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.

 

Smokers Need Not Apply

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   
well iw ork in retail its stressful and tehy actually promote high blood pressure and smoking!!! thast sad part: ( half the illela things corpoartions can do, and even if yuor an ideal model employee, simply because they dont like you, they get away with murder* in a sense, and you cant have a job, becuae the state and baords of labor failed to listen to an employee...they much preffer behind closed door settelmetns with proof* so maybe if companys, CVS is one of em* would be nicer to thier managers, ( aka me) hell maybe ide quit smokiing! fair too*
aint easy to quit both, smoking and yuor job ya know




posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xiamara
If you are the owner of the company I say its your choice.Smoking is a personal choice unlike skin colour, gender, cultural background, age, sexual orientation and so on. Smoking is bad for the health and health of others, if business chooses to not have smokers or drug addicts its their choice. I would personally do the same thing. Smokers often smell like cigarettes and that is not a pleasant smell and for some one who has asthma walking outside around smokers is very painful to me and to other asthmatics.


So what your'e saying is that just because someting is unpleasant to one group, we can somehow find ways to discriminate against it. Unpleasant isn't the same as offensive.

BO is offensive. While using a deodorant is a personal choice, it should be required. Obesity is offensive. While being a glutton is a choice, it lead to health issues.

The topic of the thread is nicotine testing. Nicotine can be delivered without smoking a cigarette or cigar.

There are findings that some people are genetically pre-disposed to become addicts. Cigarette smoking is an addiction. Some people are born to become addicts. Should we discriminate against someone who is genetically linked to be a smoker? It may not be a personal choice as some would consider it to be.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Intelearthling
 



You can actually be not hired based on weight specialty clothing stores have this policy if you cannot fit into their clothes and look presentable you can be terminated, or given a warning about it, and you can be fired and or reprimanded on scent (goes both ways BO and too much perfume).

Nicotine is an addiction yes but so is heroin and I'm not going to hire a heroin addict. As for your argument about predisposition, its a predisposition, people fight those everyday, they are not a 100% genetic thing its environmental factors too, if you know you have a disposition its more reason not to smoke.

As for other ways of getting nicotine, again its a company's choice if they have a no nicotine policy then that's fine, if you want that job, quit using, if not find another job. Suck it up, it's their choice who they hire to represent their company. You may not like it but its their company.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xiamara
If you are the owner of the company I say its your choice.Smoking is a personal choice unlike skin colour, gender, cultural background, age, sexual orientation and so on.


Do you think that an employer would be able to get away with a ''no Jews'' or ''no Muslims'' policy ?



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


No that's apart of cultural upbringing. Religion is a much different matter its neither a personal choice nor an absolute. Because its a faith based it is much much different. Religion is culturally based so cannot be held under the same rules, its a gray area.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xiamara
No that's apart of cultural upbringing. Religion is a much different matter its neither a personal choice nor an absolute. Because its a faith based it is much much different. Religion is culturally based so cannot be held under the same rules, its a gray area.


No it's not. It's a personal choice.

Presumably any employer is attempting to hire grown adults, who can make up their own minds on these issues.

It's not exactly like someone who is raised Christian, Muslim etc. necessarily grows up to follow that faith.


Religious adherence is equally as much of a personal choice as smoking cigarettes is.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


Not always is the problem with religion those who come from a christian upbringing are more likely to be christian, those form a muslim one are more likely to be. Its a gray area because people can choose but some feel their faith is the true one. The only time one can discriminate religion is IF and only IF religion is a major part of the job, your not going to hire a protestant priest at a catholic church. Make sense? Religious extremism is different and can be discriminated against, if your engaging in activities which point the company in a bad light then the company is in full right to fire such employee.

Religion is a culture we can choose to accept or change and its a major part of it is not a recreational activity and it's again a way of life. I'm atheist, I choose to live my life that way. A christian follows christian values, and so on and so forth a value system is different. You need to look beyond the black and white and understand judgment there are many different circumstances and they don't always fit cleanly into a certain code.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Private business has their rights and I have mine.

I won't patronize any business that discriminates again me, including my smoking habit. I used to love staying at Marriot, but they went 100% non-smoking. Now I stay at Hampton Inns.

Vote with your money folks. In the final analysis, dead presidents speak to business a whole lot louder than anything else does.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Xiamara
 


It sounds to me that you're trying to change the ''personal choice'' status of someone's religious beliefs, so as to justify an employer discriminating against a smoker's personal choice, while not wishing to condone someone adopting a ''no Christians'' 'no Jews'' or ''no atheists'' policy.

How about if someone has a ''no born again Christians'' or ''no Muslim converts'' policy ? Considering that most of the people in these categories weren't raised in these religious cultures.

It just seems to me that you want to justify discrimination against smokers for their personal choices that they make in their spare time, while not wanting to justify this stance in other cases.

How about a ''no gay men with a boyfriend'' policy ? Being gay mightn't be a choice, but having a partner is.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
There is a place around here that I used to work for that did not allow smokers to be hired. They did not do a test (at that time) but they would not hire smokers.

A local hospital also started this policy as well.

I do not see it as discrimination really even when I was a smoker. They are private businesses you either go by their policies or do not work for them.

Raist



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Intelearthling
 


I used to smoke and trust me now that I do not the smell of cigarettes on a person or their breath is very offensive to me. There are plenty of times it has nearly made me ill. I am not sure how I put up with it before. The only thing I can think of is that I was raised with a smoker and never noticed it until after I quit and no one was around to smell any more.

Raist



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


Sorry misread your entire post.

Look, smoking is a recreational choice who you spend your life with is not, what your religion or lack of religious belief is not a recreational choice. My point is basically a private company has the choice hell they have the choice to choose who they hire and fire. Its just that simple. I agree with it.
edit on 23-12-2010 by Xiamara because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
What a bunch of discriminating crap. What next, refusing to hire users of caffiene, another legal and harmful drug? How about alcohol, refuse to hire people that drink on their days off?



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


Smokers have a record of missing work more often than nonsmokers for sick days. Granted not all smokers are like this but a majority are. Many businesses want people they hire to be at work on the days they are scheduled to work.


It’s unsurprising that inhaling chemicals like tar and nicotine is bad for you, but it could cost you a job someday. A Swedish study, recently published, has shown that on average, smokers take EIGHT days more sick leave than their clean-lunged colleagues. Out of the 14,000 sample workers, the average sick leave was 25 days per year.


www.theinternetjournalist.com...



After the data was adjusted for scio-economic facters and smokers' poor health, Dr. Lundborg said the difference in sick days between smokers and non-smokers was eight days.


www.associatedcontent.com...



Compared with people who never smoked, smokers took an average of 7.67 more days of sick leave. After controlling for other factors, former smokers took no more sick days than nonsmokers. The study appears in the April issue of Tobacco Control.


www.nytimes.com...



These days, employers nationwide are implementing smoke-free policies, or offer reimbursement for smoking cessation programs. According to a 2000 Gallup poll, 95 percent of Americans, smokers and non-smokers, now believe companies should either ban smoking totally in the workplace or restrict it to separately ventilated areas.


articles.cnn.com...:LIVING



He found that smokers averaged 34 annual sick days, compared with 25 sick days a year for former smokers and 20 for nonsmokers.


www.webmd.com...


I am not sure the same can be said for caffeine users.


Raist



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xiamara
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


Sorry misread your entire post.

Look, smoking is a recreational choice who you spend your life with is not, what your religion or lack of religious belief is not a recreational choice. My point is basically a private company has the choice hell they have the choice to choose who they hire and fire. Its just that simple. I agree with it.
edit on 23-12-2010 by Xiamara because: (no reason given)


The point people have been trying to make is that if companies are allowed to discriminate about anything other than job credentials, it has the potential to snow-ball out of control and half the work-force would be unsuitable for any given job!

Its bad for the government because it can't collect income taxes on one hand and on the other hand it simultaneously drains unemployment funds and also its bad for the economy because people can't spend money they don't make/have. Who ultimately wins and who ultimately loses? Everyone loses in the long run.

Actually if you want to get really technical on us and assuming companies should be able to discriminate at all, smoking should be the least offensive to any prospective employer. First of all its perfectly legal and second it does not impair your ability to concentrate at work...we cannot say the same thing about a drunk who has a hard time standing on his feet.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by IamAbeliever
reply to post by dawnstar
 


I imagine that with the Cleveland Clinic it's all about image. While being underweight is unhealthy, it it's extreme, the people that are overweight, in my opinion, are an embarrassment to the clinic.


You could be on to something there.

I know this isnt gonna be the consencus view here but smoking is an icky habit.It stinks,it leaves the smell on your fingers and clothes.This is not good if your working with patients or even people in genral.By the way I have a joint every now and then so am not anti smoker or anything.But you have to admit your a slave to the ciggerettes.Companys dont want to pay people to indulge in an addiction on their buck and I can understand that.

You get a break for food,then go outside for 10 minutes to ease the tobaco monkeys howls.Over a year thats a lotta time,for a lotta people,.Big money .And youre hardly gonna die if you dont smoke so why should you get all that paid smoking times a year when your co workers are slaving at the office.

Im just as concerned with Big business eroding the rights of workers as anyone here ,but this rule dosent really disturb me too much.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


I agree, and we ( I know in Canada) have rules in place, Culture (including religion), race, ethnicity, age, gender, and sexual orientation, to name a few are all protected against, again its still bendable to fit the companies policy.

Smoking is a problem since smokers take "smoking breaks" if its around the building its a hazard to the others who are non smokers. I agree its a minuscule thing but that's just it, if you can't get this job apply some where else. I'm sick of whinny smokers complaining how they can't smoke. Its bad for your health if anything say thanks, its incentive to quit.

I have to say since its a hospital it makes a tone of sense they promote healthy living smoking is unhealthy. If you smoke out side that setting you still represent that hospital's image so, they are within the right to say no to you if you are a smoker or are caught smoking. Its recreational. That is the main thing, companies can do that, they can have a clause in your contract saying you can't play golf.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
This is BS.I get smoking is bad for you but no need to discriminate against them.Don't know about you guys but round here u rarely get smoking sections in hospitals.You have to walk about 5miles just to have a smoke and risk catching a cold.

Could just aswell quit smoking



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
You have to acknowledge;
we conservatives told you this was coming"

" If we are paying for your "healthcare": No more ( fill in the blank):______________"

skiing ;motorcycling ;smoking; fast foods/alcohol...
So predictable..



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xiamara
As for other ways of getting nicotine, again its a company's choice if they have a no nicotine policy then that's fine, if you want that job, quit using, if not find another job. Suck it up, it's their choice who they hire to represent their company. You may not like it but its their company.

With respect, I think you are missing the point. Please pay attention to what I have bolded and underlined:



If you smoke, don’t bother applying for a job at Anna Jaques Hospital in Newburyport.

The hospital is requiring job applicants to take nicotine tests. If they test positive, they’ll be rejected.If they quit smoking, they can try again six months later.


They are singling out smokers publicly, but their dragnet will catch non-smoking tobacco users as well. The hospital is effectively lying through their teeth by saying, "We don't want smokers, and we'll do blood tests to weed them out." Those blood tests will also weed out anyone using nicotine products that do not require a lighter or match to use. Aside from non-smoking tobacco users, what about people exposed to second hand smoke? They will test positive to some degree as well.
If they are trying to avoid people who use nicotine products of any kind (e-cigs, too) then they should have just said so. If they are trying to avoid smokers only, then this method of testing is incredibly problematic. It paints everyone who has a trace of nicotine in their blood with a very broad, very inaccurate brush.

edit on 12/23/2010 by Nyiah because: typo

edit on 12/23/2010 by Nyiah because: typo




top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join