SACKED AND I'M FUMING (Fired for smoking)

The Mirror ^ | 12/23/05 | Richard Smith

[Gingersnap]

I wonder if the company refuses to hire people who have promiscuous sex? Surely the health care costs of STDs, HIV, infertility, abortions, and unwanted pregnancies far outweigh the costs associated with smoking.

Most smokers don't run into trouble until they are at or past retirement age.

[daler]

Or maybe she should've just lied.

As the rules/regulations keep piling up from the Behavior Police, and entire new class of liars is likely to be spawned.

[FlyVet]

Are they going to fire people who drink too much? Are overweight? Eat too much junk food? Race motorcycles on the weekend?

[bronxboy]

Be careful, next overweight, then religious beliefs, than married. It is a slippery slope we are on.

[KC_Conspirator]

Now if she were a lesbian providing sex acts during office hours, she would be promoted.

[wideawake]

SACKED smoker Sophie Blinman threatened to take her former employers to court yesterday, fuming: "I'm furious. Surely this is discrimination."

If you can fire smokers for their unhealthy behavior (which you should be able to do if you're paying their health benefits), why shouldn't you be able to fire people who engage in highly dangerous sexual behavior?

[Reactionary]

The socialist state has certain values, you see. One of them is health. Collectivist healthcare being what it is, the Reich can't afford to employ or treat those who don't contribute to the collective good.

So you're out of luck in Nazi Britian if you happen to smoke. Anal sex is groovy, however.

[rightinthemiddle]

Moose bit my sister opportunity ping

[rightinthemiddle]

I wonder if the moose smokes?

[fizziwig]

"Are they going to fire people who drink too much? Are overweight? Eat too much junk food? Race motorcycles on the weekend?"

Yes, this has all either happened or will happen in the Orwellian world that has arrived.

And those freepers defending this policy...you will be next....hmmmm....fired for being a republican....hey its the right of the business to do that...isn't it?

[khnyny]

"Non-homosexual only hiring? Non-religeous people only hiring? Non-alcohol consuming people only? Non-fast food eating people only? Non-fat people only? Non-perfume/cologne using people only? My tag line probably applies to you."

Exactly, it's ridiculous. A have a prediction: companies in the future will give physicals to all prospective employees and those who don't "measure up" will not be hired. Employers want to avoid employees who could cost them money in health care costs.

[Old Professer]

Sounds to me like they owe her a day's pay and they need to change the interview process, that's all.

[mysterio]

Hope she sues the company into bankruptsy.

[RobbyS]

What about a person with a history of STDs? All they have to do is claim to be gay?

[johnny7]

Dirty bustards!

[xrp]

And how exactly would you react to being fired for being a Republican?

I'm not a Republican, but if I were and I were fired for it, I guess I'd have to find another job. YOU?

[RobbyS]

Once upon a time, teachers were asked if they smoked or drank. If they did, they were not hired. If they were caught doing either, they were fired. Harsh, but those were terms of employment.

[khnyny]

Yes, it is Orwellian. Up is down, right is wrong, black is white.

[xrp]

Hope she sues the company into bankruptsy.

Well, nice to see that you don't believe in conservatism, rather you love big government.

[wayoverontheright]

My understanding of labor law is that if she got through the interview process, and was hired for a full-time job, then any "condition of employment" would have to be in writing, and on the job application that she will have signed.

Employers have to tread lightly even when trying to rid themselves of potential drug problems through the hiring process. If you drug test for example, as a condition of employment, then you can fire someone for doing drugs, but you had better have a subsequent drug test to prove it. If you don't drug test, then you cannot require an employee to submit to one because it was not a "condition of employment".

I'm no lawyer, maybe someone who is could set this straight, but I think she has a case that the burden would be on the employer, as in almost every other instance it is, to make it clear that not being a smoker is a condition of employment.