You Mean They Can Legally Not Hire Me Because I Smoke?
- Thread starter conlejm
- Start date
- Status
Fast food vendors are already in the cross-hairs. Seat-belts, helmets, building codes, CAFE standards for automobiles, school lunch programs, gun restrictions, etc. are all part and parcel of a lack of concern for personal freedom. A small group of people (does Ralph Nader ring a bell? Global Warming? Obesity? NOW? Unsecured borders? Political correctness? Greenies?), usually unelected, decide what is best for the country, advocate and lobby for the necessary rules and laws and . . . viola! we have a new set of laws and/or regulations to contend with.
ae1pt: Sarcasm is is an art that does not often travel well on the internet. For those who can't grasp it you have to label it as such or just ignore the retorts and hurt feelings by not responding.
teufelhound: We are moving to a non-tobacco using society. The taxes will be moved to other perceived vices, salt, sugar, fur coats, gas passing, or whatever! I do know that the government will not accept any reduction in the moneys exacted at gun point from the citizens. Therefore, some other taxes will rise or new ones will be put in place.
ae1pt: Sarcasm is is an art that does not often travel well on the internet. For those who can't grasp it you have to label it as such or just ignore the retorts and hurt feelings by not responding.
teufelhound: We are moving to a non-tobacco using society. The taxes will be moved to other perceived vices, salt, sugar, fur coats, gas passing, or whatever! I do know that the government will not accept any reduction in the moneys exacted at gun point from the citizens. Therefore, some other taxes will rise or new ones will be put in place.
ae1pt: I would point out that we Americans have "certain unalienable rights." Unfortunately Jefferson and the gang did not itemize and left exactly what those rights are open to interpretation. I look on my smoking as a "pursuit of happiness." I am only allowed to pursue my happiness as long as it does not impact others in an adverse manner. Hence I am not allowed to smoke in many public places and am therefore precluded from pursuing happiness in those locations.
I suppose the same right to chasing the elusive happiness must favor those who are pursuing a healthy life style as their happiness supersedes my right to cloud up the air they breath.
Ah well, life is tough and then you die.
I suppose the same right to chasing the elusive happiness must favor those who are pursuing a healthy life style as their happiness supersedes my right to cloud up the air they breath.
Ah well, life is tough and then you die.
I wish that were the case, Cosmic. But thus far cooler heads have failed to prevent any of the encroachments on individual liberty that have occurred in my lifetime, and I doubt cooler heads will prevent the continuation of this trend. The "cooler head" strategy has been a failure for those who desire to retain their money or their freedom.
I wonder how these employers deal with non-smoking employees who have tobacco-using dependent(s).
Or, if you are a tobacco-user and receive your benefits through your spouse, could you decline the health benefits package (which is their main concern) and still gain employment.
I wonder also how this impacts Native Americans' religious rights, as some use tobacco in their religious ceremonies.
Or, if you are a tobacco-user and receive your benefits through your spouse, could you decline the health benefits package (which is their main concern) and still gain employment.
I wonder also how this impacts Native Americans' religious rights, as some use tobacco in their religious ceremonies.
This satirical piece pretty much sums it all up:
Fact Or Fiction: Humanity Still Surprised That 'Megalomaniacal Pricks' Decide Everything
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-27/fact-or-fiction-humanity-still-surprised-megalomaniacal-pricks-decide-everything
Fact Or Fiction: Humanity Still Surprised That 'Megalomaniacal Pricks' Decide Everything
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-27/fact-or-fiction-humanity-still-surprised-megalomaniacal-pricks-decide-everything
After being unable to come here at all for quite some time, I come back only to discover that a lot has gone downhill. ae1pt, funny that you say ask the Jews how that worked out for them because your flawed reasoning was exactly what the Nazis used to justify themselves. The very notion that rights can be taken and revoked by the government is not only sick and tyrannical, but it is people like you who hold such beliefs that we are in our present predicament. In a time where our pipe smoking hobby is coming under increasing attack, I find it hard to believe that the community here would support an enemy in our camp.
Believe it or not, the ACLU is on the smoker's side in this debate: Lifestyle Discrimination in the Workplace
ae1pt, I don't believe the all the founding fathers were as jaded and self serving as you make them out to be. I'll go as far to join you saying that if we judge 18th century writers with our own "culturally advanced and superior notions" of freedom and liberty, they do indeed fall a bit short. It's better to look at them in the context of their own times. If you do that, they come out as the visionaries and inspired writers they were. They didn't see all the future of America but they made it possible.
You must know that Jefferson in particular felt that America would be judged harshly by future generations for the practice and tolerance of slavery. He berated England for making the colonies dependent on it in the Declaration of Independence.
He also wrote:
So why we can't hold men like Jefferson up as the agents of ending slavery, we can certainly celebrate them as those who made it possible for a later generations to do so. American freedom is a story of continued revaluation. It didn't just happen because of one person at one time, but many over the course of many generations by many individuals.
I, for one, would prefer to see progress made in civil liberties, but unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be happening. We are creating more laws and consequently more criminals.
That's why my viewpoint is not quite as cynical as yours. My beef is with my contemporaries and my elected leaders who choose to ignore continuing the path of individual liberty and going backwards to a time when the elite made all the decisions because the rabble were just not smart enough to run their own lives. These days I'm feeling more like rabble than a free citizen. I vote and speak accordingly.
You must know that Jefferson in particular felt that America would be judged harshly by future generations for the practice and tolerance of slavery. He berated England for making the colonies dependent on it in the Declaration of Independence.
He also wrote:
-Jefferson to Edward Rutledge
So why we can't hold men like Jefferson up as the agents of ending slavery, we can certainly celebrate them as those who made it possible for a later generations to do so. American freedom is a story of continued revaluation. It didn't just happen because of one person at one time, but many over the course of many generations by many individuals.
I, for one, would prefer to see progress made in civil liberties, but unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be happening. We are creating more laws and consequently more criminals.
That's why my viewpoint is not quite as cynical as yours. My beef is with my contemporaries and my elected leaders who choose to ignore continuing the path of individual liberty and going backwards to a time when the elite made all the decisions because the rabble were just not smart enough to run their own lives. These days I'm feeling more like rabble than a free citizen. I vote and speak accordingly.
There is a hospital in town that won't hire tobacco users. My employment opportunities have shrunk a bit as a result.
If I really had to, I could maybe sneak around it by not smoking for a while. But if they are going to periodically blood test for any Nic traces - I don't really agree with that invasion of privacy. On a hospital property, I understand a no smoke policy... but this is going a bit too far for my liking. What I do off the clock isn't their concern.
Many hospitals will charge more for insurance too if a staff member is overweight. But they don't refuse to hire them in the first place.
Will they start charging more for health insurance if you happen to be a gay male medical professional, due to the potential of diseases? Somehow I doubt it with the hellfire they'd catch from LBGT groups. Course, I suppose smoking is a choice. What if you're a heterosexual guy with an STD? Dunno where the line will be drawn.
If I really had to, I could maybe sneak around it by not smoking for a while. But if they are going to periodically blood test for any Nic traces - I don't really agree with that invasion of privacy. On a hospital property, I understand a no smoke policy... but this is going a bit too far for my liking. What I do off the clock isn't their concern.
Many hospitals will charge more for insurance too if a staff member is overweight. But they don't refuse to hire them in the first place.
Will they start charging more for health insurance if you happen to be a gay male medical professional, due to the potential of diseases? Somehow I doubt it with the hellfire they'd catch from LBGT groups. Course, I suppose smoking is a choice. What if you're a heterosexual guy with an STD? Dunno where the line will be drawn.
Smokers are not a protected class. There's no federal law, nor I suspect any state laws, that protect smokers from discrimination. Federal law protects against discrimination in hiring on the basis of race, religion, national origin, age, sex, pregnancy, citizenship, family status and disability, not smoking. A company could also refuse to hire say, cat owners or dog owners or car owner or golfers or baseball fans without running afoul of federal anti discrimination laws. I don't know that the health and insurance coverage scenarios above are addressed at all in employment discrimination law, however they may be addressed in the ACA. Discrimination in hiring someone with a STD probably falls under the ADA and is likely prohibited.
People don't have a right to a specific job or to work for a specific employer. And private employers don't have an obligation to give anyone and everyone a job. Companies are just proscribed from discrimination against specific classes of people as defined by federal and state laws. Maybe someone could make an argument that smoking is an addiction, addiction is a disease, and discrimination should be prohibited. The ACLU has advocated laws that protect against "lifestyle discrimination" and has argued that if hiring discrimination against smokers disproportionately affects one race or another, one gender or another, etc. then those practices may run afoul of current federal law. But no one has tested that reasoning in court, and perhaps the evidence doesn't even support the argument. And as far as I know no anti "lifestyle discrimination" laws are on the books anywhere in the country.
People don't have a right to a specific job or to work for a specific employer. And private employers don't have an obligation to give anyone and everyone a job. Companies are just proscribed from discrimination against specific classes of people as defined by federal and state laws. Maybe someone could make an argument that smoking is an addiction, addiction is a disease, and discrimination should be prohibited. The ACLU has advocated laws that protect against "lifestyle discrimination" and has argued that if hiring discrimination against smokers disproportionately affects one race or another, one gender or another, etc. then those practices may run afoul of current federal law. But no one has tested that reasoning in court, and perhaps the evidence doesn't even support the argument. And as far as I know no anti "lifestyle discrimination" laws are on the books anywhere in the country.
This is one of those cases where the free-market/neo-liberal contract-law approach actually constrains rather than promotes personal freedom. Sure, the problem can be construed as a simple choice between entering into a particular employment contract or not entering into a particular employment contract. However, we aren't talking about individuals, here. And if this trend continues, we won't even be talking about individual (giant) corporations or even individual industries. Instead, we'll see a nearly across-the-board ban on smoking by employees working for large corporations/institutions (that's most of us). Think about that for a minute. You'll barely need taxes or anti-smoking laws to punish smokers -- you can just let the "free market" do it for you.
After they rid the world of smokers, what group could possibly be next in their crosshairs? ...
Obesity Now Costs Americans More In Healthcare Spending Than Smoking
Obesity Now Costs Americans More In Healthcare Spending Than Smoking
All I can say is that even if it is illegal or not THEY are going to hire whom THEY want. If is illegal they just come up with another reason to tell you. Do you think that these people are stupid enough to say that you were not hired due to nicotine abuse.
jfox: That tactic only works until a record of discrimination is established. At that point the state will step in and then things become very expensive.
Well I'll be. Equating pipesmokers with bestialists is rated as artistic sarcasm, then? (At least to those who mistake crass sarcasm for the art of subtle irony). Probably not going to come to any agreement when weapons like that come out. Just not my kind of sophistication.
As far as just writing this off as, "They've done it before and they'll do it again, and there's nothing we can do -- nothing we *should* do -- about it" ... we won't reach agreement there, either.
Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia itself have laws protecting a citizen's right to smoke outside of the job. I live in one of them. Hope those protections stand firm. And we have plenty of room for anyone who wants to have a bowl at lunch break with any of us.
C'mon over, bringing your favorite blend or trying one of mine.
As far as just writing this off as, "They've done it before and they'll do it again, and there's nothing we can do -- nothing we *should* do -- about it" ... we won't reach agreement there, either.
Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia itself have laws protecting a citizen's right to smoke outside of the job. I live in one of them. Hope those protections stand firm. And we have plenty of room for anyone who wants to have a bowl at lunch break with any of us.
C'mon over, bringing your favorite blend or trying one of mine.
- Status