Big Brother is now hiring.

[twospirits]

Like Flatrater said, its just one mans way of pushing his views over the employees, plain and simple. Besides the issue of the employer controlling your habits off their premises, I am also concerned for the fact that these people might contribute to more problems such as unemployement being that they are now out of a job as well as where does one draw the line of what is considered discrimination and keeping the costs of healthcare down.

Do we stop there, or do we continue to go after obese people, older workers, drinkers, females who are preguant and will take maternity leave,

Unbelievable

TS out

[DGB454]

Originally Posted by Flatrater

The law is called "AT WILL EMPLOYMENT"

This has nothing to do with insurance costs because he plans on doing the same thing with overweigth people. And we all know that insurance costs are not affected if you are overweight. It's about a business owner pushing his views on his employees.

Thanks. I couldn't remember that name for some reason.
On the interview I saw with a spokesman he said it did have to do with the insurance cost. Even if it wasn't the real reason it's not all together a bad reason. It's true that the cost of insurance isn't affected if you are overweight but that person isn't as healthy as the average not overweight person. Being overweight contributes to many health problems and in the long run cost the insurance company more money.

I'm not saying I agree with his decission. I am just saying he has a legitimate reason and they can't do much about it.

[SniperX13]

maybe its just my view.... but if the company chooses to make those rules for it... so be it? who cares. No one is putting a gun to those employee's heads, and forcing them to work at that particular company. If its a bad policy, they will realize it as no one comes and works for them.

[Heep]

Originally Posted by SniperX13

maybe its just my view.... but if the company chooses to make those rules for it... so be it? who cares. No one is putting a gun to those employee's heads, and forcing them to work at that particular company. If its a bad policy, they will realize it as no one comes and works for them.

Well it's one thing if they were initially refused employment, but these were existing employees who were being more or less forced to leave...

[SniperX13]

Originally Posted by Heep

Well it's one thing if they were initially refused employment, but these were existing employees who were being more or less forced to leave...

again, I see where you are coming from, but yet again, they weren't forced out of the company. According to the article, the company Weyer Inc, Released to its employee's the fact that they were going to enact this policy in 2003. It went active January 1st. Before this policy was enacted, approximately 14 people chose to stop smoking, instead of seeking other employment. The 4 that were fired, weren't fired because they were smoking, they were fired because they refused to take the agency's test. Is it pretty screwed up how a company enacted a policy like this, yeah, its kinda shitty, but the employees seem to have been given ample opportunity to either change their habit, or seek other employment.

Its called freedom of choise. 14 people made a choice, and so did those 4. Everyone in this world must suffer the consequences of their own actions. If you do something, then bitch and moan because you made the choice, you knew the risks, you knew the penalties, and yet still chose to do what you did, then I feel no remorse towards you when you get burned.

[fredjacksonsan]

It's sad that these people chose to smoke over keeping their job, and are now complaining about it.

They had more than a year I think to complain to management, file court papers, or whatever before the policy went into effect.

Sounds like part of what this employer is doing is expanding the list of drugs that employees won't be allowed to be under the influence of at work.

[PeanutM&MsRgood4u]

IMO I dont see why this is such a big deal. If I am a white, healthy, non-smoking, male, and I own a company, shouldn't I be allowed to decide that I only want other white, healthy, non-smoking, males to work for me? I mean granted maybe it isnt the most politically correct, but thats whats great about a capatilist economy, if someone does want to run their company in a way that its customers don't agree with, then the customers can just find someone else. I mean its one thing if its a govt. agency, or a govt. allowed monopoly, but in the private sector I can't see any reason why a person shouldn't be allowed to hire or fire whoever they want to, for whatever reason they want to.

[fredjacksonsan]

I think you're wrong on the race and sex issues. You can't just hire someone (or not) because of their sex or the color of their skin.

I agree with you on the smoking issue though; the company in question apparently decided that the 80% chance of someone who smokes developing lung cancer was an unacceptable risk and a costly insurance burden, so they do not allow that "drug" to be used by their people. I'd bet that they get a huge break on their health insurance because of it.

[PeanutM&MsRgood4u]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

I think you're wrong on the race and sex issues. You can't just hire someone (or not) because of their sex or the color of their skin.

I agree with you on the smoking issue though; the company in question apparently decided that the 80% chance of someone who smokes developing lung cancer was an unacceptable risk and a costly insurance burden, so they do not allow that "drug" to be used by their people. I'd bet that they get a huge break on their health insurance because of it.

Why not? I think anyone who owns a company should be able to hire or fire for whatever reasons they see fit. Race, Religion, Sex, Age, whatever. Chances are if you do that kind of thing people are gonna find out and not want to buy your product/service because they don't support your racism, sexism, ect.. but you should still be allowed to make that decision.

[YogsVR4]

If you are the owner of the company - I mean the only one. You can hire whoever you want. In fact, a lot of small businesses do that.

[fredjacksonsan]

Originally Posted by PeanutM&MsRgood4u

Why not? I think anyone who owns a company should be able to hire or fire for whatever reasons they see fit. Race, Religion, Sex, Age, whatever. Chances are if you do that kind of thing people are gonna find out and not want to buy your product/service because they don't support your racism, sexism, ect.. but you should still be allowed to make that decision.

They should be able to, and as Yogs said, often do. But it is illegal to hire using race, religion, sex or age as criteria.

[T4 Primera]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

...the company in question apparently decided that the 80% chance of someone who smokes developing lung cancer...

Where did you get that figure from - 8 out of 10 smokers get lung cancer? Or did I misinterpret?

[fredjacksonsan]

I forget where exactly, it was an article on lung cancer, it said that 80% of long term smokers got lung cancer. I'll try and find it and post the link.

[fredjacksonsan]

Here you go, online stuff:

http://www.aarogya.com/Conditions/Sp...Lung/index.asp

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/co...p?sitearea=PED

http://hcd2.bupa.co.uk/fact_sheets/h...ng_cancer.html


I may have had the stats wrong; 80% of lung cancer patients are smokers.

[T4 Primera]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

I may have had the stats wrong; 80% of lung cancer patients are smokers.

Thanks, that makes more sense.