SACKED AND I'M FUMING (Fired for smoking)

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

[lewislynn]

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

I thought (rich) Republicans owned the businesses.

[WKUHilltopper]

In Kentucky, Smokers are a protected class. Smokers Anti-Discrimination Act...1994 or some where around that date.

[HamiltonJay]

Well you are going to have a hard time arguing a smoker... which is a person who has defined themselves by an activity they choose to engage in... is the equivalent to a person who is born with a certain color skin. Trying to is ludicrous and insulting.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

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

Well, when that happened to me, I started my own business (same competitive area), and drove the guy who fired me into bankruptcy in 15 months. Bought up his remaining assets at about five cents on the dollar. The REALLY good part was that his house got foreclosed on Christmas Eve. Ho, ho, ho, mother******! :)

[HamiltonJay]

Well then in Kentucky have to worry about it, but under federal law, they aren't.

[lewislynn]

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

Well yes if she's a lipstick lesbian not a mullet lesbian. We have SOME standards.

[RandallFlagg]

JMHO.
We smokers should start businesses and open resturaunts and bars that hire and cater to only smokers.

I know we'd be shut down in about five minutes, but it'd send a message.

Ping.

(I still think we should randomly spread tobacco seeds everywhere we can)

[billbears]

No it's called freedom of association. Something that used to exist in this nation of states before federal regulation forced employers to accept anyone and anything against their will. The intent under the Constitution was not meant to apply to private companies but only a list of limitations of the national government

[cgbg]

You totally miss my point.

Personally I think a business should be able to hire whoever they choose without limitation.

But once the government abandoned that principle we now entered the realm of arbitrary decisionmaking as to who is part of a protected class and who is not.

Whatever arguments there may be for protecting one group vs another group is irrelevant because today the mob decides who is protected--and tomorrow you could become a new victim because of traits you either inherited or acquired.

[wideawake]

If you compare the sick time and medical bills of people who have children of school age with those (of the same age) who do not it will be clear that parents take off more sick time than non parents because kids catch a lot of contagious diseases and pass them on to their parents.

Challenge.

In my business I would be laughed at for taking time off for something as simple as a cold.

In my experience, singles take far more sick days (aka "really bad hangover days") and personal days (aka "I just broke up with my boyfriend days") than parents do.

[SW6906]

Do you snow ski? Skydive? Race cars? Climb mountains? Oh, we can't have any employees with these lifestyle choices that affect health care costs! You're fired!

[bimbo]

Would the company be able to fire or not hire persons who engage in anal sex?

No ... the 3% who are anal'ers are politically protected.
the 25% who smoke need to learn from that 3%.

[HamiltonJay]

Oh well.. that's life. Get fired, get another job, or better yet, start your own company... hard to get fired, when you are the owner.

[mysterio]

Nope, I believe they have a right to not hire who they don't want to. And I have a right to hate them for their prejudice and secretly hope that a jury agrees with the lady and awards a huge penalty. See how that works?

[ladyjane]

Or maybe she should've just lied.

It's hard to lie about smoking and get away with it.

[bimbo]

Whats the difference whether the descimination occurred during the interview, or after her hiring?

There's a big difference ... some people give up one perfectly secure position to be hired for another.

Do you believe that it's OK for an employer to maliciously uproot an individual simply because he/she smokes?

[commonerX]

"""why shouldn't you be able to fire people who engage in highly dangerous sexual behavior?"""

Not just dangerous sexual behavior, but any dangerous behavior.

No More:
skiing
Riding motorcycles
Using electric tools
etc...

[hosepipe]

[ Her bosses declared: "It's positive discrimination and we're proud of it." Experts agreed the company was not breaking the law. But smokers' pressure group Forest said: "This is outrageous." ]

"Positive Discrimination" is "Affirmative Action" stated another way.. same thing.. very logical to those with Moonbats in their belfry.. Some lawyer(s) could make a name for himself attacking this.. for if one is wrong so is the other.. exactly the same mentality advocating both..

[SW6906]

Yes, it's freedom of association, but it's also a slippery slope if we allow discrimination for one thing but not for another. Who gets to decide what you can discriminate against and what you cannot? Therein lies the power. Where do you draw the line? First smoking, eventually snowskiing.

IMHO, a business should be "allowed" to hire and fire whomever they want - but the firing should only be "for cause" - that is, work-related reasons. If I choose to bugger badgers on the weekend and catch some exotic disease, that's my business - yes, even if the business is paying for my health care. Unless they make it a condition of my employment spelled out at the acceptance of the job offer that I cannot bugger badgers, then they have no right to fire me for doing that on my own time.

[SW6906]

We can't all be business owners - someone has to be the employees.