County ban on hiring smokers draws notice (BARF Alert!)

The Desert Sun ^ | 1-7-4 | Darrell Smith

[SheLion]

Riverside County will no longer hire prospective sheriff

[Madame Dufarge]

They blame a workers’ compensation system that takes into account lifestyle factors like smoking or alcohol consumption when determining job-related claims.

The article doesn't say that lifestyle factors are taken into account when determining premiums.

They're taken into account when determining claims. Are they asserting that smokers and drinkers take longer to recover from a back injury, etc. than non-smokers?

Be interesting to know where they get their statistics from.

[BriarBey]

One of these days a few smokers are going to challenge this in court and win and that will be the start of the end of it. Gays get ,don't ask ,don't tell why should smokers be any different. First time its pulled with me I will be sitting in an attorneys office raising h*ll. I have just as many rights as some of these other people. Pi**es me off!!

[DefCon]

"...He asserts research shows smokers have higher accident rates
and take more sick leave than nonsmokers...."
- - -
I want to see this research.

[2nd amendment mama]

By your standards....

They should charge homosexuals more because they are more predisposed to aids.....

They should charge black men more beacaus they are at a higher risk of heart attack....

And on and on and on........

Where does it end?????

This is pure BS! All about control!

[Leisler]

Hey, most of these dolts voted for bigger gooberment/budgets, so now they get a taste of their own rules. Which reminds me, how come, what's his name, the mayor of New York, the geek necked twirp? How come he hasn't done this to NYcity employees? You know, really make friends?

[Leisler]

"Ban after duty drinking.."

Frankly, I'd love it if all the gooberment security types were non-smoking, non-drinking, fitness freak uber Nazis.

I think the only way to stop this crap is take it to the not too far extreme. The fast, the better. Otherwise we will just continue along the warm water frog cooking rate, were each ten years we have but a dim memory of the liberties lost.

[CSM]

Not charge them more, per the article they should exclude them from employment.

[CSM]

Ah, another collective society's health policy! And I was foolish enought to think we were allowed individual liberty.

[FreedomPoster]

We didn't hire smokers 20 years ago. Didn't want the breaks outside (we didn't want the smell, so had a non-smoking office environment), considered it might have a long-term impact on our health insurance costs.

Nasty habit, legal or not.

[CSM]

You need to change your moniker! It is the opposite of your actual actions.

[SheLion]

One of these days a few smokers are going to challenge this in court and win and that will be the start of the end of it. Gays get ,don't ask ,don't tell why should smokers be any different. First time its pulled with me I will be sitting in an attorneys office raising h*ll. I have just as many rights as some of these other people. Pi**es me off!!

They have already taken this to court in Florida.  Hopefully, Florida will set an example.  All we have to do is find a good lawyer that believes in the rights of the people

[Publius6961]

Not hire or fire anyone who enjoys an alcohol beverage off hours??????

Why not?
Lost in the rhetorical cloud is the question: what is the impact on government finances of AIDS? Skiiers? Rock climbers? Scuba divers? Motorcycle riders? Surfers? Skateboarders? Sky divers?

Inquiring minds, etc.

[SheLion]

Be interesting to know where they get their statistics from.

The spin the statistics around and around and pretty sure the general public believe them.

But there are those of us that question it.  We don't fall for that garbage, Madame Dufarge. We have been working with the truth too long.

[SheLion]

We didn't hire smokers 20 years ago. Didn't want the breaks outside (we didn't want the smell, so had a non-smoking office environment), considered it might have a long-term impact on our health insurance costs.

Nasty habit, legal or not.

20 years ago?  Surely, you jest.

Anyway, why are you being so nasty this morning? And why are you just posting to ME when you can clearly see how the rest of the posters feel. Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed wanting to beat someone and you choose ME?

If what you say is true, then that's fine.  YOU made the decision, NOT the government.  All business owners SHOULD have the choice to be smoking or non-smoking.  But when the GOVERNMENT goes in and FORCES a smoke-free policy, then this is just wrong.

Nasty habit?  That is just your opinion. Many Many of us find it a WONDERFUL habit.  The world doesn't rotate on your azz, my friend.  You know the old saying: What's good for me isn't good for you and what's good for you isn't good for me."  Well, that still holds true today.

If you loved liver and onions, I would NEVER have the nerve to announce it in a public forum that I think you STINK from the LIVER AND ONIONS.  You just have a hard-** for me, and you just want to beat me up.  Sorry..........it won't work.

[FreedomPoster]

I have the freedom to make the decision to do that. At the time, I was one of the business owners, and that's how we chose to exercise our freedom.

Implying that I am somehow restricting your freedom by exercising mine is absurd. Your complaint is analogous to that of the Leftie entertainers, like the Dixie Chicks, who scream "Censorship! First Amendment violation!" when Conservatives organize a boycott to protest their political actions. That situation is not a First Amendment infringement, just as my choosing to not hire smokers is not an infringement of your freedom to smoke.

If you don't like it, you are free to start a competing business that hires smokers.

[FreedomPoster]

Who peed in your Corn Flakes? I posted to you as a general response to the article. That's generally what a response to Post#1 means. Get over yourself, and read my previous post.

Yes, everything I wrote is my opinion. That's pretty typical.

I'd fire an employee for frequent loud farting in the office, too. Or alcoholism. Or any of several other bad habits.

I'm done, no need to take abuse from those defending an ugly habit.

[MEGoody]

"Can't agree. If someone is paying your way (health care) they have the right to look out for their own interests by controlling your health habits."

I would agree. . .for a PRIVATE employer. This is a government institution. They should not be able to discriminate against an individual who participates in a legal activity.

[SheLion]

You need to change your moniker! It is the opposite of your actual actions.

Thank you! That's what "I" was thinking

[TankerKC]

Nearly 60 percent of the $34.9 million per year Riverside County spends in workers’ compensation claims is spent on the county’s public safety employees, said Ron Komers, the county’s director of human resources.

Well, duh! That's because the only risk the weenies in the welfare department have is tripping over an opened file cabinet or choking on a bagel.

Cops and Firefighters are another story. Is Ronnie really surprised that they used workers’ comp more that office workers?

[SheLion]

I'm done, no need to take abuse from those defending an ugly habit.

And I guess your chit don't stink. Lucky you to be such a perfect example of society. You go boy!