-
BOTL UPCOMING MAINTENANCE
Hi Everyone, as mentioned in my introduction post, BOTL needs quite a bit of updating, patching and whatever else I might come across. Over the next few weekends BOTL may be unreachable on occasion as I do migrations or updates, etc. Just be patient - we'll be back! I'll generally try to keep these maintenances until later in the evenings.
Workplaces ban not only smoking, but smokers themselves
- Thread starter thejavaman
- Start date
It becomes discrimination when that is the REASON for your disqualification. If there were an applicant more qualified than yourself, or if there were some other rational reason for your denial, it might be understandable but an employer does NOT have the right to arbitrate what you are subsequently "allowed" to do on your own private time.
Seriously?
Fourtotheflush
BoM Apr 12'
I laughed at this one!
Don't you love being your own boss?!?
If you don't like the company policy don't work there, not every company will do this. I think it's interesting that they played in smokers to productivity levels, LMAO! I guess there is some number cruncher making some good bank for figuring this shit out! Quite frankly I think being a company that provides there employees with health insurance it would be logical to make sure all of it's employees are smoke free. I mean if you an guarantee to the provider that there are zero smokers it's gotta be a VERY significant savings which I think would get passed onto the employee as most pay some of there insurance.
Thats easy 2 say if u have great credentials & marketability but in this economy, a lot of people have few options & when employers begin removing options on no other basis than this, it becomes a civil rights issue.
Yes, to a certain extent, businesses have the right to choose who they employ, but like some1 else already mentioned where does the line get drawn?
U cannot deny some1 employment based on age, race, religion or ethnicity...
Hospitals have been doing this since 1998 give or take.....
I agree with MU with one exception: A private employer should not be able to tell me what to do when I am not on the clock an I am at home...
Now, you may say they pay a part of the Health Insurance, true, but rather than not hire me because I smoke at home, have smokers pay a larger percentage of the health care coverage.....They already do the same thing with life insurance...
Funny part is, if they just said "We do not hire smokers", I am fine with that. But, when they say "As a condition of employment, you cannot smoke at work OR at home" well, that to me is different. It is saying that they want to and will control what you do, where the previous statement is just that, we o not hire smokers....
Hell, the same principle can be applied to any criteria for a job...BBA required, but what if I have 10 years exp in business and a proven track record in business, what, are they now discriminating against the uneducated? No we just say they are stupid for letting a good employee go....
I agree with MU with one exception: A private employer should not be able to tell me what to do when I am not on the clock an I am at home...
Now, you may say they pay a part of the Health Insurance, true, but rather than not hire me because I smoke at home, have smokers pay a larger percentage of the health care coverage.....They already do the same thing with life insurance...
Funny part is, if they just said "We do not hire smokers", I am fine with that. But, when they say "As a condition of employment, you cannot smoke at work OR at home" well, that to me is different. It is saying that they want to and will control what you do, where the previous statement is just that, we o not hire smokers....
Hell, the same principle can be applied to any criteria for a job...BBA required, but what if I have 10 years exp in business and a proven track record in business, what, are they now discriminating against the uneducated? No we just say they are stupid for letting a good employee go....
:dunno: