quote:

---

Four employees of a health care company have been fired for refusing to take a test to determine whether they smoke cigarettes.

Weyco Inc., a health benefits administrator based in Okemos, Mich., adopted a policy Jan. 1 that allows employees to be fired if they smoke, even if the smoking happens after business hours or at home.

---

Company Fires All Employees Who Smoke

--------------------

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by FS:
Wow, I can't believe I'm agreeing with FS on this one

---

?????????????

--------------------

On one hand I am commending the company (because tobacco totally sucks), on the other bashing it (for invading their employees' private lives).

Good policy, except that it should be limited to workplace only.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by FS:
Wow, I can't believe I'm agreeing with FS on this one

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GFKiller:
I can understand it to an extent. They probably need to mark it off for the insurance they off to their employees. So they need to take a test so they aren't committing fraud.

---

It's illegal in most states to discriminate against smokers. Smoking is a legal activity. It's a lifestyle if you want to call it that. What's next, screening for those who eat at McDonalds, and firing them because McDonalds is unhealthy?

--------------------

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by FS:
Wow, I can't believe I'm agreeing with FS on this one

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FS:
McDonalds doesn't cause a health hazard or physical discomfort to the person standing next to the guy eating McD chow.

---

As far as I know, no-one disputes that breathing smoke is a bad thing, FS. - These people were fired for smoking, period. It would be the same as firing someone for eating McDonalds.

--------------------

Not the same thing but those workers should sue. First the company they worked for, then the cigarette companies for selling an addictive product, then the governments of both Michigan and the United States for allowing an additive substance to be sold over the counter in the first place.

Smoking cigarettes is legal and requiring those employees to take a test to determine wheter or not they engage in a "Legal" practice is also invasion of thier privacy and personal rights.

Regardless of ones thoughts concerning the actual habit, there is a bigger issue here.

[ 01-25-2005: Message edited by: Devastator ]

--------------------

All I'm saying is these people were denying the test and the company has to give it for insurance purposes. If you ever noticed the cost of life insurance is more if you are a smoker compared to a non-smoker? Well employers have to do this also if they are insuring their employees. If you deny the test, the company cannot falsify documents (fraud).

quote:

---

McDonalds doesn't cause a health hazard or physical discomfort to the person standing next to the guy eating McD chow.

---

Seriously. So I smoke. You inhale some second hand smoke and studies show you MIGHT get cancer. Same can be said for sitting in traffic inhaling exhaust fumes. Maybe we should ban cars?
I drive. People die every day because other people drive cars and hit them. Another reason to ban cars.

I'll be the first to admit that smoking isn't the greatest thing you can do but c'mon. Our society has evolved into one that wants the government to build this invisible protective bubble around them that will protect them from all evil. Hell. Look at playgrounds. Did anyone here ever die because there wasn't crushed rubber tires under a friggin' swing?
Anyways, that's my rant. Yes I agree smoking is bad for you. Yes I agree second hand smoke MAY be a problem although I know of no second hand smokers that are addicted to second hand smoke. My main concern is what's next after this battle is won. You know there'll be a next.

[ 01-25-2005: Message edited by: dAm ]

--------------------

Thankfully, I live in Massachusetts where smoking is banned from public places.

quote:

---

second hand smoke is not only dangerous, it's disgusting

---

--------------------

--------------------

“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.”

“Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.”

--------------------

It sucks for the employees, but the company is just covering its own ass. They don't want to eat the costs for insurance benefits if one of those cancer-whores kicks the bucket.

Smoking is bad. I've already lost an uncle to it and now my mother is having problems. Screw people who smoke around those who clearly do not want anything to do with it. Its disgusting and fatal.

I cannot believe the people that posted here supporting something like this and I don’t mean Fess who stated both sides to the issue.

I think some of us here are confused about our rights as citizens.

Of course they can prohibit smoking inside their building and even outside on the premises. However what people do in their own home (and in this case legally) is none of their business.

Acid you never cease to amaze me. lol.

--------------------

How long until we get our damn bar codes tattooed on our foreheads?

--------------------

BUT....There are other solutions...ie...company only provides a certain amount of cash to the insurance company. If you smoke, you have to cover the difference out of pocket.

Unfortunately, this will likely set off a huge legal whirlwind in which the little guy is going to lose, and major corps will lose.

dAm - You make a good point about breathing toxic fumes in traffic. If anti-smokers cared about their health so much, why don't they push as hard to get everyone out of cars and onto bicycles instead? It's because the issue of health is a secondary concern to them. The scientific facts about 2nd hand smoker only give anti-smokers impetus on which they can feel justified in harassing and belittling smokers as being less smart or healthy than they are which of course isn't necessarily true. In my experience, what really motivates a lot anti-smokers is their resentment for having to breath someone's gross 2nd hand smoke in public. I feel the same way, but instead of whining and working myself and everyone up over it, I tolerate it. I know that in a bar, it's a bearable physical discomfort, not so much of a dire health hazard. I know that if I don't want to breath it, I can walk to the other side fo the bar or go somewhere else to get drinks.

What bothers me the most is that this hyped up dislike for smokers is making it easy for people to accept laws that infringe upon and discriminate against smokers. Many private businesses that serve food and/or drink are forced by law to built smoke-free sections for non-smoking customers. That is an infringment on business owners. If someone doesn't like the environment within a restaurant, then they don't have to enter. Why should the owner have to bend for a certain group of people. It's his establishment.

Another thing... the 2nd hand argument is being used to justify laws restricting any outdoor smoking in certain places. That's truly retarded... I can understand no smoking zones inside public buildings and crowded outside areas, but outside at parks in the open where people are extremely unlikely to be affected? The potential for negative health effects from 2nd hand smoke drop exponentially when outside, especially in comparison to the ill health effects of vehicle exhaust and industrial pollutents that we breath every day when outside. Such laws are being justified outside of scientific fact and common sense.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by GFKiller:
I can understand it to an extent. They probably need to mark it off for the insurance they off to their employees. So they need to take a test so they aren't committing fraud.

---

that strikes me as odd. It can be shown that homosexual males have a higher incidence of AIDS, and AIDS is a far more expensive disease than cancer. Would it be acceptible fire all gay men? In that sense, isn't the choice of pursuing smoking similar to the choice of pursuing homosexuality?

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by WillyTrombone:
that strikes me as odd. It can be shown that homosexual males have a higher incidence of AIDS, and AIDS is a far more expensive disease than cancer. Would it be acceptible fire all gay men? In that sense, isn't the choice of pursuing smoking similar to the choice of pursuing homosexuality?

---

So yeah, it IS the same thing sort of.

--------------------

--------------------

--------------------

McDonalds is NOT unhealthy. Where does that come from anyway? McD food contains beef, chicked or fish, as well as bread and salad. it's a pretty good meal really. No extra fat used for frying the burgers either. This is just the burgers, fries are the same at McD as in all other places. The food doesn't have anything wrong with it, it's just that people eat too much of it in comparison with their energy consumption, so they grow fat. That's not McDonald's fault, the people would grow just as fat eating the same stuff bought elsewhere.

Dev - I think the policy doesn't even consider joints, just yer regular fags But the government should definitely be sued for selling tobacco, at least as long as alcohol is sold and hemp isn't.

Cigarette smoke and transportation/industry exhaust don't compare for one very major difference. One is an addictive and useless habit with no good sides, and the other is an unfortunate byproduct of doing something productive. Farting cannot be helped, as unpleasant as it may be. However common good manners suggest an appropriate place for this activity.

Homosexuals cannot help their predicament, unlike smokers, so shouldn't be discriminated against.

Now, if I were King of the World, I'd rule that:

* smoking would be illegal everywhere where the smoke can be sensed by a non-smoking person or anyone under the age of 18

* it's illegal to drive in city centers, unless you are disabled, a taxi/bus/tram driver, or transporting a heavy load. This applies for cities only, not towns, where a city is defined as a place where public transportation can be practically arranged

* all industry must update their processes if a new technology emerges that cuts waste emission by more than 10% of current levels

* gas would be so heavily taxed that people would choose their vehicles based on fuel economy or simply opt for public transportation where available. The tax money would be used for subsidising research into alternative energy forms, and for subsidising transportation costs in rural areas

I'll add more as I think of them...

Lucky for you I'm not in power. Yet.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by FS:
Wow, I can't believe I'm agreeing with FS on this one

---

first

--------------------

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by FS:
Wow, I can't believe I'm agreeing with FS on this one

---

So it would seem more reasonable for someone bent on having a healthy workforce to screen for couch potatos and fast food eaters on the payroll, and fire their asses. Basically, if you can fire people based on merely wanting a certain kind of workforce, you can discriminate against them in almost any way you please. That's where this is going, and that's largely why it is wrong.

Homosexuals cannot help their predicament, unlike smokers, so shouldn't be discriminated against.

There is no evidence to support this theory of yours. It's propaganda.

--------------------

Anyway, the thing is they violated personal rights. They discriminated against a person for refusing to take a test to screen for a legal substance. This was ALSO done not as a pre-confition of employment, therefore it is illegal. This substance is not impairing in any way. If an employee smokes outside of business, he does not affect anyone in the business at all.

Acid, you are a fucking idiot on this one. Kyle, with all due respect, you are. From The Patriot Act all the way to this...I cannot believe the drivel and hypocrisy that comes out of your mouth in support of this. Being such a conservative yet utlimately being such a tree hugging Liberal. Where do you stand on personal freedoms boy?

As for McDonald's...McDonald's is WORSE than smoking IMO. The results of McDonald's are much faster...and more evident. Their food, due to the nature of it and how it reacts with our body chemistry, is addictive as well. Yet they are exempt from such discrimination.

I hope they can start firing fat people. Yes...make it legal to fire a person simply cause you are fat. Then these poor people will not be able to work and thus not afford McDonald's and be forced to eat like an Ethiopian...thus getting skinny and being able to rejoin the workforce. Sounds stupid....so does a workplace nicotine test!

There is a bit of a rant...

--------------------

“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.”

“Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.”

And FS...McDonald's fattened pigs don't cause a physical discomfort to the guy next to them? You should have seen when I figured I would go to the movies with some friends (Zippy was there) and I figured I was in perfect seating. Nobody to the left of me...dead center. What happens? A fucking walrus grew legs and sat beside me!

The fat fuck was there bitching to his other fatass friend about how the popcorn and Coke was a rip off at over $20. I felt like telling the fucker next time he should have only got 1 extra large of each. No shit...the guy by himself ate 2 extra large popcorns and 2 extra large coke. Normally I would not give a shit, but I was damn near leaning over Zippy cause that fat cunts' love handles had swallowed my armrest and was trying to molest my own!!

And you tell me being fat from McDonald's (or any other place that makes people fat) doesn't cause a discomfort to the guy next to him? Fuck that noise!

But be damned if he should lose his job over it. Alcoholics often get support from their employers...wtf don't potheads or the obese? Alcoholism kills too. It causes discomfort. I just don't get it. They have totally villainized a portion of society tha in no way is impaired. And instead of helping them with an unhealthy habit that is often surged or triggered by stress, they throw them into a stressful situation.

And as someone else mentioned...

They should sue the company for:
1. Wrongful dismissal
2. Discrimination
3. Causing a potentially self-destructive event
4. Consitutional violations

They should sue the state for
1. assinine laws that allowed for the violation of their consitutional right

The should sue the Feds for
1. Allowing the pruction, refining, marketting and sale a legal, lethal and addictive substance
2. Allowing the state to create legislation that is so obviously unconsitutional

However it is not legal for them to fire someone for obesity, alcoholism or AIDS which are all medical conditions.

Oh and Snag's g/f's father is an idiot for putting up with Snag.

--------------------

quote:

---

Homosexuals cannot help their predicament, unlike smokers, so shouldn't be discriminated against.

There is no evidence to support this theory of yours. It's propaganda.

---

I forgot mute, your 2000 year old book told you so. You have all the evidence.

--------------------

Next thing you know you will be fired because you have too much sex! Better watch, they can test for hormone levels!!!

When does discrimination become acceptable? How can you discriminate against one health malady over another? All this is is capitalizing on one of the "yet another special interest bombardments". I mean really....throughout my life there has always been the rally cries for one special interest or another be it Ethipoians dying while the organizations designed to save them got rich and people starved to the bellyaching of a few queers who wanted to marry another man and have it equated to a fruitful, reproductive, future tax payer producing marriage.

I am starting to really and truly hate western civilization.

And JOSH, stfu dude! It does not take a book to believe that something like that is all in the head. And it might not be choice. BUT IT IS NOT PRE-DETERMINED. I mean face it, you could take a person and literally turn them into a killer. Someone who enjoys bringing death. But he might have turned out very differently had he grown up with diferent situmlus....different "conditioning".

Much of who we are is a result of what we have experienced. Therefore, I am sure there are some "natural" fag out there but I am also sure there are many fag out there who need to be stuffed up the ass once in a while because it is payback for getting to stuff it since they can't get a woman be it from bad looks to being socially inept.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mute:

[qb]Homosexuals cannot help their predicament, unlike smokers, so shouldn't be discriminated against.

There is no evidence to support this theory of yours. It's propaganda.[/QB]

---

It's not a theory. It's a logical extension of the idea that behaving in an unhealthful manner should result in a firing. Further, it contained a very subtle but important turn on words. I did not claim to know whether or not homosexuality is geneteically predetermined or if it is a choice. Pursuit of a homosexual lifestyle carries with it a higher incidence of sexually transmitted diseases. It is always a willful choice whether or not to remain chaste, just as it is always a willful choice to pursue other interests, such as smoking. The whole notion of life as a test of a person's worthiness to gain immortal bliss in some post-mortem ethereal kingdom absolutely depends on the fact that we, as rational beings, constantly pick and choose how to represent ourselves and conduct ourselves, particularly in the face of urges and desires that consequently result in immorality. (Important note: I am not saying that I believe homosexuality is immoral. If anything, I believe any form of sexuality is amoral so long as it occurs between consenting individuals. The point of this last paragraph has been to clarify what appears to have been a misunderstanding of my use of language.)

Now, back on the leading topic, in all honesty, I think a private business should be able to fire for pretty much whatever reasons they want. However, we have laws against that, and I think the business is probably going to get reamed. It's absolutely stupid to try to force political beliefs upon employees, and regardless of whether or not the firings are upheld, the business in question should be boycotted into oblivion.

[ 01-29-2005: Message edited by: WillyTrombone ]

--------------------

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snag:
I am starting to really and truly hate western civilization.

And JOSH, stfu dude! It does not take a book to believe that something like that is all in the head. And it might not be choice. BUT IT IS NOT PRE-DETERMINED. I mean face it, you could take a person and literally turn them into a killer. Someone who enjoys bringing death. But he might have turned out very differently had he grown up with diferent situmlus....different "conditioning".

Much of who we are is a result of what we have experienced. Therefore, I am sure there are some "natural" fag out there but I am also sure there are many fag out there who need to be stuffed up the ass once in a while because it is payback for getting to stuff it since they can't get a woman be it from bad looks to being socially inept.

---

Damn Snag, just when we thought you have said your most ignorant statements you top yourself.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by WillyTrombone:
[QB]It's not a theory. It's a logical extension of the idea that behaving in an unhealthful manner should result in a firing.

Now, back on the leading topic, in all honesty, I think a private business should be able to fire for pretty much whatever reasons they want.

However, we have laws against that, and I think the business is probably going to get reamed. It's absolutely stupid to try to force political beliefs upon employees, and regardless of whether or not the firings are upheld, the business in question should be boycotted into oblivion.
[QB]

---

It has already been stated (by myslef) that it is legal (at least in Michigan) for this company to fire people that smoke. It has also been stated that they cannot fire for obesity, alcoholism or homosexuality.

So until the laws change this company most likely will not be reamed.

Also they are not going to fire the obese/overweight staff but are sort of bribing them to lose weight.

My original thoughts were that the firing of smokers is nuts and don't agree with it however it is legal.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by RoGuEBiTcH:
Wow. Sad, angry little homophobes. I feel bad for you two..carrying around all that hate for people who have done nothing to wrong you.

---

Wow. I always figured that some who hold a degree from an Ivy League institution would have developed at least the most basic reading comprehension skills over the course of their education. I stated flat out that I don't think sexuality is in any way related to morality and that I don't claim to know whether homosexuality is predetermined or developed through the course of a person's life. Now if that goes against the implications of anything I said previous to that parenthetical references which is left in tact in your quote, and you don't realize that I was offering specific perspective based on another member's post and background in light of it, then you, my friend, should seriously seek a refund.

--------------------

Snag - Don't say that too loudly. They're listening.

WT - FS was essentially saying what you said. I agree with the spirit of both statements, but I wasn't quoting you. I agree with your first post. I was referring to FS's claim that 'homosexuals cannot help their predicament' which I take to be a statement of genetic predetermination. I was pointing out that there has been no scientific evidence to support that theory. Nothing more, nothing less.

RB - Stating the fact that there is no scientific evidence to support genetic predetermination of homosexuality makes me a homophobe? lol... yeah, you should see about a refund.

Cac - I agree with you. It's' nuts. It's illegal to fire smokers in 29 states. I think it should be illegal to do so in Michigan and all other states as well. I mean... Classifying obesity, alcoholism, and AIDS as a medical condition, but leaving out legal smoking addiction seems a bit arbitrary to me. How many people are obese because they are supposedly addicted to food? I'd say most of them. Their lifestyle as a risk factor contributes more to the #2 cause of death, heart disease, than smoking. What makes obesity more worthy of protection?

What makes alcohol addiction more worthy of protection than smoking? They are both the abuse of substances with genetic predispostion. The potential damage of alcoholism goes way beyond personal health concern. Alcoholism has arguably more severe and direct effects on the drinker and the people around them than even smoking and 2nd hand smoke. There's also the potential for accidents resulting in deaths and property damage, etc.

AIDS. Why is an epidemic STD like AIDS which is contracted primarily through unsafe sex and the use of illegal drugs more worthy of protection than smoking? Health care for terminal AIDS is more expensive per capita than it is for 'terminal smokers'. Why are all these things considered protected medical conditions, but smoking addiction isn't protected? It seems like the laws are out of whack. I wonder why... Anyway, IMO they should be changed.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mute:
I was referring to FS's claim that 'homosexuals cannot help their predicament' which I take to be a statement of genetic predetermination.

---

That's your interpretation, not my message. You assume a bit too much Mute, and your assumptions tend to agree with your prejudice.

Anyway, just to clarify my message (as opposed to further argumentation which is no longer attractive to me in this case), genes are certianly not the only or even the most important factor in determining how a person will be oriented, and I don't mean just sexually either. The environment matters more, but that still doesn't make it a voluntary decision. There was no time in my life where I just decided that "from now on I want to have sex with women". Instead, there was a time when I decided that "from now on I will have sex with women, since that is what I like to do". See the difference? Your tastes and opinions are not voluntary or conscious, but following them is. But why would anyone fight their sexual urges, unless it's illegal like being attracted to minors?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mute:
What makes alcohol addiction more worthy of protection than smoking? They are both the abuse of substances with genetic predispostion.

---

Since when? The physical side of a nicotin addiction can be treated with ease, and even the mental side is not so difficult, except for the social aspects. Genes have nothing to do with that part.

On the other hand, is there even a cure for feeling hungry? I don't know, since I haven't read up on that subject ever. But it has been proven that some people are genetically prone to obesity, simply because their brain chemistry overproduces hunger signals.

You don't get addicted to cigs like that, it's simply an environmental effect.

Also, regarding the alcohol topic, you can fire a person for coming to work hung over or still drunk. Why couldn't you fire for smoking at work, or for lowered productivity due to unsatisfied dependencies?

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by FS:
Wow, I can't believe I'm agreeing with FS on this one

---

Smokers can help their predicament, but homosexuals cannot. How else am I supposed to interpret this? In plain English you are implying that there is something inherent in homosexuality that places the state of being gay completely out of control of the person, but the same is somehow not true of smokers. What can one assume about your statement other than you are referring to genetics? While environmental factors play a part however big, they alone don't take homosexuality beyond 'help' or the realm of control.

You claim you were referring to both environment and genes in that statement. If that's truley what you were trying to imply, you really didn't do the 'message' justice. As for my assumption betraying some kind of prejudice, I challenge you to find one prejudicial statement made by me about homosexual people. Oh. Does your sudden aversion to argumentation prevent you from substantiating baseless accusations.

"Anyway", to comment on your 'clarification'.

genes are certianly not the only or even the most important factor in determining how a person will be [sexually] oriented

They're not a factor at all in this case until evidence is found to the contrary... you don't even know what's goin' on.

Your tastes and opinions are not voluntary or conscious, but following them is. But why would anyone fight their sexual urges, unless it's illegal like being attracted to minors?

Ever hear the phrase 'aquired taste'? It means you come to like something usually through intentional repetition. Anyhow, homosexuality is neither a taste or opinion. I could probably occupy myself for the rest of the evening poking holes in that analogy. Yeah, maybe you should stop arguing while you're behind.

Since when? The physical side of a nicotin addiction can be treated with ease, and even the mental side is not so difficult, except for the social aspects. Genes have nothing to do with that part.

Yeah. I guess that's why there are so many millions of smokers who just can't seem to quit, because it's so easy. Anyway, If you put down the crack pipe for a moment, you could do some research and find that there are genetic predispositions that can be associated with many addictions including smoking.

On the other hand, is there even a cure for feeling hungry? I don't know, since I haven't read up on that subject ever. But it has been proven that some people are genetically prone to obesity, simply because their brain chemistry overproduces hunger signals.

The keyword here being some. Like I said, a genetic predisposition can be associated with many addictive type behaviors including overeating. Even then, it's only a predisposition, not a predetermination. The thing is, so many people eat when they're not hungry. There are many possible causes of obesity, some if not most of which can be control through some measure of will power just like smoking and in many cases alcoholism.

You don't get addicted to cigs like that, it's simply an environmental effect.

There's a lot of research information available on the Internet which can be located using google. Seek and ye shall find that there is a genetic predisposition to getting cancer and other smoking related diseases if you smoke, and there is likely a predisposition for smoking itself. Even before finding this information, it's not hard to theorize that such a predisposition might exist for almost anything, or at the very least be associated with anything.

you can fire a person for coming to work hung over or still drunk. Why couldn't you fire for smoking at work, or for lowered productivity due to unsatisfied dependencies?

How are you going to prove a lowered productivity was the result of smoking and not something like lack of sleep? That's just not going to work...

--------------------

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by FS:
Wow, I can't believe I'm agreeing with FS on this one

---

It does make interesting reading/watching though. Sorta like watching a couple of inmates in an Asylum go at it with foam bats while wearing bunny suits and singing Amazing Grace. A little tragic, but man, great entertainment.

Hey, I think I just got an idea for a reality show. . .

[ 01-31-2005: Message edited by: AcidWarp ]

--------------------

“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.”

“Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.”

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by FS:
Wow, I can't believe I'm agreeing with FS on this one

---