Firing Smokers - Reading Beyond the Headlines

United Pro Smoker's Rights ^ | 5-11-05 | Stephanie Armour

[DemWatch]

Freedom of association. If a company wants to fire employees for smoking at home, not wearing seatbelts, not washing their hands, not brushing their teeth, or whatever ridiculous reason, then it's their right to do so. It's their business only (and certainly not the government's).

[maryz]

Where will they go next? I am afraid to ask.....

When I first heard about this, I recalled reading about the textile mills in MA about 100 years ago -- as I understand it, they had dormitories for their employees, with curfews and everything!

Maybe they'll even go to "company stores," as memorialized in "Sixteen Tons"!

[EGPWS]

Maybe they'll even go to "company stores," as memorialized in "Sixteen Tons"!

I sold my soul to the company store! I didn't make much....

[Rhiannon]

I agree totally. People are not free if they can't do a legal act withing their own time. Companies have no right to dictate to employees what they do in their own time. If the company pays for 24 hrs work, then they may have that right.

[Gabz]

Actually, the trick is for smokers to start their own companies, hire only smokers, and bury the competition.

The antis smokers would be screaming from the rafters for more laws to stop that.

If non smoking companies have the right to not hire or fire smokers, then 'smoking' companies have the right to hire whomever they please, also.

Exactly.

I have smoked for thirty years, been with my present employer for 12, and have never missed a day of work.

I have also been smoking for about 30 years and missing work to give birth is not exactly what I would call a smoking related illness :) I was self-employed then, but had been working with the same people for over 10 years, in fact I was on the phone with a client from the hospital the morning after the baby was born. I came home with the baby on a Friday and was back on the phone with clients and at my desk on Monday morning - having my desk in my dining room did help.

But the point of course is that contrary to the propaganda, smoking employees do NOT get sick more often or account for lost productivity.

[EGPWS]

Equal protection? What's that?

Defined as to whatever is politically expedient at the given time.

[Gabz]

The ACLU will NOT get involved in this issue because it is about smokers and the ACLU, just like the rest of the anti-smoker nanny statists do not believe smokers have any rights.

[Publius6961]

I was at an outdoor concert once. The concert had not yet begun. Someone lit a cigarette in the seating area, and a fat, ugly woman, upwind about 150 feet, ran over gesticulating wildly and hysterically screamed at the poor sad sack for 5 minutes.
Those of us closest to the brouhaha just cracked up, and lit up.

[EGPWS]

...smoking employees do NOT get sick more often or account for lost productivity.

They do if they work with many coworkers who have numerous children who bring minor health issues home from school with them.

Gosh, perhaps workers without families should be a mandate pursued for employment? /s

[Gabz]

tee-hee!!!!!

[Publius6961]

Brand cigarette smokers as addicts, and the next thing you know, smokers will be disqualified from owning firearms. Don't go there.

Perverts are not allowed to have guns??

[Gabz]

Apparently to some the habit of making a legal personal choice is the worst habit.

Sadly you are correct. Even sadder is the fact that many of them are frequent FReepers.

[attiladhun2]

It is proven by the CDC that homosexuality is an unheathly lifestyle. Guess what would happen if companies fired homosexuals?

[SolidRedState]

I'll have to disagree. If it does not interfere with job performance, it should be none of their business.

Should we fire employees for playing softball or participating in other activities that could possibly cause them harm?

[EGPWS]

The ACLU will NOT get involved in this issue because it is about smokers and the ACLU, just like the rest of the anti-smoker nanny statists do not believe smokers have any rights.

Sure they do!

You just have to be an illegal alien who happens to have a personal desire for the same sex, that has no religious conviction, who totes a liberal philosophy.

Then they would get involved with a case by case attitude.

[Publius6961]

Actually, the trick is for smokers to start their own companies, hire only smokers, and bury the competition.
The antis smokers would be screaming from the rafters for more laws to stop that.

At least in California, a business owner does not have that option. If smoking is outlawed in offices, all must comply.

So, no such option is available today.

The "reasoning" is that a non-smoker may want want to work there, and be irritated by being surrounded by smokers (perhaps even do a great impression of fainting).

[EGPWS]

Should we fire employees for playing softball or participating in other activities that could possibly cause them harm?

Anyone who commutes to work in a vehicle smaller than an SUV should be fired for being a health risk.

[arachide]

Oooh, I like that - I'd like to use it sometime if you don't mind.

[patton]

good one

[Gabz]

But, like every other big lie, once it is disseminated, the morons can continue claiming it as fact.

And that, my FRiend, is the problem in a nutshell. But alas, the "morons" have all the money and are able to finance the pushing of the lies and those who actually know the truth are shrugged off as nutjobs.