It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BUSINESS: Company Bans Employees From Smoking - Anywhere

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Here's another glimspe of the possible future:

Scientist discovers that a having a particular gene may increase your chance of getting whatever disease you want to put here....So, scientists develop this drug that they claim may prevent this gene from having that effect on you. The insurance companies pressure the employers to require all people with that particular gene to take this medicine. So, the employers take a sample of everone's dna and and look for that particular part. They then tell the employers that they must either take this drug, or they will be forced to let them go, because they just don't want the hassle of dealing with the higher cost the insurance company threatened them with. So, you go, spend $50 to visit a doctor, and buy the medicine, even though you at the present time really feel great. So, shortly after you begin taking this medicine, you develope some pretty painful pains in your abnomen, not enough to incompacitate you or cause you to seek medical attention, but enough for you to take notice. Well, after about a week of living with it, you approach your boss, telling him, you think it might be the medicine and want to stop it. He says you need to visit the doctor again, and have him order it. So, you spend another $40 to see the doctor again, and you describe the symtoms to him. And, well, they don't sound that alarming to him, the fact sheet on the drug says nothing about it. He tells him that there is probably nothing at all, keep taking the drug. So, well, it's still a choice between taking the drug, or getting fired. So, he takes the drug. A week or so later, the pain has increased and his boss is now noticing it. They talk, and he agrees to contact the insurance company, see if they will withdraw their policy for him. And, well, back off to the doctor, spending another $40, who still insists that it's not the drug.

Does anyone here really want to open the door and allow the insurance industry that much power into their lives? Come, on, for all you know, the doctor, the insurance company, and the government all know full well what that pain in the stomach is really the drug eating away at your stomach, and you will soon be dead!! They are just afraid to admit that fact, since hey, then they'd get sued!!
They have no right to enforce their choice of lifestyle habits onto you for financial reasons!




posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   
This is by far the best discussion going on at ATS in my opinion. The debaters are cool headed, and in general everybody's going about things the right way. Good points have been brought up by both sides, but let's not forget:

1. A private business owner is in a pickle, because the law vacillates in determining what sorts of 'choices' exactly are cause for dismissal or a refusal to hire. Most employers put that EOE stamp on their applications, and that actually means something - Equal Opportunity Employer (for anyone who doesn't know). The definition as it stands is race, creed, religion, age, sex or marital status, national origin, color, mental or physical handicap. Creed is the one that concerns this debate. A system of beliefs cannot be a reason for dismissal. If the smokers believe they have the right to engage in a legal American pastime, they have a case in a courtroom. A good case. In my humble opinion, somebody or a few somebodies will make money at the expense of the company in question in the near future. However..

2. Under current law the Insurance angle might feasibly be arguable (the belief that smoking employees unfairly increase the premiums of their fellow employees), but there's a caveat. The smokers are only ACTUALLY at fault if what the Insurance companies and Medical professionals are saying is true. It isn't. Insurance companies and the Medical Profession are to blame for creating the tenuous link between cancer and smoking. By their methods there is a greater cancer risk in not smoking. You smoke cigarettes and go to a doctor with throat cancer, he's gonna tell you that you got it from smoking. He doesn't provide any proof through diagnosis, he doesn't examine your throat cancer in intricate detail, molecule by molecule, to analyze its structure, try to reconstruct its growth patterns, establish its source definitively, be it a dense cell cluster at the center with a radioactive particle lodged in it, or something else. Your doctor tells you smoking causes throat cancer, and he's right. What he doesn't tell you is drinking water causes throat cancer. Air causes throat cancer. Smoke from trees a thousand miles away causes throat cancer. Your government causes throat cancer. If they want to compare verifiable percentage increases in a coutroom there are thousands willing to make them eat their words - no cancer causing mayonaise allowed.

3. The doctors and insurance companies should be battling this out, but they've chosen to team up on the consumer. Many of them are run by the same people (well represented in government), and it makes no sense to sue yourself. That's when the government is supposed to step in, but the government has joined forces with the bullies and formed ULTRA MEGA TAXYOUSAUR Insurance Premium Increasing Guilt Inducing Fear Mongering Judgementnaut. People are getting run over en masse and yelling at each other about it instead of getting the hell out of the way. The buck stops at the government because we trust them to handle regulatory duties. Theres no way they're going to give back billions in reparations to those unfairly injured by THE LARGEST conspiracy of recent history.

4. Many people are basing their opinions on concern for liars in the insurance industry who made deals with crooked politicians and doctors. It's not so much that they're lying to you, it's just that they're not telling you 98% of the story. You've made your conclusions without passing the preamble and they have a vested interest in never telling you the rest! There's no reason to feel pity for their bottom line. Your real concern should be safety of yourelf and your employees. Smoking cigarettes increases (by an unknown percentage) many forms of illness, a laundry list. So does soda. Weight. Oxygen starvation, or too much Oxygen. The list is literally miles long. The employers can take this concept to the extreme if they think the reward is sufficient, and in the end, only they will suffer for it. They will earn the disgust and ridicule of their employees eventually. In the end they will step over the line if you give them free reign. If you as a country don't want to see that happen, legislate against it, if you don't care what happens to the industries involved and think they deserve what they get, hang out with some popcorn for a while, it'll happen. I personally don't care either way, it should be interesting regardless.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Most employers put that EOE stamp on their applications, and that actually means something - Equal Opportunity Employer (for anyone who doesn't know). The definition as it stands is race, creed, religion, age, sex or marital status, national origin, color, mental or physical handicap. Creed is the one that concerns this debate. A system of beliefs cannot be a reason for dismissal.


I would hardly think that calling an addiction to cigarettes could be called a "system of beliefs". Let's just call a spade a spade here. Smoking cigarettes is an addiction. Cigarette smokers are addicts. And I'm not talking about caffene addiction here. I'm talking about addiction to nicotine, a deadly substance indeed. So the question is this: Does an employer want an addict working in his firm? Maybe not. Yes, the addict may be a physical threat to himself and the stability of the firm's health insurance policy, but there's something deeper that says something about the addict's self-concept and sense of ego. Is the addiction a crutch? Is it an excuse for something? What is the pshychological root of the addict's dependency? Is a smoker less likely to perform his duties at his job? Will his temperment and ultimately his judgement be impeeded if he needs a smoke and can't get a break to go outside and get one? Perhaps not. But why not hire a non-smoker equally qualified to do the job than an addict applying for the same position?



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Where can I get a list all all the possible "deadly substances" that would commonly be present for any occupation, or that would be commonly encountered by average american, and a good list of all the products that contain them and other sources, including natural ones. A complete list of the health effects would be nice too....oh, ya, the government couldn't provide one if they had to. For many products such information is protected by trademarks!!!
You'd think people who were concerned for health would have bigger things to be concerned about that what I do in the privacy of my own home!!

As for addictions, what does nail biting indicate within the personality of the person? Maybe we should fire them also?



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 09:00 AM
link   
If only the terrorists would target the right people, like the ban smoking types.

End Prohibition Now,

build more coffeeshops Amsterdam style and get rid of these no smoking people. I hate them all. They should be tied down and burnt with lit ciggies.

Actually, New York was originally called New Amsterdam. Hmmmmmmmm.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by duff beer dragon


build more coffeeshops Amsterdam style and get rid of these no smoking people. I hate them all. They should be tied down and burnt with lit ciggies.



I'm confused. Why would someone have so much hatred for people simply based on whether they smoke or don't smoke?
Is this for real?
Is this a joke? Are you being sarcastic?
Or is this who you really are? I don't understand.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Tobacco is a religious sacrament to Native Americans. No boss has the right to regulate what you do on your off time. Freedom is not given, it is taken, and the only word that comes to mind is strike.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   
See, I threatened the president of my company when he complained about my smoking, and he backed down. I was under the impression that this was completely illegal because nicotine addiction was considered a disease (wrong, wrong, wrong, we're still accountable for our actions, but that's for another thread). So to say you're not allowed to have this disease and work for this company is VERY illegal.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join