Yep. Over the years, what is legal has been very fluid, and changed quite a bit. Why, the government now forces employers to hire those pesky women, even though their damnable pregnancies are hell on the bottom line! Thank God the Triangle Shirtwaist Company got that big fire claim paid; all those breed cows were about to put the company under!
Scary Stuff.
- Thread starter hextor
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
Here's a hypothetical question, not to be answered here, as it will provide insight you may not wish to be known.
You are looking to hire an individual to manage and handle your personal funds. You have two, for all intents and purposes, identical resumes with respect to age, education, work history and references. You are not going to be able to personally interview either as you will be entering a hospital soon and be unable to handle your own finances for the next six months.
The differences are: One applicant is a decorated, disabled vet. The other a Morman.
Which would you hire sight unseen? These two people are your only available solution to the problem.
Remember, you should keep your answer to yourself.
You are looking to hire an individual to manage and handle your personal funds. You have two, for all intents and purposes, identical resumes with respect to age, education, work history and references. You are not going to be able to personally interview either as you will be entering a hospital soon and be unable to handle your own finances for the next six months.
The differences are: One applicant is a decorated, disabled vet. The other a Morman.
Which would you hire sight unseen? These two people are your only available solution to the problem.
Remember, you should keep your answer to yourself.
Let's take that its obvious conclusion: IQ tests, weight tests, genetic tests, and so on.
It sure would be a force for natural selection, and the people cheering the anti-tobacco tests now would be the first to howl when this came about.
Grandfather had a heart condition? We're Not Hiring.
No, but as I've stated before, you can blame them for singling out one unhealthy activity and giving many others a free pass. Good for one? Then good for all. Getting employers out of the health care scam would be good for us and them. They're so God damned high and mighty telling me what to do, let them show their balls and take on the government.
Actually I give a great deal of thought about who I do business with. To me, giving someone my business and money is an endorsement of their policies and beliefs. If I don't agree with them, I don't do business with them. I am not naive enough to think any big business gives a crap about one consumer but knowing I stood up for what I believe makes up for any inconvenience this way of doing things might cause.
I used to conduct the annual briefing on the Urinalysis testing in my Army unit. That said, I just cannot believe we are in a place where one may have to buy a fake wiener full of his/her kid's clean pee in order to pass a tobacco piss test.
Fake wiener
Fake wiener
You mean, the more laws we pass to protect workers, the less workers are protected?
Well, who could have seen that coming... LOL
Well, who could have seen that coming... LOL
"You wouldn't even get to forms much less the interview. A perspective employee has to meet my expectations."
I shouldn't imagine you would get the forms either :
:
Regards,
Jay.
I shouldn't imagine you would get the forms either :
:Regards,
Jay.
Yea but, some people getting the jobs will not know about nicotine test, they will just think they are being screen for regular drug test, i know pleanty of people who smoke cigars on occasions, and i dont think its fair not knowing that they are going without knowing that they test for nicotine.
And the hiring procces is a long one, first is the interview, then the paperwork, then you have to take a long test then a drug test and aterbiculosis test, then imagine you do all of that and you don't even have an idea that they wont hire because they test for nicotine too.
Me bad, Jay! Gotta pay more attention to my proof reading. I keep telling myself that but, as the evening lengthens, pay even less attention.
The bottom line is this is a cost/benefit decision for most organizations. Employees away from their work station for a smoke break aren't producing. The individual break may not amount to much but when multiplied by the number of times that occurs in a year, the lost productivity is significant. Add to that the increased costs of insurance (and health insurance costs for an employer are significant) and you have a situation where employers feel it's better to reduce or eliminate the cause. There have been some recent court cases involving pot that have reinforced that perspective. The courts have found that even in places where pot is legal and employer can terminate employment for use when it violates established company policy. In reality there is an iron clad rule in the workplace. You have to providing what that company wants to buy. Risky behaviors are not covered under existing anti discrimination laws so an employer is free to select employees who do not engage in them and reject those that do. You may be free to engage in those behaviors but the employer is not required to hire you if you do.
"You may be free to engage in those behaviors but the employer is not required to hire you if you do."
I perfectly understand your position there Gloucesterman but what if your behaviour involved a religious necessity to kneel down on a mat once every so often to 'speak with' your chosen god for a while?
If the employer found this sort of behaviour not conducive to his business and made his employee aware of this would he then not be leaving himself wide open to lawsuits on religious persecution grounds?
Lines need to be drawn.
Regards,
Jay.
I perfectly understand your position there Gloucesterman but what if your behaviour involved a religious necessity to kneel down on a mat once every so often to 'speak with' your chosen god for a while?
If the employer found this sort of behaviour not conducive to his business and made his employee aware of this would he then not be leaving himself wide open to lawsuits on religious persecution grounds?
Lines need to be drawn.
Regards,
Jay.
- Status