Passing a nicotine test for employment?
What if there arent any competitors that feel the opposite? What if because enough people feel the same there isnt enough money to get a viable business started that feels the opposite that can hire all these amazingly qualified black people to start a competitive company and take all the money? How do all these black people afford to go to school and get educated and get the experience to be amazingly qualified if they are all poor because no one hires black people?
And now for my deep thought, have you ever seen a white/black person working in a Chinese take out place? And yet, somehow, we have all managed to go on and open other types of restaurants.
However, you're right in that you can't compare a nicotine addiction to women in this regard. I merely meant that if you're going to start trying to optimize your staff based on influences on their levels of concentration, what point are you willing to take it to?
Introducing nicotine tests is an interesting step regardless though; if I were interviewing someone and saw they had cigarettes/were a smoker I wouldn't be inclined to employ them.
Even the nutters in this thread wouldn't say they should get the same deal.
Of course they would. There was a big stink about people getting denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions. A lot of people think it's an outrage. But somehow if I buy car insurance after I wreck my car, that's not cool.
I was being a little sarcaustic (sic)
but we clearly can and do discriminate over things people have no control over.
Stupid people get a raw deal in the jobs market. Something must be done.
but we clearly can and do discriminate over things people have no control over.
Stupid people get a raw deal in the jobs market. Something must be done.
Its' a matter of: "if all things are equal besides "x", and the candidate which has "x" characteristic is qualified for the job, an employer can't make a hiring decision based on "x."
Or: in the case of disabilities: "if all things are equal besides "x", and the candidate which has "x" characteristic, if given "yz" reasonable accomodation, is qualified for the job, an employer can't make a hiring decision based on "x."
What's about people having a baby?
What about people having a baby? That would fit into category number two that I set forth a few posts up (an "x" requiring "yz" accomodation).
Smoking doesn't fit into either decision, because it is not an "x" that matters for the purpose of the equasion.
If you read the thread, I went pretty far into discussing how I believe a nicotine test is an invasion of privacy and should not be able to factor into a hiring/firing decision as the employee has a right to smoke off the job. However, the employer should have a right to insist on no smoking during business hours, on or off the premises.
What about people having a baby? That would fit into category number two that I set forth a few posts up (an "x" requiring "yz" accomodation).
Smoking doesn't fit into either decision, because it is not an "x" that matters for the purpose of the equasion.
What about people having a baby? That would fit into category number two that I set forth a few posts up (an "x" requiring "yz" accomodation).
Smoking doesn't fit into either decision, because it is not an "x" that matters for the purpose of the equasion.
Fortunately, I think this is a road that will not be travelled. I don't think the "higher premium" justification will be found valid. I think healthcare will be considered a work benefit and that there should not be such artificial barriers to getting the work that provides the benefit.
Again, I think it is well within an employer's right (morally) to prohibit smoking during business hours and to require an employee to present oneself "clean" at the start of work as well (no smell of smoke, etc.). But, that is probably as far as it can go.
Again, I think it is well within an employer's right (morally) to prohibit smoking during business hours and to require an employee to present oneself "clean" at the start of work as well (no smell of smoke, etc.). But, that is probably as far as it can go.
Yeah, but as this is, the heath insurance would be a job benefit that is supposed to applied to all. Under the system we have, it would not be considered fair to single out individuals based on what it would cost the employer to provide a benefit that is available to all employees. At this point, we get into all sorts of things that lead us back to the beginning (not the beginning as in "now" but before the civil rights movement).
For example, African Americans do not live as long as others. Their health insurance would be higher. Why hire African Americans if we have to pay more for them than we would for other employees ... and so on.
Or, (hypothetically) African Americans are proven to take more sick days than others. To remain competitive, companies have to offer their employees sick days. However, because X corp. doesn't want its sick day policy abused, it will simply not hire African Americans.
(Of course, once we start getting into "studies" and "reports" to bear out these cost factors, then we will have arguments over their accuracy, fairness, methodology, etc. - a total boondoggle. This is quite something other than saying, "hey, it is our company policy that if you do "x" on the job, you will be fired.")
For example, African Americans do not live as long as others. Their health insurance would be higher. Why hire African Americans if we have to pay more for them than we would for other employees ... and so on.
Or, (hypothetically) African Americans are proven to take more sick days than others. To remain competitive, companies have to offer their employees sick days. However, because X corp. doesn't want its sick day policy abused, it will simply not hire African Americans.
(Of course, once we start getting into "studies" and "reports" to bear out these cost factors, then we will have arguments over their accuracy, fairness, methodology, etc. - a total boondoggle. This is quite something other than saying, "hey, it is our company policy that if you do "x" on the job, you will be fired.")
No, its not irrelevant.
1. Being African American (which means one would be so at, and away from work) is not something pn which an employer can base a hiring/firing decision.
2. Being a smoker at work, can be the basis for a hiring/firing decision.
3. Generally, under most analysis, being a smoker away from work is NOT a proper basis for a hiring/firing decision.
4. However, to justify extending the right to hire/fire someone on the basis of them smoking away from work, employers argue that they can base the decision on the fact they have to pay more for smokers' health insurance than they would for non-smokers'.
5. Thus, the line between company time and personal time has been eliminated by the application of this principle. Thus, the worker is no longer allowed to do something perfectly legal and within his own discretion in his free time.
6. If such a principle was acceptable, then logically it would lead companies to justify other decisions that breach otherwise protected areas, on "higher cost to the company," just as they are doing now with smokers.
7. So, if company says, well it cost the company "x" more to hire someone from "y" class, sex, race, etc. because of health care (or whatever they want to choose for these purposes) they can probably find statistics to back up that decision. Indeed, as stated above (and why I used the example) African Americans generally pay more for health insurance, so what is to stop a company that doesn't want to hire African Americans when they can justify it on increased cost of health care?
1. Being African American (which means one would be so at, and away from work) is not something pn which an employer can base a hiring/firing decision.
2. Being a smoker at work, can be the basis for a hiring/firing decision.
3. Generally, under most analysis, being a smoker away from work is NOT a proper basis for a hiring/firing decision.
4. However, to justify extending the right to hire/fire someone on the basis of them smoking away from work, employers argue that they can base the decision on the fact they have to pay more for smokers' health insurance than they would for non-smokers'.
5. Thus, the line between company time and personal time has been eliminated by the application of this principle. Thus, the worker is no longer allowed to do something perfectly legal and within his own discretion in his free time.
6. If such a principle was acceptable, then logically it would lead companies to justify other decisions that breach otherwise protected areas, on "higher cost to the company," just as they are doing now with smokers.
7. So, if company says, well it cost the company "x" more to hire someone from "y" class, sex, race, etc. because of health care (or whatever they want to choose for these purposes) they can probably find statistics to back up that decision. Indeed, as stated above (and why I used the example) African Americans generally pay more for health insurance, so what is to stop a company that doesn't want to hire African Americans when they can justify it on increased cost of health care?
I agree that imposing certain benefits on employees to provide employers is a mess. However, it should not change the fundamental structure in play.
As a rule, if a company chooses to provide benefits, it must do so equally. This is why I brought up the example of sick leave. If a company gives sick leave, it must give it to all and administer it in a even-handed fashion (for example, it is fine to give "one" extra day a year for [say] every 5 years you have worked there - or whatever. If you provide the benefit to one, you must do it for all).
So, given this, an employer cannot rightfully say, "well, I can determine that certain groups of people are going to abuse the sick day policy. That would result in me having to "pay" more to hire such people based on loss of production. Therefore, I refuse to hire these people, but it is purely a business decision." I doubt that sits well with you as you can see how easily it could be exploited by those who want to mask an ulterior intent.
Just because the government has now imposed health care as a benefit, that should not now allow corporations to use this previously prohibited justification to not hire certain groups of people.
As a rule, if a company chooses to provide benefits, it must do so equally. This is why I brought up the example of sick leave. If a company gives sick leave, it must give it to all and administer it in a even-handed fashion (for example, it is fine to give "one" extra day a year for [say] every 5 years you have worked there - or whatever. If you provide the benefit to one, you must do it for all).
So, given this, an employer cannot rightfully say, "well, I can determine that certain groups of people are going to abuse the sick day policy. That would result in me having to "pay" more to hire such people based on loss of production. Therefore, I refuse to hire these people, but it is purely a business decision." I doubt that sits well with you as you can see how easily it could be exploited by those who want to mask an ulterior intent.
Just because the government has now imposed health care as a benefit, that should not now allow corporations to use this previously prohibited justification to not hire certain groups of people.
Yes, the auto insurance example is great. That perfectly illustrates why government imposed health care is also stupid. But, that is another matter, entirely.
It is now a fact of life, and the question is why should the fact that this is a required benefit as opposed to an optional benefit change anything when it comes to hiring practices? (especially in light of the can of worms it will surely open).
It is now a fact of life, and the question is why should the fact that this is a required benefit as opposed to an optional benefit change anything when it comes to hiring practices? (especially in light of the can of worms it will surely open).
In the case of smokers, an employer can already demand that an employee cannot smoke during business hours, or to the point where it will affect other employees (bringing odors in with you, etc.). The problem is prohibiting legal activities after work that have no tangible impact on the business.
There seems to be differing opinions as to whether the employer can declare an all-out ban on smoking that extends to your free time. It seems that it can be done in some jurisdiction whearas in others such practice has been outlawed by legislation. In the case where the employer can still make a hiring/firing decision based on smoking, some courts have identified an issue of what type of information can be used to prove that person is, in fact a smoker (I would guess that those who answered "yes" in the interview, didn't get the job, so that is not what we are talking about. However, I would guess that many who actually smoke say "no.") It seems they draw the line between private and public information. I opined that requiring a test to prove you don't smoke if put to the test would be deemed an invasion of privacy for the purposes of using it to fire a "smoker."
In the jurisdiction that prevent employers from hring/firing based on smoking, it seems employers are stating an economic justification based on the fact smokers increase the amount employers have to pay for health care.
I am not sure that will prevail as (as you seem to agree) it could lead to a wholesale end run around civil rights laws (as I explained in a previous post). Also, I am not sure why an imposed benefit (heathcare) would be treated any differently than voluntary benefits which have to be distributed uniformly.
There seems to be differing opinions as to whether the employer can declare an all-out ban on smoking that extends to your free time. It seems that it can be done in some jurisdiction whearas in others such practice has been outlawed by legislation. In the case where the employer can still make a hiring/firing decision based on smoking, some courts have identified an issue of what type of information can be used to prove that person is, in fact a smoker (I would guess that those who answered "yes" in the interview, didn't get the job, so that is not what we are talking about. However, I would guess that many who actually smoke say "no.") It seems they draw the line between private and public information. I opined that requiring a test to prove you don't smoke if put to the test would be deemed an invasion of privacy for the purposes of using it to fire a "smoker."
In the jurisdiction that prevent employers from hring/firing based on smoking, it seems employers are stating an economic justification based on the fact smokers increase the amount employers have to pay for health care.
I am not sure that will prevail as (as you seem to agree) it could lead to a wholesale end run around civil rights laws (as I explained in a previous post). Also, I am not sure why an imposed benefit (heathcare) would be treated any differently than voluntary benefits which have to be distributed uniformly.
If you read the thread, I went pretty far into discussing how I believe a nicotine test is an invasion of privacy and should not be able to factor into a hiring/firing decision as the employee has a right to smoke off the job. However, the employer should have a right to insist on no smoking during business hours, on or off the premises.
What about people having a baby? That would fit into category number two that I set forth a few posts up (an "x" requiring "yz" accomodation).
Smoking doesn't fit into either decision, because it is not an "x" that matters for the purpose of the equasion.
If you read the thread, I went pretty far into discussing how I believe a nicotine test is an invasion of privacy and should not be able to factor into a hiring/firing decision as the employee has a right to smoke off the job. However, the employer should have a right to insist on no smoking during business hours, on or off the premises.
To those that make the law. If a particular society wants to consider smoking a protected right, then it would be treated as such. In the US, smoking is not a protected right
No kidding. The standard is not "lifestyle choices." That is someone either someone else said and you adopted, or something you said yoruself. The standard is protected characteristic. In this case the protection goest to being a woman. The condition of having a baby, however, is treated as a disability because an accomodation must be provided (maternity leave, etc.) Of course, having a baby is a choice, but it is a choice deemed worthy of protection as opposed to smoking.
To those that make the law. If a particular society wants to consider smoking a protected right, then it would be treated as such. In the US, that is not the case.
that was supposed to read the same as if there was an "if" prior to "it is legal to have smoking rooms."
No kidding. The standard is not "lifestyle choices." That is someone either someone else said and you adopted, or something you said yourself. The standard is protected characteristic. In this case the protection goes to being a woman. The condition of having a baby, however, is treated as a disability because an accomodation must be provided (maternity leave, etc.) Of course, having a baby is a choice, but it is a choice deemed worthy of protection as opposed to smoking.
I'd prefer a different standrad and the same standard of reasonable accomodation of everybody.
To those that make the law. If a particular society wants to consider smoking a protected right, then it would be treated as such. In the US, smoking is not a protected right
Its not just protecting some rights its also banning other rights.That's where I came in. A society that increasingly demonises so much, bans so much, persecutes so much and oppresses so much isn't remotely free.
I would think that a society that let people do whatever they want, regardless of the social cost would be much more oppressive to people who were being harmed by the activity in question. Instead, the U.S., after much and ongoing debate, has decided that those who want to smoke must make some concessions.
Tough choices. They have to be made. Rules, choices and compromises were not necessary until the second person showed up on this earth.
Part of having our own country is making our own laws.
"Persecution" (or rather the decision not to extend constitutional rights to smoking) didn't just fall from the sky. It was the process of having our society decide whether allowing people the unalienable right to smoke was more important that protecting others from being harmed by it.
I would think that a society that let people do whatever they want, regardless of the social cost would be much more oppressive to people who were being harmed by the activity in question.
Instead, the U.S., after much and ongoing debate, has decided that those who want to smoke must make some concessions.
Do you suggest that we think music is evil because we have laws against playing it too loud?
Poor quality strawman.
lol. and online poker how did that get banned?
The bigger problem with online poker at the moment is there is not a proper framework in place to properly regulate the industry. I imagine that once that gets worked out, the right to engage in online poker will be a choice for local governments.
But... but... we're protecting prospective workers' rights not to be asked whether they engage in behavior that will tend to increase employers' health care costs or to induce workers to take expensive leaves while expecting to be treated as if they are more valuable than they actually are! Clearly we are free.
How do you suppose it got banned? I would think that the right to play online poker is subject to the laws of the U.S.A. and the relevant state. I would guess that your exposure to most Americans comes through sites like this which is very pro poker. However, there are a significant number of people who are against online poker and gambling in general. Gambling has shown to harm society; it is also accepted that it has its benefits as well, the least of not which concern one's choice ... just like smoking.
Something is rotton in the state of denmark. Everything you say is consistant with far more freedom but the USA is going in the other direction fast. You will keep your rose tinted specs on until they get banned.
Anyway, you are just trolling me at this point. I don't really appreciate it.
You just have a fundamentally different expectation of what liberty means than I do. There is no point arguing over it. I have no problem with smoking. I would continue to smoke if I hadn't started E-cigs which I enjoy more. I would also continue to play online poker if I could. Our system of liberty is a give and take; a ridgid system comprised solely of absolutes cannot properly serve a society. Whether I agree with the current tide of public opinion and laws on certain subjects doesn't mean I am happy about it or that I think the basis of the opposing side's are correct, but I do understand and accept the process of allowing all viewpoints to be considered. Again, once you share a space with another person, you have to consider their rights and opinions as well.
Compromise isn't telling the other people they are doing something bad, its finding a way for people with different interests a way to co-exist as best as possible.
Feel free not to respond and I wont respond to your response which apprantly you dont appreciate.
No, you can discriminate against someone for being stupid.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE