NationStates Jolt Archive

Should employers be able to fire employees for the sole reason of being smokers?
Should employers be able to use smoking as a reason for not hiring a qualified candidate?
Furthermore, should employers have the right to not hire or fire women of child bearing age, men over 40 with a family history of heart problems, or anyone 20 pounds or more overweight?

I think that employers should have the right to decide their own hiring policies as long as they are not racist or homophobic.

Should employers be able to fire employees for the sole reason of being smokers?
No; no more than they should be able to fire alcoholics or diabetics. They have more to gain by offering these people asssistance than firing them.

Should employers be able to use smoking as a reason for not hiring a qualified candidate?
No, provisionally. If the staff doing the hiring believe smoking affects some quality that is important to the job, disqualifiying should be allowed.

Furthermore, should employers have the right to not hire or fire women of child bearing age, men over 40 with a family history of heart problems, or anyone 20 pounds or more overweight?
Wow, specific questions. As I said above, the qualifications of the job play an important part. If, for instance, overweightedness would impact the performance of the job, there is every reason to turn down that applicant.

Should employers be able to fire employees for the sole reason of being smokers?
Should employers be able to use smoking as a reason for not hiring a qualified candidate?
Furthermore, should employers have the right to not hire or fire women of child bearing age, men over 40 with a family history of heart problems, or anyone 20 pounds or more overweight?

people should be able to hire or fire whoever they want, I mean, it's their company right? if they're the owners they can make whatever choice they want. if wal-mart only hired blond germans that's still their decision. pf course, if a manager only hired blond germans and the store had no such policy, that's something else entirely.

heh, as far as being overweight, unless you have a hormonal problem that just means you eat too damn much. being overweight allmost allways indicates a glutton (I'm too fat so if I'm pointing fingers I'm indicating myself as well), and frankly I don't think fat people deserve the least amount of sympathy for their condition.

why shouldnt employers sack people for smoking. if your workforce is unhealthy, and smoking consumes vast amount of people time, time is a valuable non renewable commodity. it has value. ( a Mr Marx told me that) as such it is not econmically viable to allow your workforce to die early or have their capacity to do work, diminished.

and of course it means a compulsory ban in the workplace would mean safety inspectors in volatile environments wouldnt worry so much. however, with the tobacco companies paying 100% tax, any loss in revenue would be copensated for by the increased production and revenue generated as a result. GET BACK TO WORK. remember, the state is a machine that need to feed. it needs to consume to support its citizens, to generate products to sell to the weak and the gullibe, to support a free and democratic society, of which i am in charge. the squid stops here. stop smoking at work, forget all the health reasons, the monetary implications, or the social stigmas. IT WASTES VALUABLE TIME.

thank you for taking the time to read this... back on your heads.

Firing/not hiring someone for smoking makes sense.

But a man who has had a history of heart problems not getting a job? I have a family history of heart problems, but I'm more qualified for any job compared to everyone else my age.

Should employers be able to fire employees for the sole reason of being smokers?
Should employers be able to use smoking as a reason for not hiring a qualified candidate?
Furthermore, should employers have the right to not hire or fire women of child bearing age, men over 40 with a family history of heart problems, or anyone 20 pounds or more overweight?
1. Yes, smoking is a threat to everyone's health. NO EXCUSES!
2. Yes, for the same reason.
3. Employers should NOT fire someone just because the employee is a woman or over 40 or has health problems.

An employer should be able to hire or fire an employee for any reason.

If he isn't smoking on the job, then no, the company shouldn't fire him. Nothing should be fireable until it interferes with the company.

1. Yes, smoking is a threat to everyone's health. NO EXCUSES!

No its not.

2. Yes, for the same reason.

No its not

3. Employers should NOT fire someone just because the employee is a woman or over 40 or has health problems.

The question also included if they should be able to not hire, and fire, people for those reasons. I see no difference between someone who smokes and someone who is a woman. So long as they conform to the policies of the company it makes no difference. If you feel a company should be able to fire a smoker who is not violating company policy you have no reason to believe they shouldn't be able to fire a woman.

Should employers be able to fire someone for simply BEING a smoker? I can think of very few legitimate reasons for that. I can understand where you might not want a lifeguard to be a smoker, but then thats a question of not being an idiot about who you are hiring.

As for whoever mentioned time is a commodity and smoking wastes time... you are correct! Of course, the question wasnt about firing someone for smoking ON THE JOB, it was for BEING a smoker. So your point is moot. Naturally, employees wasting time and not doing their jobs correctly is a valid argument for firing. This is different.

I believe its equally discriminative to fire someone for being black, as it is to fire them for choosing to smoke. Although you can choose to smoke and you can't choose skin color, what about other things? Like, is it OK to fire someone if they watch a TV show you don't like? I think not. I think that is bad business.

And ya know it doesnt surprise me one single bit that there are "liberals" (ah! the ironically named philosophy where personal freedom is seen as a bad thing!) who are in favor of bad business practices.

An employer should be able to hire or fire an employee for any reason.
Not so in Canada; we have rules against such things.

If the company is payign for the medical bills of the employee then yes I think they have a right to hire/fire someone based on their health. Otherwise no because it shouldnt make a difference otherwise.

1. Yes, smoking is a threat to everyone's health. NO EXCUSES!
2. Yes, for the same reason.
3. Employers should NOT fire someone just because the employee is a woman or over 40 or has health problems.

If I don't smoke at work it's not a health problem for anyone but me.
If you're worried about insurance cost, then they could fire someone with a genetic tendency for any disease. So that doesn't work as an excuse. Lifestyle? Men who are unmarried die younger and engage in more risky behavior. We could also fire people who speed, bungee jump or don't eat their veggies.

This is coming from the article about an employer laying off a number of their staff because they didn't want to pay a premium on their insurance policies as they were smokers?

Although I strongly disagree with smoking, I beleive that this is wrong. If you don't want smokers working for you, don't hire them, but even then, in this country you'd be risking an industrial tribunal probably. Firing people for something like that is a slippery slope as the original poster seems to suggest.

If smokers, why not people with a family history of heart conditions? Cancer? Diabetes? What's next? Genetic pre-disposition?

I don't know about you, but that isn't the kind of world I want to live in.

So if you ask me, too all questions, no a company should not be able to fire employees for any of those reasons.

I'd like to add, that in this instance, it wasn't them just firing people who smoked in work, they were firing ALL employees who smoked at all, in or outside of the workplace.

It's not the duty of coporations or businesses to enforce terms of social conduct on their employees OUTSIDE of the workplace, that is the duty of the government.

I think that employers should have the right to decide their own hiring policies as long as they are not racist or homophobic.

So then according to your theory its perfectly ok to discriminate against some, such as smokers and overweight people, but not others, depending on their current level of PC acceptance?

So, what would the potential employer be able to decide should the prospective employee be an african-american, gay, overweight smoker? ;)

i think that if they are not living a healthy lifestyle then they dont dserve for me as an employer to pay for their health insurance.
if they have some genetic predisposition to heart disease then that cant be helped and i as an employer would pay for it.
If they are just being ignorant and killign themselves off with cigarettes on purpose then I will still let them work for me but I surely aint goign to pay their medical bill for the lung cancer that they brought upon themselves.

If I don't smoke at work it's not a health problem for anyone but me.
Haven't you heard of SECONDHAND SMOKING?!?!?! :mad:

Haven't you heard of SECONDHAND SMOKING?!?!?! :mad:

Yes that infamous thing that kills and hurts 0 people a year. Cheers.

Yes that infamous thing that kills and hurts 0 people a year. Cheers.
It kills MUCH more than 0 people a year, and you know it. You just refuse to admit it.

It kills MUCH more than 0 people a year, and you know it. You just refuse to admit it.
Do you have stats? I've never heard of such a thing.

If we're so worried about people breathing something noxious from someone elses activities, why don't we ban cars?

It kills MUCH more than 0 people a year, and you know it. You just refuse to admit it.

Stats? Studies? Sources? I know that no doctor has ever signed off a death certificate as caused by "second hand smoke" I know that drawing a link between second hand smoke and cancer is impossible seeing as virtually the entire population is exposed to second hand smoke along with car exhaust fumes, camp fires etc...

Living 24 hours with a smoker? Probably some almost non-existent effect. Smoking while pregnant? Definitely a problem. Having to deal with someone at work who smokes? Might be uncomfortable for you but its not going to affect your health.

Haven't you heard of SECONDHAND SMOKING?!?!?! :mad:

How does this excuse firing workers who don't smoke at work?

Also, lets ban people who berate smokers. Yeah, you people. You OMG IT CAUSESZ LUNG GANCER AN NUTHIN ELSE DOES SO ITS TEH SORCERY OF ALL EVIL folks.

Why? Well, let's assume that the leading cause of death in the country WASNT lung cancer (it isnt). Let's also assume, just for arguments sake, that heart disease is one of if not the leading cause of death (it is). Now how about stress? Does stress contribute to heart disease?

It does and you know it.

Does smoking cause stress? Sure, a little. It also relieves stress - something nonsmokers can't possibly understand. Does getting blamed for all the cancer in the world (a common situation for us smokers) cause stress? Yes, especially when its idiot liberals yammering about their precious health every time I take a drag. And it is.

Bottom line - stop killing everyone, anti-smokers! In fact, anti-smoking should be BANNED.

How does this excuse firing workers who don't smoke at work?
What? :confused:
Stats? Studies? Sources? I know that no doctor has ever signed off a death certificate as caused by "second hand smoke" I know that drawing a link between second hand smoke and cancer is impossible seeing as virtually the entire population is exposed to second hand smoke along with car exhaust fumes, camp fires etc...

Living 24 hours with a smoker? Probably some almost non-existent effect. Smoking while pregnant? Definitely a problem. Having to deal with someone at work who smokes? Might be uncomfortable for you but its not going to affect your health.
Eh, you're probably right....
http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/secondhandsmoke/a/secondhandsmoke.htm
The U.S. Environment Protection Agency(EPA) has classified secondhand smoke as a Group A carcinogen. Cancers linked to passive smoking include:
Lung cancer - 3000 people who do not smoke die every year from lung cancer caused by ETS
Nasal sinus cavity cancer
Cancer of the cervix
Breast cancer
Bladder cancer
Some chemical compounds found in smoke only become carcinogenic after they've come into contact with certain enzymes found in many of the tissues of the human body.
Aaand how much is it not a health problem?

Also, lets ban people who berate smokers. Yeah, you people. You OMG IT CAUSESZ LUNG GANCER AN NUTHIN ELSE DOES SO ITS TEH SORCERY OF ALL EVIL folks.

Why? Well, let's assume that the leading cause of death in the country WASNT lung cancer (it isnt). Let's also assume, just for arguments sake, that heart disease is one of if not the leading cause of death (it is). Now how about stress? Does stress contribute to heart disease?

It does and you know it.

Does smoking cause stress? Sure, a little. It also relieves stress - something nonsmokers can't possibly understand. Does getting blamed for all the cancer in the world (a common situation for us smokers) cause stress? Yes, especially when its idiot liberals yammering about their precious health every time I take a drag. And it is.

Bottom line - stop killing everyone, anti-smokers! In fact, anti-smoking should be BANNED.
:rolleyes:

How does this excuse firing workers who don't smoke at work?

Well?

If I smoke in my house and my car it's not hurting anyone else. If they don't want to be exposed, don't get in my car, don't come in my house.

Simple.

How does this excuse firing workers who don't smoke at work? Still waiting.

Well?

If I smoke in my house and my car it's not hurting anyone else. If they don't want to be exposed, don't get in my car, don't come in my house.

Simple.

How does this excuse firing workers who don't smoke at work? Still waiting.
Unfortunately, I can only fire workers if they smoke on the job or on the business'2w property. To get rid of at-home smoking, the government would have to ban cigarrettes or put maximum taxes on them. This I admit.

What? :confused:

Eh, you're probably right....
http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/secondhandsmoke/a/secondhandsmoke.htm


You can replace the words ETS and Secondhand smoke with Car Fumes and Air Pollution and produce the same numbers and the same connections and the same attributions. That’s why its BS.

People don't advocate banning cars because it would inconvenience more than just a few people. Smokers are okay to pick on these days. How's that for PC?
By the way, I am a liberal, and the whole idea is liberals don't tell people what they can do with their own bodies.
I smoke, my risk.
You drive your car in public, spouting fumes, we all breathe it.

Should employers be able to fire employees for the sole reason of being smokers?
Should employers be able to use smoking as a reason for not hiring a qualified candidate?
Furthermore, should employers have the right to not hire or fire women of child bearing age, men over 40 with a family history of heart problems, or anyone 20 pounds or more overweight?

Absolutely not.

Employers should have the right to forbid employees to smoke on company grounds, but what said employees do at home(no matter how unhealthy smoking is, anyway) is none of their business.

The only way I can think of where this would be justified, is for a job requiring strenous work. And even there, it would only be an indirect cause: the employee would be fired because he/she can't handle the job anymore because smoking was affecting his health, not because of the smoking per se.

Should employers be able to fire employees for the sole reason of being smokers?
Should employers be able to use smoking as a reason for not hiring a qualified candidate?
Furthermore, should employers have the right to not hire or fire women of child bearing age, men over 40 with a family history of heart problems, or anyone 20 pounds or more overweight?

As long as the smoking is not taking place on the premises, no, they can't fire or not hire for that.

Employers are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender, family structure, or health either.

If the company is payign for the medical bills of the employee then yes I think they have a right to hire/fire someone based on their health. Otherwise no because it shouldnt make a difference otherwise.


Oops, you broke your leg. We don't want to pay the medical bills. You're fired!