|
Post by chelle on May 21, 2008 19:14:43 GMT -5
I havent looked for the story. It takes forever for newpapers to load.
BUT I heard on Glenn beck that a florida town has decided they are allowed to ask if you smoke on a county application for a job, and if you do or have recently they WILL NOT hire you.
They will also be testing to make sure you dont pick up the habit.
|
|
|
Post by Connie on May 21, 2008 22:23:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by chelle on May 23, 2008 23:54:30 GMT -5
Yep. And to be honest, its discrimination in my book.
are they checking the fat folks for chocolate? those iwth high blood pressure taking a pee test for salt or red meat? Diabetics for taters and cake?
I know its not healthy, and I know its not safe. BUT who died and made them God?
|
|
kris24
Hero in training
Posts: 70
|
Post by kris24 on May 24, 2008 13:05:53 GMT -5
I agree that's a bunch of bull! They are now going into peoples personal lives to decide if they are going to hire you I mean a felon or something yeah, but omg a legal habbit?!!! I agree yeah it's not healthy but the fact is it's legal it's not like they are pot/crack heads!! Society is turning into a big joke! I remember I got an attitude from this one lady I was applying at The Avenue and I had previous management experience etc. now I didn't know it was a plus size store the lady took one look at me and said "well your not fat like the rest of us so you just don't understand, so this job isn't for you". So just because I wasn't plus size even though I had the experience they were looking for she told me to go away and that experience stuck with me because I got so upset because I was discriminated against that seeing this just really urks me.
|
|
kylene
Hero in training
Posts: 26
|
Post by kylene on May 24, 2008 17:04:21 GMT -5
ahhhh, so we wont let them buy there own cigs, dont hire them, they can go on welfare and we can buy them.
|
|
|
Post by visions5251 on Dec 9, 2008 18:21:39 GMT -5
Just another example of government sticking its nose into people's personal lives.
Lots of towns here in Al are now making laws that you can't smoke in ANY public place, even bars or outdoor parks!
that really should be the biz owner's decision, and if those who don't smoke think it's too "smoky" for them , they shouldn't come in there.
|
|
|
Post by Organized Chaos on Dec 9, 2008 23:02:13 GMT -5
Just another example of government sticking its nose into people's personal lives. Lots of towns here in Al are now making laws that you can't smoke in ANY public place, even bars or outdoor parks! that really should be the biz owner's decision, and if those who don't smoke think it's too "smoky" for them , they shouldn't come in there. Here in IL, the state-wide smoking ban has been going since the beginning of the year. Bars & restaurants were worried at first, and their business may have dropped a bit in the beginning, but no one's really suffering from it now. As a non smoker and someone who can't stand being around cigarette smoke, I must say I enjoy it. Before the ban, like you mentioned, I avoided places where people smoked heavily. But it's nice now to go into restaurants and not have to worry about it. Before, we'd sit in the "non smoking section" and would be right next to the smoking section with nothing more than maybe a short divider between us. But back on topic...no, I don't think it's right to not hire someone based on the fact that they smoke. Although I would love to see places like fast food restaurants make their workers who go out for cigarette breaks do it out of site of customers. I can't stand going to McDonald's or somewhere, seeing a worker outside puffing away like a chimney then going back in, reeking of smoke, knowing they're going to be preparing my food.
|
|
|
Post by Connie on Dec 9, 2008 23:17:55 GMT -5
But back on topic...no, I don't think it's right to not hire someone based on the fact that they smoke. Although I would love to see places like fast food restaurants make their workers who go out for cigarette breaks do it out of site of customers. I can't stand going to McDonald's or somewhere, seeing a worker outside puffing away like a chimney then going back in, reeking of smoke, knowing they're going to be preparing my food. Im so on the other side of this.. I DO see what you are saying and as a smoker and restaraunt worker I also try to be "understanding of the other viewpoint".. Where I work... Im IT... your one and only waitstaff and bartender.. If I were to go out back... you wouldn't have a server because I wouldn't know you were there until I came back in.. To me THAT is unacceptable.. so I have to go out front to smoke to make sure I SEE you come in.. lol... I DO make a huge production of going behind the bar and washing my hands before I will make your drink or go into the kitchen to make your food.. simply because it's the "right" thing to do. We do have bartenders who don't do that and you are right.. it makes the customers CRINGE... it would make me cringe too.. I like cleanliness when it comes to anything that might be going in my mouth... food, straws.. etc...
|
|
|
Post by tara on Dec 10, 2008 11:47:42 GMT -5
I almost posted last night but didn't hit send. As an ex smoker I like the bans. I can think of a few jobs that I think it should be okay to not hire a smoker or at least not allow them to smoke at all on the job or in work clothes. There are two restaurants that I will not go back to simply because I got a waitress that smokes. When I am paying 30 bucks for a meal, I do not want it served by someone who smells like an ashtray and her breathing in my direction just ruins my appetite. I think smoking SHOULD be banned in all family places, anywhere where children go. If you want to smoke around your kids that's your prerogative, but don't do it around mine. Nor should I have to stay home with my kids for someone else right to be unhealthy. I think everyone else right to fresh non cancer inducing air should trump a smokers. Non smokers can smell a smoker from a distance, it doesn't matter if you smoke out front or outback. It's not the sight of the act that gets me, its the disgusting stomach turning smell. I can't believe I use to smell like that. Gross. A bar is one thing, but if I take my kids to Friendly's I do not want someone reeking like a cigarette with a smokers cough touching my food or hovering near me while I try to eat it.
I would throw teachers in that category as well, teachers are suppose to be role models for our kids... I do not think it is appropriate for them to smell like stale smoke either- kids are not stupid they can also smell a smoker.
However while I do think it is more than appropriate to not allow smoking at all during work, I do not think it is okay to not hire smokers, but then again I also don't think people should be drug tested for work either, what you do at home, is your business. I do think there should be drug testing for all welfare recipients. It's okay NOT to hire an addict or a smoker, but it is okay to just give the tax money from those who do work to them for sitting on their asses getting high? THAT burns me.
|
|
|
Post by havingfunnow on Dec 11, 2008 7:04:42 GMT -5
I don't see how you would legally prevent workers from smoking in their work clothes, unless you provided them with an area to store and change into their work clothing. My reasoning is that they would NOT be on the clock, while traveling to and from work, at a meal, or while they were at home. At home, they don't even have to be in their work clothes, as the smoke will permeate hanging clothes as well. And what about firefighters Tobacco is used in many Native American religious ceremonies, so not being hired due to the fact that I have nicotine in my system could be used as grounds for denying my my religious freedoms falling under relisious persecution. MONEY MAKING OPPORTUNITY HERE - I need to go to Florida and look for a job, just so I can file a lawsuit! As far as drug testing for those on welfare, the highest levels of drug and alcohol addiction are at the lowest end of the income scale. So the proposed solution to those who choose to use drugs or alcohol as an escape from their situation, is to deny them any assistance at all. There are also those who use drugs or alcohol as a means of self-medicating or coping. I went to high school with a woman who, a couple years later, was physically assaulted by a group of men. She started doing drugs, lost her job, and ended up on welfare. She went to treatment and they put her on other drugs. She committed suicide. Sidenote: There have been people who tried to use the Native American Church as a reason to use peyote (mescaline) and could not therefore be fired or prosecuted for its use. Some of them have not been Native American, and the Federal Government has ruled that only members of Federally recognized tribes are allowed to do so. I find it funny that I could use it, even though it is not a traditional medicine used by my tribe.
|
|
|
Post by tara on Dec 11, 2008 9:23:56 GMT -5
Perhaps some of those low income drug users would have a significant increase in income if they were using it to buy drugs- I should not have to pay for them to be losers. Harsh? maybe, but it is illegal, my tax money should not support illegal activity nor people who chose to live their life that way. I am all for denying them assistance. If they can not bother to try to better themselves why is our responsibility to provide for them?
Work clothes can put on at work. I realize it's a bit far fetched but I think it should be up to the employer whether or not they want to hire a smoker. I know if I had a food service business I wouldn't want to hire a smoker. I don't see how it's different than not hiring a 500 lb flight attendant. You wouldn't hire a Jewish guy to teach a Christian Sunday school. I have yet to be served a meal by a firefighter fresh from the smoke. Perhaps maybe someday but it hasn't happened yet, although in my experience firefighters tend to smell like fire smoke from their job at times, not a three day old ashtray.
|
|
|
Post by havingfunnow on Dec 11, 2008 11:16:39 GMT -5
Perhaps some of those low income drug users would have a significant increase in income if they were using it to buy drugs- I should not have to pay for them to be losers. Harsh? maybe, but it is illegal, my tax money should not support illegal activity nor people who chose to live their life that way. I am all for denying them assistance. If they can not bother to try to better themselves why is our responsibility to provide for them? Work clothes can put on at work. I realize it's a bit far fetched but I think it should be up to the employer whether or not they want to hire a smoker. I know if I had a food service business I wouldn't want to hire a smoker. I don't see how it's different than not hiring a 500 lb flight attendant. You wouldn't hire a Jewish guy to teach a Christian Sunday school. I have yet to be served a meal by a firefighter fresh from the smoke. Perhaps maybe someday but it hasn't happened yet, although in my experience firefighters tend to smell like fire smoke from their job at times, not a three day old ashtray. I am very confused Do you mean that the low income drug users should sell the drugs they buy to increase their income? That would be more illegal than just using, as far as penalties go, but more lucrative. However, since it would be unreported income they would still be getting government subsistence, so there would be no decrease in tax money spent on them. I think I detect a contradiction, as you posted earlier: But now you say it should be up to the employer as to whether or not they want to hire a smoker. Is your argument the employer should have a choice if the employee is going to have exposure to the public? Or just limited to food service? While I have never been served by a firefighter, fresh from a fire either, I have eaten food at bar-b-ques, luaus, etc... Some people even eat food that has been smoked. And you obviously don't know me, because I would hire a Jewish guy to teach Christian Sunday School! Just to see the results
|
|
|
Post by Organized Chaos on Dec 11, 2008 12:15:45 GMT -5
I agree with tara about the welfare recipients. Our tax dollars shouldn't be used to support their drug/alcohol habit.
I don't agree with Louis' comment. If that's their way of escaping their situation, self-medicating or coping with their less than desirable life, that isn't a legit excuse for taxpayers to have to support it financially. Hell I have a less than desirable life right now with little to no income. That doesn't make it right to go out and become a drug addict & alcoholic then say, well it's just my way of coping. And I sure as hell wouldn't expect Govt. assistance to pay for it.
There's a huge difference being served food by a person who reeks of smoke and eating food that's been cooked on a BBQ or smoker. Those are completely different types of smoke.
|
|
|
Post by weebitty on Dec 11, 2008 12:24:03 GMT -5
Ok I will put my two cents worth here. Bottom line no matter what it is. smoking, seatbelts, helmets, etc it is taking you personal freedom from you!!!!! Period. I let people do what they want but don't tell me I have to do, believe, or act the way YOU want me too. It is unfair that people impose their will on other people. Take God out of schools, Change the american way of life. BS!!!!!!!! I am a smoker and I respect other people but bottom lines you are taking choices away from other people and That is not fair!!!!!!!! The government interfers too much already. Quite giving them more power!!!!!! If you don't like smokers don't go to that resturant that is your RIGHT!!!!!! You have the right to make up YOUR OWN MIND BUT NOT MINE!!!!
|
|
|
Post by tara on Dec 11, 2008 13:06:38 GMT -5
You're right it was a contradiction. I disagree with myself a lot. I can clearly see two sides to this one. I quit smoking 9 months ago, every cigarette I smoked I was disgusted with myself and decided for my sake and the sake of my children I had to make (what I think) was clearly the right choice. The hard one, but the right one. My husband still smokes outside with an overcoat and I still make him shower before sleeping near me. If his job were to say quit or else.... he would be quitting and I do not mean the job. It bugs me that he does smoke but if his livelihood depended on it and he found smoking to be more important than supporting his family than I would see him at the child support hearing.
Good point but, I don't like BBQ- I don't like the smell of BBQ BUT I know going in that at a BBQ I will subjected to smoke and I can make that choice. I guess it would depend on the atmosphere. At a bar, I would expect people to reek like cigarettes, at a nice restaurant, not so much. I do not like smoked food, so I would not eat smoked food, but again it's different- I would CHOSE smoked food, do not chose to subjected to stinky nasty waitress. I like to think I am also paying for atmosphere as well as the food. I'm a hillbilly, when I pay 30 a plate- I expect a lot more than I do from a teenager at mcDonalds. You wouldn't (okay maybe you would but most would not, lol) hire a waitress or waiter with really bad hygiene, to me personally it falls in the same category. For the most part I feel what you do on your own is your business- that said I would be horrified to be out with my daughter and run into her preschool teacher with a cigarette hanging out of her mouth at a function somewhere. If you are a factory worker standing outside having a cigarette I wouldn't care. Another contradiction and yes I know it is not fair, once again I never claimed to be fair or rational.
I think employers should have the choice just like choosing to do drug tests. On the other hand I am also for denying medicaid/care for smokers- let them pay for their own health care- maybe more people would make healthier choices. I guess if drug testing is okay why not cigarettes too? If they aren't doing it at work and it does not effect their job function it shouldn't be an issue. BUT Smoking and drug users both make the choice to be unhealthy, it isn't like not hiring someone based on race. Why shouldn't employers have the right to choose employees that don't indulge in habits detrimental to their health. Saves on sick time and insurance. Not that every now smoker will be healthy but the risk is higher every smoker KNOWS (and if they don't they live under a rock or are just plain stupid) what they are doing not only puts their health at risk but those around them too. I am also for fining parents who smoke with children in the car. I also have nothing against judges deciding custody cases for the parent that does not smoke in their home with their kids.
I'm confused too, you are okay with drug testing for work.... so drug users are not hired. But not okay with drug testing for welfare? So drug users shouldn't be employed but taxes should support their habit so they don't sell drugs? You lost me. I think if you test positive you should be referred to treatment- you test positive again, tough s**t you are on your own, go get a job to support your own habit. If they denied welfare to drug addicts I don't see how selling them fits in there. Selling drugs isn't always big business when you are a user, they tend to eat up their own profits and do stupid things. Perhaps they should be left alone to self destruct. Granted it may not stop non users from selling and collecting but I would bet my left arm it would free up A LOT of welfare funds for those who are truly trying, are making an effort and are left out struggling to feed their family because some scumbag is playing the system sitting on his ass getting high all day. Not saying I am right, nor arguing, just throwing my opinion out there. I think if you can spend hundreds of dollars a week on drugs.... you shouldn't need food stamps to feed your family. There is a single mom out there working two jobs who still can;t afford to feed her family and was denied help. I do not think the government should supplement them to help support their habits.... and if they still make the choice of drugs over feeding their kids- then they should NOT have those children to starve.
I think the right to fresh air trumps others rights to smoke wherever they please- because they are not just harming themselves. No different than not allowing hunting in the middle of a house development if a big buck happens to walk through your driveway. My rights end where yours begin. I do not have the right to put you at risk just because I want to. Perhaps I am a b***h, but as far as drug users go- I have no respect for anyone who doesn't have any for themselves. I'm not saying I am right, but I am what I am and I do not apologize for it.
The Jewish guy, I would probably hire him too just for kicks as well, well as long as he isn't a smoker : ) I don't think it would be right to not hire someone based on their religion..... as long as they keep it to themselves. I am all for not being subjected to the freaks with their pamphlets and lectures about dangation though. But there are exceptions to that too... if you are anti-birth control then you probably shouldn't work in an OB/Gyn or planned parenthood. If handing it over is against your values, perhaps you shouldn't be a pharmacist. I wouldn't go to school to be a surgeon if I was morally opposed to cutting someone open. Goes back to my rights end where your begin. I would never apply for a job at social services, my strong contradicting opinions would no doubt get in my way.
|
|