Dell Employee wants to wear a "Dell Sucks" t-shirt 16/7 (minus the 8 hours at work), should that be okay? Wouldn't it make him suspect for corporate sabotage or other stuff that wouldn't be good for Dell while he's on the clock? On second thought, this is germain to the discussion. If I was Michael Dell and I encountered an employee, off duty, who was wearing a "Dell Sucks!," t-shirt, I'd fire him based on my belief that a person who felt that way about his employer couldn't be the most productive or best suited for the job. Therefore, if I as an employer believe smokers aren't the most productive or best suited for a job in my company, I should be free to fire them as well.

If you want to wear blue shirts at home, I think it's reasonable to say that you should be able to do that.
And if I, as an employer and the owner of the money that will be paid out to you in salary, don't like blue shirts or the people who wear them, I should be able to discriminate and hire a red-shirt wearer over you. Blue-shirt wearers aren't a protected class. Neither are smokers or fat people.

Well to me it is...to me it's the same thing as saying all blacks are dumber than whites..so therefore I am not going to give them a job that is thought intensive...
No, it's not. First, I don't believe that to be true...but, going with the premise. Black people are black because of an "accident of birth" (<< Legal term of art, not an opinion as to it being "accidental".). Smokers smoke because they choose to smoke. And, dumb, well it's pretty equally spread across the racial spectrum.

But, you know what, I believe private employers and publicly held companies should be able to discriminate on any basis, even race. If a company wants to be bigoted, that's their choice...it's their company, their assets, and their business to run into the ground any way they see fit. I know I wouldn't do business with a racist or sexist company. But, the jobs belong to the employer and, in private business, no one should be entitled to a job without the consent and agreement of the employer and he should be free to mete out those jobs any way he wants to.

Not only does it go against the spirit under which this country was formed...it's also a very foolish mindset, it's meant to make a fool of it's practitioners...it's meant to be proved wrong...as it has been time and time again.
I agree. And, I believe a company that discriminates based on things over which a potential employee has no control, (i.e. race, sex, ethnicity, some handicaps, national origin, etc...) has no business being in business and I wish them a speedy bankruptcy. But, that doesn't mean they don't have the right to be stupid... But, the things we're talking about, you do have control over, smoking is a choice and obesity (for the most part) is a result of poor lifestyle choices.