Boss fires staff for not smoking

[dallaskd]

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Link?

And what about your rights vs responsibilities? No answer to that.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

i don't smoke. if someone around me is smoking and it bothers me, i leave.

Yeah, but you can't leave the workplace! We are talking about SMOKING IN THE WORKPLACE. How many times do I have to repeat that you ing moron!?

saliva is biological the last time i checked

Yes, and there is no saliva involved in the random breath testing. You don't even know what the you're talking about. It is random BREATH testing.

No link to the quote a few posts above, huh? That's because you MADE IT UP.

Why don't you off back to your hole?

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Oh, and I will forward your PM. If you had actually read my post you would see that I said I would do so if you "put words in my mouth again", which is exactly what you proceeded to do.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Why do you insist on behaving like a screaming child in a shopping mall?

Didn't your parents give you enough attention when you were young?

You have not engaged one point in this discussion. You have not addressed any of the points I have made with evidence to the contrary. Why do you bother with this infantile bull ?

[Pistons < Spurs]

Hi guys, can you pink elpimpo4cc? The thread above is about the 5th time (none in the Troll forum) he has accused me of saying something I never said and mocked the out of me without ever even attempting to engage in any sort of debate or even dialogue.

I don't have a problem with him saying whatever he likes, as long as he is not putting words in my mouth, but he does it continually whenever he comes across a post of mine dealing with any sort of issue.

I would define his behaviour as "without common decency" and thus deserving of sanctions, but if you don't think so fair enough, it's your site.

Cheers,

Ruff

PS Whose troll is he anyway?

[Extra Stout]

Why do you insist on behaving like a screaming child in a shopping mall?

Didn't your parents give you enough attention when you were young?

You have not engaged one point in this discussion. You have not addressed any of the points I have made with evidence to the contrary. Why do you bother with this infantile bull ?

I assume you've never been to Victoria, Texas. It is very different from the Australian state of Victoria.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

because you're a gangly ginger who advocates on behalf of Big Brother

No, no I don't. I just think that social responsibilities sometimes outweigh individual rights.

I can't believe that you are mouse, because you don't write like he does, and mouse is actually funny. You're just obnoxious.

And I am in no way ginger.

[midgetonadonkey]

You do look like a ginger and social responsibilities. Individual rights own all.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Hi guys, can you pink elpimpo4cc? The thread above is about the 5th time (none in the Troll forum) he has accused me of saying something I never said and mocked the out of me without ever even attempting to engage in any sort of debate or even dialogue.

I don't have a problem with him saying whatever he likes, as long as he is not putting words in my mouth, but he does it continually whenever he comes across a post of mine dealing with any sort of issue.

I would define his behaviour as "without common decency" and thus deserving of sanctions, but if you don't think so fair enough, it's your site.

Cheers,

Ruff

PS Whose troll is he anyway?

made.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

You do look like a ginger and social responsibilities. Individual rights own all.

Yup, that's pretty much what I thought... just wait until someone else steps all over your individual rights while asserting their own individual rights. How are you going to react to that? Shoot them?

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

loinfan - okay, don't like that one, how about these more recent reports from across the world:

National Health and Medical Research Council - The Health Effects of Passive Smoking Canberra, Australia, 1997

California EPA (Cal/EPA), Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment - Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke
Sacramento, California, United States, 1997

Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health - Report of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health
London, United Kingdom, 1998

World Health Organization International - Consultation on Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) and Child Health. Consultation Report
Geneva, Switzerland, 1999

IARC Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking
Lyon, France, 2004

Cal/EPA, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment - Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant
Sacramento, California, United States, 2005

And then there's the Surgeon General's 2006 report (citation at bottom if you care to read it):

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/librar...actsheet6.html

Riddle me this - smoking causes many forms of cancer (undeniable), the smoke released into the air is exactly the same as that inhaled (undeniable), so why would second hand smoke have a different impact on the body than directly inhaled smoke? It doesn't, it kills people, and there's evidence from all over the world to prove it.

And why does your right to smoke in the workplace exceed my right not to breathe your smoke (especially when you can just go outside to smoke)?

Those are all great, but I'd guess they can be picked apart like the EPA's report. Take the WHO's second study on second hand smoke done in 1999. Why a second study, which was a meta analysis, unlike the first? Only because the first study, which they tried to bury, didn't yield the results which they were looking for. The first study found that the risk is statistically insignificant. In fact, the only thing statistically significant found in their first study was a decrease in the risk of lung cancer in children with smokers as parents. Didn't hear about that in the news, did you?

Summation of WHO's first report:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9...?dopt=Abstract

Care to venture a guess why SHS is considered a Class A carcinogen with such a low relative risk? It wouldn't be an agenda, would it?

Riddle me this: If SHS is so deadly, why can't they prove it without doing a meta analysis, cherry picking or skewing the numbers?

[DarkReign]

Huh? So let's say I'm the best qualified person for the job, but don't want to work in a smoke-filled environment that could potentially kill me, you wouldn't hire me? By that reasoning, if I took the job that would make me a moron (and presumably you don't want a moron working for you), so essentially you've put us in a Catch 22 that makes you a moron. How about putting the workplace safety of your employees ahead of your addiction?

Over-analyzation gets you nowhere. No matter your qualifications, theres 20 people behind with a similar resume'. As an employer, I dont have to employ you. Thats the point.

[DarkReign]

Yup, that's pretty much what I thought... just wait until someone else steps all over your individual rights while asserting their own individual rights. How are you going to react to that? Shoot them?

Individual Rights >>>>>>>>>>>> Any sort of social responsibility bull .

In my experience, I have never been in a situation where someone trounced my rights in the name of their own.

Come to think of it...I cant even think of one analogy that fits such an assertion.

[Extra Stout]

Over-analyzation gets you nowhere. No matter your qualifications, theres 20 people behind with a similar resume'. As an employer, I dont have to employ you. Thats the point.

That reminds of the old plant hands, who, back in the 1970's when they complained about how the chemicals they were drenched in made their skin fall off, got the response, "There are 20 people waiting at the gate for your job, s bag! Back to work!"

Ah, those were the good old days. I wish I could have lived in them. I don't hear too much about them anymore, because most of the old plant hands died of things like pancreatic cancer and leukemia before hitting 60.

[Extra Stout]

Ruff, don't you see how much things were then?

1) The plant hands worked there voluntarily
2) They made a decent salary, supported their families, and sent their kids to college
3) They didn't live long enough to be a drain on society in retirement
4) Their fatal diseases, though painful and wasting, killed them so quickly that the health care costs weren't that high

[DarkReign]

That reminds of the old plant hands, who, back in the 1970's when they complained about how the chemicals they were drenched in made their skin fall off, got the response, "There are 20 people waiting at the gate for your job, s bag! Back to work!"

Ah, those were the good old days. I wish I could have lived in them. I don't hear too much about them anymore, because most of the old plant hands died of things like pancreatic cancer and leukemia before hitting 60.

Please.....are you equating handling instantly lethal chemicals with secondhand smoke?!

Seriously?

[Extra Stout]

they could have and should have refused to work at those plants, just like the '20 people' waiting to take their jobs
the workers should have not let themselves be intimidated by their employers..and i'd think that if they had decent union representation (gasp! lib talking point) they could have secured decent working conditions without the government's involvement

oh..and please produce one case of someone getting lung cancer due to secondhand smoke

They always had the option to let their children starve out of principle. I think that's what they should have done.

And what's up with this "union" crap? The employers should have the right to hire whoever they want, under whatever conditions they want, at whatever price the market will allow. I miss the Gilded Age.

That's the problem with this country. The tycoons around 1900 got scared because of a few assassinations, and gave the farm away to the working classes. Now, we've got a couple hundred million superfluous people milling around, and apparently only the Mexicans understand that their purpose in life is to serve the elites. Whatever happened to respect for the capitalists who make this country's economic engine run?

[Extra Stout]

Please.....are you equating handling instantly lethal chemicals with secondhand smoke?!

Seriously?

Nobody has ever proven a link between exposure to those chemicals and contracting fatal diseases 30 years later. Wussy liberals claim they have, but industry studies consistently have shown otherwise. Of course, our wimpy government believes the wussy liberal "scientists."

So, how many packs a day do you smoke?

[Extra Stout]

If the government wants to keep me from my sweet darling love, my Nicky, they will have to pry her from my cold, dead, yellow-stained fingers. Live free or die!

[DarkReign]

Nobody has ever proven a link between exposure to those chemicals and contracting fatal diseases 30 years later. Wussy liberals claim they have, but industry studies consistently have shown otherwise. Of course, our wimpy government believes the wussy liberal "scientists."

I wasnt being trite. I was being serious. I am not a scientist or a doctor, so I am not going to try and explain away the differences. But there is the basic difference between a) cigarette smoke secondhand and b) industrial chemicals that can/will kill you instantly if you stuck your head over the vat and breathed deeply.

So, how many packs a day do you smoke?

I have no delusions of how I am going to die. I never claimed to say smoking doesnt cause cancer. Revelation here; it certainly does, no ifs/ands/buts.

I smoke, yes. I will continue to smoke, yes. I like it and dont much give 2 s about what other people think about me. I am a business owner (partly). I (partly) own the building I work in. I smoke in that building. So does every other smoker that I employ. It will stay that way until it becomes illegal to do so.

I make it known to prospective employees that this is indeed a smoking environment. I specifically point this out in every interview. If you dont like it, dont take the job. Simple.

One can argue whether secondhand smoke is this or that, I really dont care. No one can argue that secondhand smoke is somehow even remotely equivalent to industrial grade chemicals used for the cleaning and bathing of metals. Especially if physical contact with said chemicals "peels your skin off" instantly.

If I light a cigarette near you and upon contact, you are instantly set ablaze...brother, I'll quit right then and there and ban smoking from my life in all areas immediately (and be sued and imprisoned). But that isnt going to happen. Not even with prolonged exposure to secondhand smoke.

So really, as an employer, its my prerogative. Dont like it, dont take the job. Take the job then start complaining later, youre fired. Simple stuff.

[thispego]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RuffnReadyOzStyle

Quote:
Originally Posted by elpimpo4cc




Dear Kori Ellis and timvp,

This is just a heads up to let you know that ruffnreadyozstyle is going to cry to you about me putting words in his mouth.

At least, that's why he threatened in this thread in the club: http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84939

Hi guys, can you pink elpimpo4cc? The thread above is about the 5th time (none in the Troll forum) he has accused me of saying something I never said and mocked the out of me without ever even attempting to engage in any sort of debate or even dialogue.

I don't have a problem with him saying whatever he likes, as long as he is not putting words in my mouth, but he does it continually whenever he comes across a post of mine dealing with any sort of issue.

I would define his behaviour as "without common decency" and thus deserving of sanctions, but if you don't think so fair enough, it's your site.

Cheers,

Ruff

PS Whose troll is he anyway?