Posted on 11/19/2018 3:07:51 PM PST by Morgana
LOUISVILLE, KY (AP) - A state senator in Kentucky says companies should be allowed to discriminate against people who smoke.
Republican Sen. John Schickel of Union pre-filed his proposal this week. The bill would remove smokers from the protected classes outlined in Kentucky’s employment anti-discrimination law and allow employers to lawfully refuse to hire or terminate people who smoke.
(Excerpt) Read more at wowktv.com ...
How about readers of the Koran? Okay? Pot?
I’m good with this. I’ve worked at enough places were the smokers sense of entitlement leads to constant smoke breaks while other employees cover the ass of the addicts.
Back in 1987 an inebriated HR lady at my company told me that they ran an extra test during the pre-employment drug screen which identified nicotine. If it was positive then management really had to work hard to justify the hire.
I would rather work with a smoker then someone who’s taking some untested prescription drug, I don’t know of to many mass shootings due to nicotine withdraw.
The liberal mindset behind such a bill, would never use the same criteria to discriminate against promiscuous homosexuals , or those who go skydiving , or participate in any other voluntary activity.
How about some of the anti-depressant meds that turn people into mass shooters?
Smokers....(I was one)….take WAY more breaks and are out many more times in Sickness than NON-SMOKERS!!!
I support an employer’s right to fire smokers, but I don’t endorse a law that presumes to allow it. It’s not (or shouldn’t be) government business.
When I’ve been working all these decades I’ve never once turned around and found my coworker missing because he HAD to step outside and skydive.
Will they still have to hire people who skydive? Race motorcycles? Have hypertension but refuse to take their meds?
So then it depends on the criteria used here. Do we discriminate against someone who takes a smoker break, but not other perceived risky behavior which does not involve a break in the workday?
We really should think through some ramifications before we go down this road .
Smokers and the overweight sre the 2 groups that can be picked on with impunity.
Not right but it is what it is.
I do think they should pay more for insurance however because of increased risk.
But inva fair world, women would pay more for health insurance because they use it much more.
Smokers should not be a Protected Class.
Kentucky should abolish the current law.
” women would pay more for health insurance because they use it much more.”
Yea but isn’t that due to maternity needs?
I was a smoker for 50 years. I never lost days from smoking illness. Had flu a couple times.. We worked as hard or harder then everybody else...
What’s bizarre to me is that smokers ever were a protected class for employment! What’s that about? Are nose pickers in Kentucky protected too?
Even though I enjoy a cigarette at my home with my morning coffee and my pre-dinner cocktail (outside on my porch only), I never smoke at work for just the reasons described in the article. It just isn’t worth it to go through the crap that goes with that territory.
I didn’t know they had protection anywhere. My understanding is that generally you don’t have to hire a smoker. I never would, I don’t knowingly hire smokers. My dad died from it a couple years ago, can’t think of a filthier, disgusting habit. I put vaping in the same category and look forward to when that whole industry is gone as well.
“I’ve worked at enough places were the smokers sense of entitlement leads to constant smoke breaks while other employees cover the ass of the addicts.”
Well, take up smoking...it’s never too late.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.