Corporations have a right to set regulations on hiring and firing practices. However, any worker already employed by a company at the time of policy change should be grandfathered in. They should not suddenly lose their job for a habit that was previously acceptable. New hires would have to adhere to the no smoking rule.
Tellsitlikeitis - 13 years ago
People in this day and age who still smoke are regarded as pathetic and weak. No one likes to admit this but it's true. If you're still smoking you have underlying psychological issues fueling your need to continue this very costly, unhealthy habit. The cost is prohibitive and it is extremely damaging to your health, plus, even if you smoke entirely away from the workplace, there is always the lingering odor of cigarette smoke which most non-smokers find unpleasant. So, if employers can get away with not hiring a smoker they will, unless of course the smoker is attractive, likeable and the most qualified one for the job, then they may decide to hire him or her. Hiring a very fat person is almost non-existent. Being 50 lbs. or more overweight should be considered a disability because unless you are a bus driver, home health aide, nurse, or cafeteria worker you will not get hired. I could go on but I'm dying for a smoke.
Dustin21 - 13 years ago
While we're at it, keep raising the taxes on tobacco products to help fund the extra medical care that the tobacco users will eventually need as medicare recipients. With a carton of cigarettes at close to $50, it's amazing how much addicts will pay for their drug. Tack another $5 per carton on every 2 years, because health care isn't getting any cheaper.
Pete - 13 years ago
Do we hire on merit or what. I would rather hire a qualified smoker than an unqualified non smoker. Mediocracy for the bottom line.
Emerald45 - 13 years ago
I totally agree with the first writer...where does it end? Access to healthcare is a basic human right. If you deprive qualified individuals of the ability to earn a livelihood because they smoke, in essence you are deprving them of all basic human rights. Let's not forget that drinking is a choice, as are other addictions. Yet, we don't penalize them, and in fact those addictions are covered under the American Disabilities Act. And to the second writer, sorry but obesity generally has everything to do with life choices. In essence, where does this end? The propensity for high rates of hypertension in blacks is poverty related, diet related and lack of access to healthcare. So again, where does it end? If you can discriminate against one group because you don't like the consequences of their choices, it opens a Pandora's box to continue along this slippery slope.
Joesph - 13 years ago
The previous writer is wrong. Children are natural, people are born black and obesity is a complicated issue, but smoking is a choice. People should be held accountable for their bad choices.
G - 13 years ago
Sure. And then you can not hire fat people because of the chronic diabetes jacking up your costs. Next, everyone with kids are out due to having to pay for their insurance too (and don't forget all the snotty bacteria they bring home!). Also, you had better make the policy to not hire any black people because of their propensity to hypertension and shorter life expectancy.
Pretty soon, all you will have working for you is a bunch of white, pimply, 18 year-old Mormons who will just leave you soon to go on a mission (not that it is a bad thing...).
Corporations have a right to set regulations on hiring and firing practices. However, any worker already employed by a company at the time of policy change should be grandfathered in. They should not suddenly lose their job for a habit that was previously acceptable. New hires would have to adhere to the no smoking rule.
People in this day and age who still smoke are regarded as pathetic and weak. No one likes to admit this but it's true. If you're still smoking you have underlying psychological issues fueling your need to continue this very costly, unhealthy habit. The cost is prohibitive and it is extremely damaging to your health, plus, even if you smoke entirely away from the workplace, there is always the lingering odor of cigarette smoke which most non-smokers find unpleasant. So, if employers can get away with not hiring a smoker they will, unless of course the smoker is attractive, likeable and the most qualified one for the job, then they may decide to hire him or her. Hiring a very fat person is almost non-existent. Being 50 lbs. or more overweight should be considered a disability because unless you are a bus driver, home health aide, nurse, or cafeteria worker you will not get hired. I could go on but I'm dying for a smoke.
While we're at it, keep raising the taxes on tobacco products to help fund the extra medical care that the tobacco users will eventually need as medicare recipients. With a carton of cigarettes at close to $50, it's amazing how much addicts will pay for their drug. Tack another $5 per carton on every 2 years, because health care isn't getting any cheaper.
Do we hire on merit or what. I would rather hire a qualified smoker than an unqualified non smoker. Mediocracy for the bottom line.
I totally agree with the first writer...where does it end? Access to healthcare is a basic human right. If you deprive qualified individuals of the ability to earn a livelihood because they smoke, in essence you are deprving them of all basic human rights. Let's not forget that drinking is a choice, as are other addictions. Yet, we don't penalize them, and in fact those addictions are covered under the American Disabilities Act. And to the second writer, sorry but obesity generally has everything to do with life choices. In essence, where does this end? The propensity for high rates of hypertension in blacks is poverty related, diet related and lack of access to healthcare. So again, where does it end? If you can discriminate against one group because you don't like the consequences of their choices, it opens a Pandora's box to continue along this slippery slope.
The previous writer is wrong. Children are natural, people are born black and obesity is a complicated issue, but smoking is a choice. People should be held accountable for their bad choices.
Sure. And then you can not hire fat people because of the chronic diabetes jacking up your costs. Next, everyone with kids are out due to having to pay for their insurance too (and don't forget all the snotty bacteria they bring home!). Also, you had better make the policy to not hire any black people because of their propensity to hypertension and shorter life expectancy.
Pretty soon, all you will have working for you is a bunch of white, pimply, 18 year-old Mormons who will just leave you soon to go on a mission (not that it is a bad thing...).