Posted on 06/20/2002 3:25:51 PM PDT by SheLion
Edited on 05/07/2004 9:25:52 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Linda Wimble smoked cigarettes to relax, usually after hours with friends. She didn't take smoking breaks at work. She didn't smoke on the way to work. She didn't smoke with clients.
So when Wimble was told by her Waitsfield employer, Small Dog Electronics, that she had to quit smoking, she was a bit taken aback.
(Excerpt) Read more at burlingtonfreepress.com ...
I've been wondering lately how they get away telling these lies!
I wish we had an email for ole Mayer!
If a company doesn't want to hire people because they smoke. And they perceive that it is in the financial interest of their company to not hire smokers, why should they be compelled by the government to hire smokers?
I agree, even though I would find it disturbing if my employer attempted to mandate my personal lifestyle choices. Personally I'd just charge smokers more for insurance coverage. But as usual, matters like this are best left to the free market.
For society as a whole, the earlier deaths of smokers save govt's. money on lower Medicare and SS payouts.
But your employer doesn't get those savings. A company doesn't get a check from the govt. with a note saying "thanks to the early death of one of your retired smoking employees, here' a refund of your FICA taxes".
An employer has to pay out for lost productivity and higher health benefits now. Companies that don't have defined benefit pension plans don't get any savings with an earlier death. And those plans are rarer and rarer. Even those with such pension plans, don't save any money on smoking employees who don't work long enough to vest in the pension plan.
hmm...women can become pregnant, and cost their employee lost productivity and higher health benefits- should we be allowed to exclude them from employment as well?
I'm of two minds on this- first, I do think that an employer should have a very large degree of freedom in hiring whomever he wants- on the other hand, I suspect this guy is a so tight @$$d that when he breaks wind only dogs can hear it...
I dunno- maybe quit smoking, but also quit bathing, and start eating beans/jalapenos/garlic/onions, and insist upon having long discussions with him in the privacy of his office?
If a company doesn't want to hire smokers, so be it. On the same coin, if a company wants to hire only white males aged 25-40, or only Baptists, or only people under six feet tall they should also also have that right.
A private company should be free to hire whoever they want to without interference. If their hiring practices are unfair or discriminatory, let the market punish them for their prejudices. Personally, I would choose not to patronize a company that discriminates against off-duty smokers in their hiring.
On the other hand, a policy that covers what employees do on their own property and own time, is just bad policy. No company has a right to even know what an employee does anytime, anywhere, when not actually working for or representing that company. Anybody who is willing to smoke on their own time only should apply for a job at Small Dog Electronics, and if asked if they smoke, say no. They only have to answer for what they do at Small Dog. What they do any other time is none of the Company's business, and any attempt on the part of the company to find out what they do on their own time is an invasion of privacy, which should earn them a nice suit.
An iteresting suit would be the one brought by an 'Native American' who's tribe uses tobacco as part of their religious ceremonies.
Hank
It's very rare for a smoking related disease to hit a person before the age of retirement.
In fact, smoker taxes, and those of every other smoker in this country, pay for your ill-advised habits such as overeating. In 1994, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service spent 22 months and 20 million dollars--at the request of rabid anti Henry Waxman, no less--to determine just how much money smokers cost society. Guess what: Smokers DO NOT COST SOCIETY. We pay in to the system far more than we ever take out. You should be paying US to smoke. The New England Journal of Medicine concurs, as do economists from Yale and Harvard, and the CRS reiterated that fact in 1999.
In fact smokers DO pay 100% of the problems our habit "causes," and since the science of shs is absolute junk.Understand that smokers and nonsmokers have exactly EQUAL rights, neither supercedes the other. The rights in question are those of the business owner to cater to his clientele.
"Indeed, anyone respectful of the rights of others must first begin with the dictum that adults are capable of making their own decisions, including whether to allow smoking in their places of business and whether to frequent, as customers, those places that do. Ditto for people who might consider working in such establishments.
My hubby smokes at least two packs a day. NEVER misses work. NEVER gets sick, thank God.
He is retired military. Never missed work while he was active duty, either. I don't know where the anti's get their statistics, but they are way off base.
Someone on dope must make them up.
The woman sued, but lost the court battle, so unfortunately for the lady in Vermont, there is legal precedent.
Not to worry, though...they're coming for the fatties next. I recently heard some talking-head Health Nazi proclaim that "obesity kills 1200 people a day in the US." For the arithmetically challenged, that translates to just under the "smoking kills 400,000 a year in the US" number that they've been trotting out for years. Also, I saw a cable news show (on CNBC or MSNBC -- can't remember which), where the anchor was talking to a bloodsucker -- OOPS! I mean ATTORNEY about the possibility of bringing suit against companies like McDonald's for "enticing and addicting young people and children into eating unhealthy foods." It's that damned Ronald McDonald, you know....the Evil and Bad Pied Piper leading our kids down Hell's Path to artheriosclerosis.
Don't say we didn't warn ya....
Regards,
And if it was my company I might elect to charge more in health care premiums for smokers over non-smokers, but it would be my choice, since it is my capital that I am putting at risk to operate a business.
The thing I find distressing is that there was a thread yesterday concerning some government entities, i.e. localities, municipalities, or states, enacting a ban on restaurants to allow smoking in their place of business.
People where all up in arms about the government being able to dictate to a business as to how they could conduct their business. Mainly smokers as they where the portion of the cliental that was affected. But on this thread it appears that when a business exercises it right to run it's business as it sees fit, which is not in the interest of smokers, now we're all up in arms and want the government to do something about it.
Sorry but you can't have it both ways. If you believe in the principles of freedom from government intervention, one must believe in the principle when it works for them, as well as when it works against them. The more important overriding consideration for me is that I just want the government to stay out of our lives. Provide for the defense of the people; provide police and fire protection, and provide for the maintenance of the highways and byways, which is what I was taught they were Constitutionality mandated to do.
I have always operated from the principle that I don't need the governments help. If I do, I'll give them a call. Until then it is ok for them to assume that I don't need their help.
Oh yes! I am well aware of the anti's going after the tubbies.
"Dr. Satcher called for major steps by schools, communities and industry to fight obesity."
""We're not talking about quick-fix diets," Dr. Satcher said. "We're talking about lifestyles.""
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.