Oklahoma lawmaker: Let businesses fire cigarette smokers

page: 3
16
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


I think you misunderstood my post. I am in no way advocating picking on smokers. I smoke cigarettes. I wish there was less restrictions on individual freedom. Bar owners should be able to decide for themselves if smoking is allowed inside their own business. But if a business owner doesn't want to hire me because I smoke I respect that, it's his business. And to use your examples if a business owner refuses to hire, non-smokers, nose-pickers, ect, ok. He may have a hard time finding qualified employees after awhile and he may change his mind. That's his choice. Choices, freedoms, liberty, those are what I want more of, not less.




posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 11:02 PM
link   
So if smokers are a bigger drain, the businesses can axe;
The Obese
People with diabetes
People with cancer
People with artificial limbs
People with spastic colon
etc.




posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 11:56 PM
link   
It feels so hopeless living here in Oklahoma, every single time I turn around they are making up some ridiculous law. I'm tired of it, and my votes don't seem to make a difference. Time to move.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


This is ridiculous. It is in fact already legal to fire smokers if you choose to.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:35 AM
link   
really in oklahoma. ..bunch of cowboy, beer drinking ,gun packing patriots listen up you can smoke 'em
if ya got 'em-
on their 10 minute coffee break ' tard



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:51 AM
link   
You know you live in a country run by idiots...
When smoking Pot is legal and widely accepted. But smoking Tobacco is totally wrong and your treated like a criminal


My wife never smoked and I quit just 2 yrs ago after 54 years of smoking.
I still enjoy the smell of a good cigar, pipe or cigarette.
edit on 23-1-2013 by guohua because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Carreau
reply to post by smurfy
 


I think you misunderstood my post. I am in no way advocating picking on smokers. I smoke cigarettes. I wish there was less restrictions on individual freedom. Bar owners should be able to decide for themselves if smoking is allowed inside their own business. But if a business owner doesn't want to hire me because I smoke I respect that, it's his business. And to use your examples if a business owner refuses to hire, non-smokers, nose-pickers, ect, ok. He may have a hard time finding qualified employees after awhile and he may change his mind. That's his choice. Choices, freedoms, liberty, those are what I want more of, not less.


I was agreeing with you in fact, and I was just adding to it. The reason I mentioned all that is because we are all of the same ilk to some degree or other.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Seems the Oklohoma state legislators are too free, and have nothing better to do for the state and nation, but to dream up stupid legislation one after another.

If that idle elected representative claims that smokers drive up health care costs and should be fired from workplaces, fine and dandy, let's CUT THE TAXES on cigarettes, which caused the price rises passed on from manufacturers, then. That's what had been paying for overall health care costs to NOT ONLY smokers, but non smokers alike.

If 50% of 300 million american citizens are smokers, just work out the price rise and TAX revenues the govt had been collecting DAILY!!!

What happened to those money? Had it been siphon off instead to other pursuits, such as paying the state legislator's car allowance and thus nothing left for healthcare?

If they wish to blame smokers for health care costs and feel free to DISCRIMINATE them as they wish, then society HAS NO RIGHT to impose taxes and the like upon smokers, for smokers too are humans and had been shouldering health care costs. No taxes if no representation.

This lawmaker and his supporters either seems a moron, ignorant jerks or just intolerant talibans. SACK THE LEGISLATOR!!!!
edit on 23-1-2013 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
So if smokers are a bigger drain, the businesses can axe;
The Obese
People with diabetes
People with cancer
People with artificial limbs
People with spastic colon
etc.



Don't forget HIV.

HIV medication costs $3000/month.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Whether a business wants to fire a smoker because they smell bad, take too many smoke breaks, blah, blah, blah, is completely different than choosing to fire someone because they smoke BECAUSE it causes their group health premiums or medical costs to increase. As far as I can tell at this point, when an employee is added to a group health policy, the question of smoking doesn't come up on the paperwork. So it wouldn't increase health care premiums. Also, a company's group health premiums don't go up according to their medical claim costs. So until this happens, their is no validity that it costs a company more in medical costs to have a smoker on the payroll and the claim is not justified.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


I agree with you.....that is what is going to happen now that government controls healthcare. Death panels are real, food will be banned and people with unhealthy lifestyles will be fired.

So what about people with high BMI?

Those who participate in extreme sports?

Those who drink?

Will OnStar turn us in for driving dangerously?



Absolutely agree. There's going to be a lot more of this. I don't even call it blowback. I think it was designed to do this. Control. You need an excuse to barge into people's homes and tell them what to do. What better excuse (in the eyes of a liberal) than "the greater good"?



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Is this guy a fan of Bloomberg or something?

GOP can be stupid Statists too.
edit on 26-1-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Bloomberg ran as a republican, but he is in now way shape or form a republican. That's a joke.

He is liberal to his bones.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


He's actually listed as an independent and the 10 th richest person in the US.

And thank god he's 70.


Michael Rubens Bloomberg is an American business magnate, politician and philanthropist. He is currently Mayor of New York City. With a net worth of $25 billion in 2012, he is also the 10th-richest person in the United States. Wikipedia Born: February 14, 1942 (age 70), Boston Height: 5' 8" (1.73 m) Office: Mayor of New York City since 2002 Party: Independent Spouse: Susan Brown (m. 1975–1993) Education: Harvard Business School (1966), Johns Hopkins University (1964), Harvard University



www.google.com...



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Bloomberg ran as a republican, but he is in now way shape or form a republican. That's a joke.

He is liberal to his bones.


The way I've come to look at it is that liberal or conservative doesn't really matter. Most of them are big government no matter what letter is beside their name. This is why it is impossible to solve the problem we have with big government. No matter what we do, we are stuck with the same thing. They don't so much go big government on business but you can count on them going big government on the individual every solitary time.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by BrianFlanders
 


I know what you mean, a politician is a politician and that is a shame. There are a very few I still have some faith in, but that number is dwindling rapidly. People always tell me I'm too bitter and jaded, so I am trying to have some hope.

I mean some of them are still human right? Right?


But when I speak of liberal or conservative, I just use it as an easy measure of general personality traits and belief systems.

People of certain mind sets flock to one party or the other to be with like minded, so it is the easiest way of identification when you do not know someone personally.

Libertarians, conservatives and liberals all have certain things they believe in. And there are many other types.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 06:32 AM
link   
A law like this would be the 'foot-in-the-door' they need to start firing workers for ANY reason, even if those reasons don't affect their ability to do the job they are hired to do. My God, the general workplace will be like a mini tyrannical dictatorship with despots doing the hiring and firing.

If this law gets passed, I think we should start demanding standards of the big fat pigs in politics too. As things are today, YOU give them a job by voting them in (allegedly), YOU pay their massive salaries, YOU pay their massive expenses, YOU pay their massive pensions, and when their greed for more money and power affects their ability to do their job competently they still get to keep their jobs. What other employer wouldn't sack such an expensive yet useless employee?

I believe it should be law that there be absolutely NO extra financial benefit or perks for people who choose to go into politics. They should get just basic wage and a fixed expenses allowance. And if/when their decisions begin to adversely affect the livelihoods or standard of living of the citizens, then THEIR OWN standard of living and livelihood should be the first to suffer BEFORE that of taxpayers. They should be the first victims of their bad decisions.

So, if this law will apply to politicians' jobs too, I'll be all for it.
edit on 26-1-2013 by doobydoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Well if he wants to be fair in regards to who he hires for their cost on healthcare, he needs to first fire anyone who's healthy and has a potentially long-life ahead of them, then get rid of the obese, and finally if there's anyone still working at that business, he can fire the smokers.

That is where smokers stand in regards to their overall cost on the healthcare system, because smokers die, and those who live the longest ultimately take up the most in healthcare.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evil_Santa
Well if he wants to be fair in regards to who he hires for their cost on healthcare, he needs to first fire anyone who's healthy and has a potentially long-life ahead of them, then get rid of the obese, and finally if there's anyone still working at that business, he can fire the smokers.

That is where smokers stand in regards to their overall cost on the healthcare system, because smokers die, and those who live the longest ultimately take up the most in healthcare.

Yep, it is only the living who take advantage of healthcare.

Companies want workers who never tire, don't need breaks and never get sick. Maybe they should just invest in robots to do everything and be done with it.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by doobydoll
A law like this would be the 'foot-in-the-door' they need to start firing workers for ANY reason, even if those reasons don't affect their ability to do the job they are hired to do.


Well, yeah. But I think the bigger issue is why they're doing it. I mean, a business wants to keep it's resources and a good employee is just another resource. As long as they can control their employees, they want to keep them.

So the reason for this (as usual) is control. They don't really want to fire you. They just want to run your life. And disturbingly, it appears to be an alliance between business and government for their mutual interests (leaving out the wishes of the individual).

The government wants to control you and the business wants to save money.

The only way to beat this is to quit working for people who are this domineering over the lives of their employees and stop doing business with them. But you won't make a very big dent if you're the only one doing it. Unfortunately, it has to be a movement before it would have any real effect. And that's hard. You would be mostly trying to convince individualists to join a mass cause. Which goes against their very nature.

Hardcore collectivists are good at this stuff because they have long-established channels for disseminating information and most of them have been involved in the cause of the destruction of the individual all their lives.


I believe it should be law that there be absolutely NO extra financial benefit or perks for people who choose to go into politics. They should get just basic wage and a fixed expenses allowance. And if/when their decisions begin to adversely affect the livelihoods or standard of living of the citizens, then THEIR OWN standard of living and livelihood should be the first to suffer BEFORE that of taxpayers. They should be the first victims of their bad decisions.


Unfortunately, this won't work. No matter what measures are put in place, they will always find a way around it. It is only a matter of rerouting. And many of these people are strategic thinkers (or they can find some to help them). They have far more to gain by sitting around finding ways to defeat anti-corruption measures than they do by playing nice. And because they're on this playing field every single day in the thick of it, they will not be easily distracted by other things the way citizens who try to play watchdogs are.

You would have to be very bright, very resourceful and you would have to eat sleep and breathe politics to be an effective citizen watchdog. And then comes the fact that many people who pay attention to politics do so at their own leisure. You wouldn't want to appoint them or elect them because as soon as you do, the corruption knows exactly where to find the watchdog.
edit on 26-1-2013 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
16
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join