Skip to comments.
Springfield firefighter fired for smoking cigarette in car (MA Liberal Nazi Alert)
Boston Globe
| 11-1-02
| Associated Press
Posted on 11/01/2002 4:25:30 AM PST by Lance Romance
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-51 next last
The no-smoking law calls for the firing of any firefighter or police officer hired after Jan. 1, 1988, who is caught smoking tobacco products on or off duty. Can this possibly be legal? Homosexuality is much more life threatening than cigarettes.
To: Lance Romance
This is the slippery slope smokers were talking about.....this is very, very disturbing.
2
posted on
11/01/2002 4:32:51 AM PST
by
smiley
To: Lance Romance
If you are foolish enough to sign on the dotted line, you accept the consequences.
3
posted on
11/01/2002 4:38:17 AM PST
by
Glenn
To: Lance Romance
there is no way (in any right thinking person's mind) that firing someone for off-duty smoking could be legal
To: Lance Romance
The law was enacted under a pension reform measure that automatically presumes that heart ailments for police and firefighters are job-related disabilities. The accidental disability pension provides for 72 percent of a police officer or firefighter's final salary, annuity, and allowance for dependents - all tax free. This sounds like the result of Union activity. Likely the fire fighters and police unions wanted a bigger pension benefit when members were forced to retired for heart decease. So the legislature decided that if they were to pay out they taxpayer deserved to be assured that they were not paying for self inflicted injury.
Being that the firefighter new what the rules of the job was when he accepted the job, he has no reason to complain.
He agreed to the contract.
5
posted on
11/01/2002 4:49:10 AM PST
by
Pontiac
To: Lance Romance
Let me see, how does go this go again...oh yeah, if you don't like your employer's substance abuse policy, then don't take the job.
6
posted on
11/01/2002 4:59:20 AM PST
by
Wolfie
To: Lance Romance
...a trooper arrested him on July 22 for driving erratically, the Springfield Fire Commission found. He also faces criminal charges of possession of crack cocaine and OxyContin and several motor vehicle violations.
|
|
Presumably the drug and motor vehicle violations weren't as heinous as smoking a cigarette. |
This is kind of like having a cop find a bullet-riddled body in the trunk of your car and you get busted for not wearing your seatbelt.
7
posted on
11/01/2002 5:09:23 AM PST
by
Fintan
Comment #8 Removed by Moderator
To: Glenn
If you are foolish enough to sign on the dotted line, you accept the consequences. What a "foolish" statement. Blackbird.
To: Lance Romance
Point One: I'm sure there were many firefighters and police who had already signed the dotted line and were working
when this rule was enacted. Let's say they're 18 yr vets- for a gov't organization too, this isn't private- what are they supposed to suddenly quit their jobs a couple years before retirement or quit smoking?
Point Two: you will note that the reason the rule was enacted was health insurance. Never ever let social medicine become a reality in the States. It is trojan horse that brings the loss of all other freedoms. The gov't will say they have to ban unhealthy behavior because of the burden to the public.
This is crazy. People will allow it to happen because they've been taught to hate smokers and because it only affects roughly 25% of the population. They'll sniff and say "well, it'll be better for them- they should quit smoking and it'll lower insurance rates".
So let them outlaw my bad habit- but when the gov't outlaws stupidity I won't say a word when the Jack Boots come to drag my neighbors away- I'll be too busy hotboxing one of my stash in the basement.
To: Pontiac
Not so fast. The rule just came in to effect, and impacts firefighters and policemen hired since 1988. That means the rules probably changed after he "signed on the dotted line".
I wonder if the governmental agencies were required to provide and pay for programs and aids designed to help the smokers quit. While I hate government programs, it seem to me that you should pay for it if you tell someone to do something.
I also think the heart disease issue is relatively week. If they are going to worry about heart disease they should require everyone to be fit and to maintain low cholesterol.
Besides. The guy's job entails inhaling smoke on a near daily basis. Lots of the things that burn in the average fire have toxins far more dangerous than cigarettes.
To: Lance Romance
The evils of demon tobacco!
12
posted on
11/01/2002 6:33:32 AM PST
by
Junior
To: sharktrager
Not so fast. The rule just came in to effect Not so fast yourself. While the article says that he is the first to be fired under the rule, it does not say this is a new law.
Your Freeper page does not have a local for you. Are from Mass. or are you just assuming that this is a new law?
My experience with such maters in the union world is that such provisions only apply to new hires after the rule goes into effect.
13
posted on
11/01/2002 6:36:50 AM PST
by
Pontiac
To: BlackbirdSST
What a "foolish" statement. Blackbird.Do you suppose someone held a gun to this moron's head to force him to take a job where the rule is: YOU CANNOT SMOKE! IF YOU DO YOU WILL BE FIRED!?
I wouldn't have taken the job because I couldn't live up to the policy. I guess you see him as just another "victim"?
14
posted on
11/01/2002 6:49:54 AM PST
by
Glenn
To: Lance Romance
So, let me get this straight: he smokes crack and cigarettes...and gets fired for the cigarettes?!?
15
posted on
11/01/2002 6:52:47 AM PST
by
B Knotts
To: Glenn
To help settle the argument. This was passed in 1987. Massachusetts is always ahead of their time when passing socialist/dictatorial laws pertaining to privacy rights.
Mass. Gen. L. ch. 41, § 101A, passed in 1987, reads as follows: Subsequent to January first, nineteen hundred and eighty-eight, noperson who smokes any tobacco product shall be eligible for appointment as a police officer or firefighter in a city or town and no person so appointed after said date shall continue in such office or position if such person thereafter smokes any tobacco products. The personnel administrator shall promulgate regulations for the implementation of this section.
Comment #17 Removed by Moderator
To: WORLD SUCKELS USAS BREAST
Thanks for the support, but your whining is almost as annoying as the smoke you hate.
To: Lance Romance
Can this possibly be legal?Yeah, it's legal - Turner Broadcasting has this rule in place. When I worked at CNN, there was an area as you headed out toward the parking deck where the smokers would congregate, and the security folk would pretty much look the other way though.
Someone tried to sue Turner over it, and lost. [shrug]
I smoked cigars at home during that period -- and dared anyone to say word one to me.
19
posted on
11/01/2002 6:58:39 AM PST
by
mhking
To: Howlin; Ed_NYC; MonroeDNA; widgysoft; Springman; FreedomPoster; Timesink; AntiGuv; dpa5923; ...
"Hold muh beer 'n watch this!" PING....If you want on or off this list, please let me know!
This has come about after much badgering by you, my friends and extended family...
20
posted on
11/01/2002 6:59:56 AM PST
by
mhking
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-51 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson