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.

 

Employers Blood Testing To Stop Smokers

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 



How about governments period. Let's get rid of them.


I'm down.





posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   
You know, I find it amusing that the source that BLN sites for the article goes to a completely unrelated article. On the other hand, I wouldn't consider this current news either, since it was extensively reported on in 2005, including interviews on ABC and CBS.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff

How about governments period. Let's get rid of them.


Someone does need to commission a study on how dangerous governments aned idiotic employers are to our health. I'll be happy to work as a researcher, any other takers? Hey, jackinthebox, you up for leader?

reply to post by Griff

BTW, Redneck...can I come live with you on your mountain?


Bring it on, just be ready to pull your own weight and live without all the societal goodies you're used to. Real men live here.


TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 



Hey, jackinthebox, you up for leader?


‘uneasy lies the head that wears a crown’ (2 Henry IV 3.1.31).



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   
first off the employers conditions for employment are 'discriminitory'

second, if a already hire has a tobacco/nicotine addiction then it's the responsibility of the employer to provide 'help'.. be it smoking cessation or behavior modification...the onus is on the business owner who hired the addicted person to begin with.
If the worker cannot 'kick-the-habit' then its still ~tough-cookies~ for the business owner, because the owner cannot Discriminate a particular class of persons.
---------------------->>> its not a matter of 'privacy' !!! IMHO


a new hire might be obliged to take a polygraph and a blood or urine test before being hired --- but that too is discriminitory in the view of the ACLU and a bunch of legal precedents (which is the ongoing basis of law)...
and may not be allowed, because the results are fundamentally 'circumstantial' and not down-and-out-Proof!


much ado about nothing



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Bring it on, just be ready to pull your own weight


Don't worry, I don't weigh much. I'd much rather be off the grid and living off dung than the way it is now.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Good Ole' Henry Ford did this in his company when he was alive. It took unionization to stop this meglomaniac from home inspections and socialist demands for certain behaviors of the children and spouses of his work force. This is unconcionable. I am not a smoker, never have been, but I garrantee this employer will have bookeeping errors and mislayed documents and a whole series of problems if he thinks this is going to go smoothly. Not to mention certain groups suing him for hostile workplace problems. The obesity lawsuits against airlines aren't going away either. Shrinking seats and health problems created by them are a real issue also. Airlines have several occurances each day where they must carry passengers off planes on strechers because of back and leg problems associated with circulation in the body.

Zindo

[edit on 6/17/2008 by ZindoDoone]



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 


Great post ZD.

Maybe they should go back to Pullman towns, and while they're at it, why don't they ban drinking alcohol, rap music, and head-scarves?

Or they could make their employees take off their belts and shoes at the entrance?



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   
I'm 17 and it's bad enough that i'm smoking allready


This is completely wrong. It can't be that widespread, walMart let's me smoke on my breaks.

But like other posters said, This current government is much more detrimental to my health than a few cigarrettes are.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   
So the employees cant smoke but I bet they can sit and talk on there cell phones all darn day long. That just so ticks me off when you go in a store to cash out and the clerk is to busy yapping on the phone to even check you out. I spent 30 minutes one day in the line waiting on the clerk and her cell phone, then when she hang up it rang again. I finally got the manager after her butt. I would rather have someone take a 5 minute smoke break then to talk on the phone instead of waiting on customers any day.

Hilda



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   
As a non-drinker and non-smoker, I'd have a serious problem if the employer decided I needed to have blood drawn to stay employed.

For one thing, there are dangers with someone poking a needle in your arm. Since I would not be guilty of anything, it seems like a punishment without a crime. OTOH, they could do hair analysis. That's less invasive and more accurate and gives a better long term picture of substances ingested in the past.

I don't like smoking or to have people who smoke around me indulging, but I also would not support anyone insisting they stop. It's a slippery slope. What other intrusions could they be planning?

So I'd suspect that smokers would have a lot of sympathy from their fellow workers, so much so, that it could result in an internal crusade against these policies.

Fortunately, I'm not in a position to be concerned about this, but it seems like something that's just over the top.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Can i get vulgar here for a moment?

Good. THEY can kiss my ever loving butt. I'll be damned if i'm going to be stopped from smoking by some alcoholic with a red bulb for a nose

That's right-
I've worked in places where i happened to be the only one who did not indulge.

Bull Crap.

By the time 2012 comes we will be happy to see another planet hurling at us- end of misery.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   
To quote Homer Simpson "Save Me Jebus." At least up here in Canada you do not see this type of thing (as much)

Now I am a smoker, and it is my FIRM belief that it is my right as a human being to imbide any substance I wish into my body as long as it is in the privacy of my own home.

Having an employer drug test me is a gross invasion of my privacy, not to mention testing me to see if my spouse or family member has exposed me to a drug etc.

If I so chose to enjoy drug/alchol or whatever else in the privacy of my home, on my own time and to make sure I am 100% sober before I return to work. That is MY perogative.

It is high time we say "NO" as only when enough people do that will they get the drift that we will not allow ourselves to be pushed around any longer.

Now I am not saying force of arms or violence, but enoughh exposure in the media, internet and small claim courts could help.

Just an idea.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 07:16 PM
link   
I suggest anyone who supports socialized medicine in the US think about this long and hard. Once you put the government in control of health care, it wont be long before they're telling you what you must do with your body. And, as certain people's responses in this thread and others indicates, there will be enough people going along with it to allow it to happen. Welcome to a world where the common good includes what you do in the privacy (that's a laugh) of your own home.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 07:18 PM
link   
I must preface by saying I'm not a smoker and never have been but..

Buying a pack of cigs (if you're 18 or above) is just as legal as buying a loaf of bread. I agree with others that this is indeed a slippery slope...if you want to have your employer control your life then move to Japan...or better yet a communist country.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 07:51 PM
link   
I like to tell you that I haven't smoked in 7 years now but I do have nicotine in my blood. Thats because I chew nicotine gum and ofcourse I am having a problem in stopping that but I don't smoke. I wonder how that law would apply to me and others like me.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Brothers
 


I was thinking the same as I just quit yesterday and use the lozenge. I still have nicotene running through me (actually more than if I smoked I believe).



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Scotts Miracle-Gro has one of the most extensive wellness programs on offer. Services include personalized fitness coaching and a $5 million wellness center at its headquarters in Marysville, Ohio, with a gym and medical facilities. The company also has a policy against hiring workers who smoke, where state law permits.


NY Times


Participation in Scotts’ wellness programs is high — but the company has also seen an unexpected side effect from its efforts.

Last year, Scott Rodrigues filed suit against the company in Massachusetts, saying that Scotts fired him after a drug test found nicotine in his system and that the company’s antismoking policy violated his civil rights.

Harvey Schwartz, Mr. Rodrigues’s lawyer, said the case was also an example of benefits discrimination, where a company dismisses an employee to avoid high benefits costs.



Yeah. I think it was back in 2005 that Scotts did this. I never purchased their products again.

To me it boils down to life choices. They are OURS to make; not some corporations. Sure, they can have a no smoking WORK environment but I am not a piece of property. What I do in and on my OWN time is MY business, not theirs.

So, until my employer pays ALL of my health care, I shall do as I please. Since, last time I checked, my health benefits, measly as they are, come out my MY pocket. I know that is not the case for everyone though.

Regardless, smoking is only the flavor of the decade(s). Wait until (as others have stated) it is something that THEY or THE OTHERS love to do. Just you wait until it is YOUR VICE that they are attacking and trying to take it away. For no other reason but control and that they can. And we, well we will let them.

Or will we?

Sometimes, though very rare, sometimes, we push back.


[edit on 17-6-2008 by bobafett1972]



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 09:33 PM
link   
The only argument I can think of this for testing for nicotine is smokers get sick for often, take more sick days and are less productive because of than. A weak argument if you ask me. What is worse than this is cannibis smokers/consumers have faced this kind of discrimination for decades. I have seen first hand great employees getting canned because insurance companies often require random drug tests and no matter how valuable an employee is, poppin for the pot, which has the lower thershold for a positve test than all the other dangerous drugs, they have to be fired. The policy is not fair for anyone and I have not experienced a world where being a great worker gets you anywhere. To suceed in the middle class world you have to be part of the sheeple and conform to their rules. I can only pray that my generation will end this practice and hard work and productive employees will get the edge over the person who does only does what is asked of them.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   
After moderate consideration I think I would like to apply but I have a (very, very mild) phobia (more of a dislike) of needles. So instead of a blood test I would like to submit a stool sample. Now to be sure that it is indeed recieved by this owner/head of company please send a valid address and point out his desk upon my arrival.


Seriously, some people need a healthy dose of personal mortality realization to fully understand that a high position in one thing does not make one superior in all aspects, especially over others. Funny thing is that Michigan is still a smoking state. You can light one up in any grocery store that the management has not posted a No Smoking sign clearly on the door.

No smoking on the job? No problem. It is your business, your property, your rules there. No smoking as a condition of hire? Illeagal, plain and simple discrimitory hiring practices. Extending such a policy to non-employees is highly illegal. I for one would love for a bottom-dwelling lawyer to get a hold of that wrongful termination suit. Best guess is that this fellow will understand exactly what it means to be owned.

In the meantime, my offer for the stool sample stands...



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join