flamingdog

Am I reading this right? Am I the only one slightly disturbed by the kernel of eugenics I see in this post? DNA screening to ascertain suitability to work? Are you for real?

*Goes back to reading Brave New World*

kutulu

Let me guess, too broadly applied is when it invades your personal life.

Cynthetiq

It doesn't affect performance but can affect MORALS. Some financial companies do not want risky employees who may have motivating for graft and corruption.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

kutulu

If you signed some sort of agreement, that is one thing. Otherwise it's bullshit and should not be allowed.

How exactly does posing in playgirl mean you are morally corrupt?

flstf

Sure, why not if it keeps healthcare costs down for the rest of us. Why should we have to pay more for folks with inferior genes who insist on reproducing? This is of course meant to be ironic. Probably a poor choice of an example on my part.

kutulu

It's not that bad of an example. It shows what extremes this could lead to.

Scorps

Ya I can't see why they can fire you over something you do at home

sixate

Right! Took the words right outa my mouth.

I wish people where I work would get fired for this. That would be fucking great!

NotMVH

People are humans first, not workers.

I can't belive anyone would argue for a company being able to dictate a workers lifestyle. What if they decided next you need to save more money and withheld 1/2 your paycheck in a mandatory savings fund? Or your wife does not meet the educational or financial standards of the company? You spent more then the company felt necisary on christmas gifts? We live on a continent of great freedom, it is unacceptable for a company to take a didactic role for how you can and can not choose to live.

The Ford motorcopy had an entire department around the 20's that would personaly visit their workers homes, inspect their lawns, wife, children and lifesyle to decide wheather they met Ford standards for the legendary $5 dollar a day wage. Not even Ford though would fire workers who did not meet their standards, they simply did not receive the enter income and were left at a base wage around $2.50 a day.

I know someone here will retort with mandatory drug testing, which I don't oppose. I think you limit yourwork force to a certain type of people, not necisarly drug users but people who are willing to accept that kind of involvment. It makes far for more sense to me to have a zero tolernce policy for employee's personal lives affecting their work. Elimenting any need to have testing or policys.

Cynthetiq

So I guess in this continent of Freedom that you speak of, as a business owner I'm not free to pick and choose how I see fit the credentials and requirements of my employees?

You can be human all you want... but if you want to be an employee at some companies you have to follow the guidelines and requirements they have for their employees.

By the same arguments you are making, you then are saying that steroids should be fine for ballplayers because what they do on their time is their own business.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Stompy

What people do on their own time is no one else's business.

The sooner people understand this, the better off we'll be. The end.

Smoking a cigarette doesn't affect worker productivity unless your job is to run around all day.

__________________
I love lamp.

NotMVH

You are basicly free to choose, you have the power only to employee people who want to work for you. You give people compensation for their labour, enough money and perhaps a workforce would jump through every hoop you ask of them.

Not at all, steroids are banned from use, they understood that agreement and felt they could live with it or it did not impose on them. I would have no problem signing an employment contract with mandatory drug testing because I do not use drugs, the policy does not impose on me. If I was asked to sign a contract that included banning alchohal, smoking (a cigar smoker myself) and owning a sports cars, I would refuse. They may all be activities an employer belives could adversly effect my work but all of my hobbies, I can modderate as I choose. The reason for employment is so I can survive and provide a lifestyle for myself I enjoy. For myself, working at a company that restricted my freedom would defeat my main purpose for employment.

TopRamen66

This will be common soon. Its already in effect at the 3000+ employee hospital that I work at. You smoke, you're gone. I wasnt aware that there was a test to determine if someone was smoking though.

Psycho Dad

The guy likely paying the greatest amount of his company group health plan.

__________________
Don't always trust the opinions of experts.

JumpinJesus

Lump me in with the others who think that an employer has no business dictating to its employees what legal activities they may engage in at home or on their own time.

I don't have a problem with them banning smoking from their premises and while on the clock, but I do have a problem with my employer telling me what I can or cannot do in my own time, especially when said activity is legal.

What surprises and frightens me is the number of people who are fine with it. This is largely due to the demonification of tobacco. We find it disgusting, even if it is legal, and therefore are perfectly fine with companies taking punitive action against employees who smoke. Which brings me to this:

Exactly. It's a "do it to them, just don't do it to me" attitude.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

antisuck

Flash this: I have a right to do whatever I want to do, in the privacy of my own home, that is not expressly prohibited by law. Your position seems to be that I have no right to do anything which is not specifically protected.

I wasn't planning a rant, but IMHO your pre-emptive strike against those who would argue with you took out a few neighboring countries in the process.

sixate

Bullfuckingshit!

I work in a place that lets people get away with smoking at work. I get in arguments all the time over smoking. I hate smoke, and I always ask if people would not smoke near me. At first I'm nice about it. Then I'm a raging lunatic. For example, I have put a cig out on the back of one dickheads hand. Been in a few shoving matches at work. Now, are you trying to say that this doesn't make people do less work? The fuckwads that try to piss me off go out of their way to smoke near me. If they would just do their jobs and ignore me I probably wouldn't notice, but noooooooooo. They have to come and fuck with me and get nothing done at work. I've said this to many smokers, and I'll continue to. I have waaaay more respect for shit eaters because at least a shit eater doesn't do it in public and force it on people who think it's disgusting. Hell, if it weren't for the internet I wouldn't even believe that people ate shit. Think about this.... When was the last time you saw a woman shit in a mans mouth in public... Then the man get up and go spit the shit from his mouth into a persons face????? I'll bet never. I see smokers do that hundreds of times a day. This is why I respect shit eaters more than smokers. If smokers were only as polite as shit eaters the world would be a better place.

splck

In the long term, with days off being sick (smokers are off sick more often than non-smokers), your productivity is lowered.

__________________
nice line eh?

Lebell

Ah, it is always easy to discriminate against something that you yourself are not guilty of.

If you REALLY were concerned about health care costs, here are some things you should ban your workers from doing (or MAKE them do):

-smoking: covered here

-obesity: also as mentioned above, this is very dangerous. Even being 10 pounds overweight can have a negative health effect, so a weekly weigh in should be instituted.

-sports: the health care costs of many sports has a negative effect that cannot be balanced by the benefits. For example, people frequently hurt themselves skiing, playing softball, waterskiing, etc. You can work out at the gym, using a company approved workout routine.

-congenital diseases: of course you cannot make someone NOT have one of these, but there are no laws on the books that says you can't screen your employees for them. Even a simple questionaire like, "do you have asthma, a history of heart problems, family members with breast cancer" etc will go a long way towards lowering costs.

-church goers: Yes, this should be required, as studies show that people who pray and go to church tend to be physically and mentally healthier than those who don't. Ditto for being married. (Of course, married people tend to have kids and those tend to have a negative effect on the bottom line as such people selfishly want weekends off to spend with their families...)

-meat eaters: vegetarians also tend to be healthier than meat eaters, so no more steak for you, or your dog.

-pet owners: owning a pet tends to make people happier and healthier (it lowers the blood pressure), so a fuzzy holdable pet should be mandatory.

and finally,

-alcoholic consumption: studies show that a small glass of wine or similar alchohol is actually good for you, but no more. Like to go out drinking and partying? So sorry.

Of course, it gets so damn silly that NO ONE will be working, as no one can meet the impossible list of 'no-noes".

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Stiltzkin

People should be allowed to smoke at home if they friggin' want to. And I say this despite the fact that I think smoking is one of the most disgusting things a human being can do. What bothers me is when people smoke in public places that I cannot avoid, such as my college campus. SURE, people can do whatever the hell they want with their bodies, GIVEN that they are not harming other people in doing so. I'm allergic to the smoke; it usually makes me feel really ill, my sinuses act up, and it is just horrible. It just pisses me off that the liberal arts building *has* to be crammed with people smoking around it all the damn time. Yes, people should have the right to destroy themselves if they want to--fill your lungs with all the tar you want, I honestly don't care. Just don't spread the disease to me! Please! That's a fair exchange, no? I forfeit my right to bitch at smokers for doing something I consider to be disgusting, while smokers forfeit their right to ignore common courtesy.

__________________
The most important thing in this world is love.

mrklixx

This is going to turn into an ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) lawsuit, you watch.

__________________
This post is content. If you don't like it then you are not content. Or perhaps just incontinent.

This is not a link - Do not click here

I hate animated avatars.

Amano

But there's a clause in the constitution that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS that ANYONE should have control of what people do in their private life, after work. As long as you don't injure another person, you should have the right to do whatever the hell you want. period.

Seething

Alright, I'm pissed off at how people in this thread are making gross generalizations. So now if someone smokes, they're no longer a "person", they're a "smoker". And not just a person who enjoys smoking, but they're a "smoker" that represents every bad experience the person has had with someone who smokes.

As you could have guessed, I smoke. After reading this thread, I've learned that I'm a "smoker" who blows smoke in people's faces (never done it), smoke wherever the hell I feel like (I don't), and I'm not as productive at work as a nonsmoker(bullshit). Stereotype much? I also wear glasses. Are you now going to tell me I'm not as productive because I have to spend a couple seconds every now and then to clean them? I also have a working bladder and need to use the restroom every now and then. Would someone with small bladder need to be fired because they use the bathroom more than others? Give me a fucking break.

As for the company that's firing their employees that smoke, fuck them. I can't complain because it's their right to employ whomever they want as much as it's my right to smoke. But I do think it's absolutely stupid to tell their employees what they can and cannot do at home. I get the feeling the president would fuck over all his employees in the name of cutting costs and saving himself a few bucks.

__________________
Common sense is uncommon. Ironic, isn't it?

bad jane

i'm against it as well. and yes, i smoke.

it doesn't make me any less productive at work--my breaks are scheduled (as are those of non-smokers). as for sick days, hrm...i've not had one in a couple of years. then again, our "sick" days are the same as vacation days. you only get so many and then you're out the door. i've been working on the same floor of the same hospital for four years, we've had several people fired for taking too many days off work but none of them were smokers (or if they did smoke, it was never at work). statistically, workers may indeed take more sick days. then again, statistically, workers with children take more sick days too. and since they have as much choice about being a parent as i do in choosing to smoke...

i know of several local places that don't let employees smoke on the premises--not even in their cars. and i'm fine with that. if my hospital instituted a no-smoking policy, i'd find another job or quit smoking. but even if i were a non-smoker, i would never work for an employer who wanted to restrict what legal activities i could and could not do on my own time.

i have long accepted the fact that some people will assume the worst of me because i smoke. these same people will also assume the worst of someone who is overweight. these people are assholes, plain and simple. anyone who doesn't meet their standards is inferior and they have no probs treating them as such.

i enjoy smoking, i have zero desire to give it up. but i don't force my habit on anyone else. in public, i go to designated smoking areas when i light up. i don't throw my butts on the ground or out the car window. i don't blow smoke in anyone's face--smokers or non-smokers because believe it or not, smokers find that offensive too! i don't smoke in cars with non-smokers and i don't smoke in the homes of non-smokers. i may have a habit you don't like, but it doesn't mean i have to be rude about it.

Bill O'Rights

Settle down, big guy. Your problem is not with smokers. Your problem is with assholes that also just happen to be...smokers. My guess is that they would be fucking with you no matter what. They just happen to know what gets a reaction out of you and use it as such.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

JumpinJesus

I wonder how much work you didn't finish due to shoving people around and putting cigarettes out on people's hands? Don't you realize that such hostility is unproductive and unhealthy? Is your insurance company aware of your propensity for anger and violence?

Before you put a cigarette out in my eye, bear in mind that I'm being facetious.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

pig

I have a quick question, and I do not claim to be anything near an expert in the area. Many posters have made statements along the lines of "A company should have / does have the right to hire who they wish, based on whatever criteria they choose, so long as it doesn't violate Federal / State discrimination laws."

My question is this : in my understanding, companies are offered rather interesting tax breaks from the Federal and State governments, which is one of the reasons that wealthy individuals form S-Corps and other tax shelters, from what I understand. So, if a company is getting some form of tax break / incentive from the government, based on everyone's tax dollars, does this or does this not, in some sense, oblige them to be considerate of everyone who is paying into the pool? Ergo, perhaps I would agree more closely with the bolded statement above, if a company took its normal tax withholdings, determined the proportion of people who have "offensive" behavior out of the general population, deducted this fractional portion from their tax incentives, and paid more back into the general pool. Otherwise, you're taking money to increase your "productivity" from people you despise, and will not even hire. Regardless of whether their low-down, despicable behavior is conducted in the privacy of their own homes.

/my opinion

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style