So you're looking for a job are you? Good luck if you're....

[jp61]

No comment!
Al

Thanks for commenting on not commenting Al :D

 

[jp61]

When the day comes and chances are good it's coming with time. Where the majority of the work force will be robots, employers won't be having any of these work related issues. No more payroll, health insurance, 401K, bowel movements, breaks, lunch, sick days, vacation, etc,....

I guess all the unhealthy sinners, smokers and useless eaters will be eagerly conforming to "regulations" at their designated location like good little boys and girls anxiously waiting for the drone delivery of their monthly government issued cheese :eek:

LMAO

 

[gmc2003]

jp61, In Vt. it's not just the employer's - it's the state, cities and towns trying to regulate our lifestyles.

Chris

 

[HalfSmoked]

jp61 thanks for the likes.

As a teenager I worked in a canning house (corn and peas) (was not yesterday either) the first year there was 600 per shift by the end of three years I was there less then 300 a shift due to automation so yes it's coming. Then we can all eat drink smoke or what ever at home because there will be no jobs or bosses.

Warren

 

[jp61]

jp61 thanks for the likes.

As a teenager I worked in a canning house (corn and peas) (was not yesterday either) the first year there was 600 per shift by the end of three years I was there less then 300 a shift due to automation so yes it's coming. Then we can all eat drink smoke or what ever at home because there will be no jobs or bosses.

Warren

At the rate technology is advancing today that scenario isn't all that far-fetched. It's all about the bottom line, right?

 

[HalfSmoked]

So sad but true. Even in surgeries a robot can repair your heart.

Warren

 

[johnmeyer]

The fact is that some employers will not hire people who consume any of the tobacco products on the market today. That by definition is discrimination in my book. They are using the power of the paycheck to tell their employees what they can and cannot do in the privacy of their own homes. What a person does legally during non-working hours away from the workplace should not be the basis for discrimination.

Where do we draw the line as to what an employer can "regulate" and how? Virtually every lifestyle choice we make has some health related consequence. And there's also this thing called heredity.

Should an employer be able to forbid someone from eating cheeseburgers, riding a motorcycle or sunbathing? All of these activities entail a health risk. Should they be permitted to deny employment do to potential risk of genetic disease? Maybe that's a bit too much, how bout just high blood pressure or high cholesterol level.

The driving force behind this trend is the root of all evil, money. Employers may one day very well try to "regulate" every health related aspect of their employees' lives, including diet, drinking, hobbies, sleep habit, etc,.

The issue here is the right of individuals to lead the lives they choose. Employers should not be permitted to regulate peoples lives 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in my humble opinion.

It is hard to argue with the points you make, although I am not sure that money is really the root of all evil, even though that is a popular old expression.

The only other point I would make is that the employer isn't really regulating your life because, as others have already pointed out, you don't have to work for that company and, if you are honest on your application, they simply won't hire you and therefore you won't have to bend to their will.

I should also point out that I am glad that airlines try (not always successfully) to weed out pilots with substance abuse problems. Even if they snort coke or smoke weed at home, it is impossible for me to believe that they are as sharp on the job as would a non drug user.

The medical profession also attempts to keep their doctors sober. For this, I also am grateful: do you want your doc to be operating on you while suffering from a hangover, even though technically sober at the time of the operation? My point is that activities that are done in the privacy of your home can still have a bad impact on other people while you are at work, both workmates and customers.

And, as someone who had to pay insurance for employees and for myself since 1985, that "evil money" is pretty hard to ignore when your insurance premiums start to skyrocket. Where is the money supposed to come from? If my employees' smoking cause the rates for everyone to go up (because it is a group plan), I must raise prices, become less competitive, and possibly have to lay people off because the company can't sell as much. I've run three companies, and it really does work like that.

 

[chopsaw]

You could always start your own business and only hire smokers ,,,,

 

[jp61]

You could always start your own business and only hire smokers ,,,,

That would be discriminating.
I would hire people that qualify for the job.

 

[jp61]

It is hard to argue with the points you make, although I am not sure that money is really the root of all evil, even though that is a popular old expression. It's never enough. Greed is a disease and the root of many of society's problems. I am not against business or making a profit.

The only other point I would make is that the employer isn't really regulating your life because, as others have already pointed out, you don't have to work for that company and, if you are honest on your application, they simply won't hire you and therefore you won't have to bend to their will. This isn't about me, I've had a job all my adult life and have been with the latest for three decades. What happens if all employers decide to jump on the wagon? All the tobacco product(s) users go on welfare?

I should also point out that I am glad that airlines try (not always successfully) to weed out pilots with substance abuse problems. Even if they snort coke or smoke weed at home, it is impossible for me to believe that they are as sharp on the job as would a non drug user. Me too, although I hardly ever fly. I have been talking about the use of legal products.

The medical profession also attempts to keep their doctors sober. For this, I also am grateful: do you want your doc to be operating on you while suffering from a hangover, even though technically sober at the time of the operation? My point is that activities that are done in the privacy of your home can still have a bad impact on other people while you are at work, both workmates and customers. Again, I am talking about legal products.

And, as someone who had to pay insurance for employees and for myself since 1985, that "evil money" is pretty hard to ignore when your insurance premiums start to skyrocket. Where is the money supposed to come from? If my employees' smoking cause the rates for everyone to go up (because it is a group plan), I must raise prices, become less competitive, and possibly have to lay people off because the company can't sell as much. I've run three companies, and it really does work like that. Did I mention greed?

 

[chopsaw]

Good answer ,,, but that would be your right . You could start a small company of ,,, lets say 4 employees . They all smoke . They like each other , so why not all go smoke at the same time ? You're a good boss that smokes , so why not go with them ? So 4 10 minute smoke breaks a day x 5 would be ,,, Help me here ,,, you're paying the bill how much is it ?

 

[jp61]

Good answer ,,, but that would be your right . You could start a small company of ,,, lets say 4 employees . They all smoke . They like each other , so why not all go smoke at the same time ? You're a good boss that smokes , so why not go with them ? So 4 10 minute smoke breaks a day x 5 would be ,,, Help me here ,,, you're paying the bill how much is it ?

Companies set policies...... NO SMOKING, 15 minute breaks, half hour lunch, attendance, etc., if one can't follow them they should get fired. Discrimination is a different animal.

 

[chopsaw]

Companies set policies...... NO SMOKING, 15 minute breaks, half hour lunch, attendance, etc., if one can't follow them they should get fired. Discrimination is a different animal.

I totally agree . well said . Thanks .

 

[GaryHibbert]

Good answer ,,, but that would be your right . You could start a small company of ,,, lets say 4 employees . They all smoke . They like each other , so why not all go smoke at the same time ? You're a good boss that smokes , so why not go with them ? So 4 10 minute smoke breaks a day x 5 would be ,,, Help me here ,,, you're paying the bill how much is it ?

4 smoke breaks a day?? Good grief Charlie Brown, I smoke 2 packs of 25 a day.
That's why I'm self employed, eat while I'm driving, and light up a smoke in my Freightliner whenever I feel like it. Not bothering anybody and nobody's bothering me.
Gary

 

[hb99]

That would be discriminating.
I would hire people that qualify for the job.

I was going to say that...hire only qualified employees. In this (future) case, "non-smoker" COULD BECOME a job requirement. Basically, if you smoke you're not qualified. People who are afraid of heights don't apply for a job to build sky scrapers.

Take the fight for $15/hr minimum wage for instance. If I were a business owner and the Govt demanded I pay my employees $15/hr I would re-write all of my job descriptions and make it a requirement that anyone without a high school diploma/GED does not meet my minimum educational requirements. That's not discrimination if it's a qualification requirement.

One of the internships I was went through had a minimum requirement of an Associate's degree.

Employers are always trying to keep costs down so profit remains steady or grows. That only makes sense from a business point. If 1 employee smokes everyone's premium goes up. It would only make sense they would want non-smokers.

Smoking is a choice. A self-inflicted addiction. I know. I smoked for 18 years, but I quit (the first time I tried) back on March 1 , 1990, coming up on 28 years.

 

[atomicsmoke]

Any strip mall office lawyer would have a field day with a case like this...if it weren't about smoking. If it were about an obese person with full on diabetes....different story. Both lifestyle choices, one socially accepted.

If it comes down to the bottom line why not offer the smoker employee the option to pay the additional insurance costs out of his pocket?

 

[hb99]

Any strip mall office lawyer would have a field day with a case like this...if it weren't about smoking. If it were about an obese person with full on diabetes....different story. Both lifestyle choices, one socially accepted.

If it comes down to the bottom line why not offer the smoker employee the option to pay the additional insurance costs out of his pocket?

Sorry, but diabetes is not a life-style choice. My 150 lb son-in-law is a diabetic and he has to check his blood sugar before meals.

It's the insurance companies who are driving these demands of their insured. They don't want to insure high risk people. Same as they won't insure sky divers.

 

[atomicsmoke]

Sorry, but diabetes is not a life-style choice. My 150 lb son-in-law is a diabetic and he has to check his blood sugar before meals.

It's the insurance companies who are driving these demands of their insured. They don't want to insure high risk people. Same as they won't insure sky divers.

I am sorry if you felt that i meant disabetes itself is a lifestyle condition.

In my post, on purpose, i exemplified with an obese individual with diabetes.

An obese person with other health conditions is a high risk person in the Ins Co eyes.

The skydiver comparison is extreme and you know it.

Smokers can get insurance by paying more, skydivers can't (unless they go for special coverage).

 

[atomicsmoke]

One more thing: most of us here eat very unhealthy if you go by the Gov Food guide or what Ins Co expect from us, the low risk insured.

 

[hb99]

I am sorry if you felt that i meant disabetes itself is a lifestyle condition.

In my post, on purpose, i exemplified with an obese individual with diabetes.

An obese person with other health conditions is a high risk person in the Ins Co eyes.

The skydiver comparison is extreme and you know it.

Smokers can get insurance by paying more, skydivers can't (unless they go for special coverage).

No problem... :D Some people can't grasp slight differences so I went extreme to make a point.

All's well.