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.
Originally posted by vkey08
this is 100% Unconstitutional. They can regulate smoking on their own property but they cannot test for a legal substance that any adult over 18 can purchase. I forsee a flurry of Federal Lawsuits up and coming..
Originally posted by TheFlash
Originally posted by vkey08
this is 100% Unconstitutional. They can regulate smoking on their own property but they cannot test for a legal substance that any adult over 18 can purchase. I forsee a flurry of Federal Lawsuits up and coming..
They can do it if you agree to it. And guess what? If you don't agree to it, you don't get the job - simple. No illegality there - no lawsuits.
Originally posted by Phantom28804
What I do have a problem with is when you or anyone else begins to try to eat away or take away the rights that you and I share. This may be a company now but it is a trend that is happening everywhere not just in this one company or a few companies.
Originally posted by Forevever
Originally posted by InnerTruths
I cannot get hired to certain places because I use medical marijuana. Yet, this plant has never caused a case of cancer (because it tends to cure cancers). No one has ever died, people do not accrue unbelievable health care costs due to bronchial or pneumonia infections...
ok just for the record - I have asthma and I'm a smoker - I smoke a pack a day and keep my asthma under control without the aid of medication, however, I do have an emergency inhaler just in case
you know WHEN I need to use that inhaler? Can you guess? since I'm specifically addressing you?
I'm a Ron Paul supporter, and Humana can do whatever they want.
edit on 1-7-2011 by Forevever because: I finished reading the thread, no one else posted, avoiding a double post
Originally posted by vkey08Yes it is, why because this is cigarettes does this become any different than any other thing, you cannot say "I will only hire people that are 5 foot 7 inches and above all others need not apply, that is discrimination, discrimination is illegal.
Protected Class: The groups protected from the employment discrimination by law. These groups include men and women on the basis of sex; any group which shares a common race, religion, color, or national origin; people over 40; and people with physical or mental handicaps. Every U.S. citizen is a member of some protected class, and is entitled to the benefits of EEO law. However, the EEO laws were passed to correct a history of unfavorable treatment of women and minority group members.
That's what it's coming to, so essentially that's right. You've basically described where the line is on what a company can do. You can like it or dislike it, but that's more or less where the line is.
Originally posted by peck420
On this site I can find more than few threads demonizing companies for not hiring gays, women, different religions, different ethnicities...but fat and smoke and you're out!
Wrong.
If business have the 'right' to hire or fire based on what employees do outside of the business, than there should be no problems in business hiring or firing on the basis of anything listed above.
Originally posted by Wildbob77
Humana is in the health insurance business.
They, if anyone, would certainly have the statistics on the adverse health affects of smoking.
I think that a business should be able to determine the suitability of potential employes to work in a health related field. That would include smoking and/or other addictive behaviors.
I have to laugh at some of the comments about this. Humana is not a part of the government. It is not part of a conspiracy to change your behavior. It is just trying to make sure that it's future employees are not nicotine addicts. I think that it's their right to do this.
Originally posted by tnhiker
I have actually encountered several companies that will not hire smokers. Says on the website that must not have smoked in the past 6 months.
I think you just need to read the federal law for some insight on how this will probably end up in state laws:
Originally posted by Phantom28804
Your missing the point entirely. This isn't just about cigarettes. I am good lord what is next? They decide to not hire overweight people because they are a health risk. Then we stop hiring people with Diabetes or family histories of severe medical problems because they are a health risk too.
The 2008 law prohibits employment discrimination based on genetic information, which includes family medical history. And the other laws state which types of discrimination are regulated. You don't see smoking, overeating and sedentary lifestyle on the list, right? so discriminating on that basis doesn't violate the law.
-- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
---the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination;
-- the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older;
-- Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments;...
Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), which prohibits employment discrimination based on genetic information about an applicant, employee, or former employee; and
And since their clients have to pay more to insure smokers, it is also trying to lead by example to not have their smoking employees work with customers by telling them they should try to help their employees quit smoking to reduce insurance costs, in-between puffs on a cigarette
Originally posted by Wildbob77
It is just trying to make sure that it's future employees are not nicotine addicts.
Originally posted by Phantom28804 Then smokers are going to be like the ex-convicts, sweeping floors or lucky if they can find employment? Eventually it will get to that and then you will be forcing me and others like me to make life choices based on whether we want to live on the streets or not.
Originally posted by Phantom28804Your missing the point entirely. This isn't just about cigarettes. I mean good lord what is next? They decide to not hire overweight people because they are a health risk. Then we stop hiring people with Diabetes or family histories of severe medical problems because they are a health risk too. Then you move on and say hey you know what I am losing money every year because of parents who have to leave early for the children. Lets just not hire anyone with kids, because it decreases my productivity.
Originally posted by k21968
reply to post by Phantom28804
I work for Humana and I smoke and I am overweight. I guess I should start looking for alternate employment.
We were discussing this at our daily meeting yesterday and the smokers amongst us brought up that it was discrimination. Our boss said they have a gadzillion attorneys who have already ensured no legal action could come of it.
Fortunately the state I live in has not done this yet. However, I dont think they could. Kentucky is the tobacco capital of America. It concerns me. I am good at my job, I go to work (today is a vacation day) and I meet or exceed all expectations from the company. If they asked me to stop smoking tomorrow to keep my job I would have to quit to feed my family, but I would then have to persue medication for the rage that would ensue. Smoking calms my nerves.
Whats next? Not hiring people who drink a glass of wine with their dinner? It is the same thing. ALcohol hurts/ kills many people and causes health problems as well.
This topic was a hot one at work yesterday and basically the non smokers were happy and the smokers were not. There was no in between.
I choose to smoke. I smoke in our "smoke shacks" outside. My smoking hurts no one but myself. It does not affect my work performance so I do not understand this at all.
What if you smoke 50 packs at a time?
Originally posted by peck420
The issues that most smokers will face are not from the nicotine, they are from the tar, the carbon monoxide, the arsenic, the formaldehyde, the cyanide, and the benzene. All of which are produced (even in the most environmentaly friendly car) at a rate far greater than any smoker can smoke.
Let's pretend you smoke 50 packs/day. Yes...50!
Originally posted by Golf66
Originally posted by Phantom28804Ok so this is another step into the trend of Fascist America. I do not understand why we as a nation and people continue to let this # happen. What happened to Liberty and Justice for all? Now it's just Liberty and Justice for those that choose not to do anything unhealthy?
Actually, this has zero to do with fascism since the rule to not hire smokers is made by a private entity. The entity also happens to be an insurance company and since they have the facts and figures they know that smokers while they do have to pay slightly higher premiums almost 100% of the time result in a higher overall payout for actual costs than a non-smoker. Since their employees are covered by their own company I think it is just s simple cost-benefit analysis decision and a good one.
A private cooperation in America can and should be able to hire and fire people for whatever reason they deem appropriate. The reverse of that imposed by the government say awarding benefits to companies who hire a certain racial make-up or mandating certain other restrictions or benefits is wrong.
My business my rules - I can hire who I wish for what I wish based on whatever criteria I want.