Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: T.Smith

Hi T.Smith!
I think it is up to a private company who they hire or not hire,but to fire some one after they already worked there, before such a policy was introduced, even with ample warning,is not right,IMHO.


28 posted on 02/25/2005 7:00:58 AM PST by Mrs.Nooseman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Mrs.Nooseman
I think it is up to a private company who they hire or not hire,but to fire some one after they already worked there, before such a policy was introduced, even with ample warning,is not right,IMHO.

Yes - going forward into the future not hiring smokers, that's one thing and is OK by me.

The company unilaterally changing the terms of employment contracts to punish off-duty behavior, that's not. That smacks of indentured servitude.

35 posted on 02/25/2005 7:08:52 AM PST by Kretek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: Mrs.Nooseman

When only non-smokers can work, the smokers will not be able to pay taxes, (or buy ciggarettes) who will then be singled out to make up for the loss of tax revenue? Will
smokers be given wellfare, when they are no longer eligible
to work? Will that be cheaper on society than our current system? Inquiring minds want to know!


55 posted on 02/25/2005 7:20:34 AM PST by antisocial (Texas SCV - Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: Mrs.Nooseman

Yes, it would have been kinder (some might say more upstanding) to grandfather the present smokers. But, in the end, I suppose he can do what he wants with his company. He certainly go a lot of publicity out of it!


82 posted on 02/25/2005 7:54:34 AM PST by T.Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson