Florida City To Ban Hiring Smokers?

[Gunny]

How so?

The local government is discriminating, unconstitutionally against people for personal habits that are legal.

If it was a private company, I would disagree with it, but I believe they should have the right to hire who they want.

Government employees, funded by taxpayer dollars, are supposed to be selected based on their ability to perform the job they are applying for, not for whether or not they wipe from the front or the back.

 

[GotZoom]

The government is not allowed to discriminate by law. Disqualifying someone for a personal habit that is still at the moment legal, is discrimination.

Try denying a homosexual a job because of HIS personal habits.

The government and private companies are not allowed to discriminate against:

From www.dol.com

Section 188 bars discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or political affiliation or belief.

If they want to say no smoking, no tats, etc...they are allowed.

 

[Merlin]

Private companies can. The government, according to its own rules, cannot discriminate. This is nothing more than totalitarian BS.

It's against the law in LA. to even ask a potential employee if he/she smokes.

 

[CSM]

Hmmm...does it follow then that smokers dont have to pay state tax? Does it follow then also that smokers cannot receive unemployment comp (which would technically make them an 'employee' of the state)?

 

[Gunny]

The government and private companies are not allowed to discriminate against:

From www.dol.com

Section 188 bars discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or political affiliation or belief.

If they want to say no smoking, no tats, etc...they are allowed.

If they want to say no smoking in the workplace, that is their right. Depending on your mindset, smoking could fall under both disability and belief. But to say if a person smokes they are disqualified from employment?

Since when can an employer -- ANY employer -- dictate what a person's personal habits are? By this line of reasoning, if the employer believes sex is only for the purpose of procreation, he can then disqualify potential employess on the grounds of having gratuitous sex (that's just an example -- extreme, yes -- but relevant).

 

[pegwinn]

Since when can an employer -- ANY employer -- dictate what a person's personal habits are?

Yes it sucks, but if it costs money and impacts benefits, they can do it to avoid other discrimination charges. Example: Smokers cost more in health care. IF they refuse to cover smokers, then they are in breach of anti-discrimination regulation based on the 14th Amendment. But, if they simply have a no smoking at all policy...........

I'm with the guy who said just to not tell em the real reason why. But you have to know that eventually someone would notice........

 

[GotZoom]

If they want to say no smoking in the workplace, that is their right. Depending on your mindset, smoking could fall under both disability and belief. But to say if a person smokes they are disqualified from employment?

Since when can an employer -- ANY employer -- dictate what a person's personal habits are? By this line of reasoning, if the employer believes sex is only for the purpose of procreation, he can then disqualify potential employess on the grounds of having gratuitous sex (that's just an example -- extreme, yes -- but relevant).

Again, as outlined on that website, there are only a few things that a company can not discriminate against. If they want to say they are a smoke-free work place (and not hire smokers), they can.

Using your sex theory, that could be interpretitive as a religious stand, which might cause them to lose a law-suit.

Anything an employer say you can't do (aside from those things on the website) can and will probably open a company up to a lawsuit if the potential employee chooses to go that route.

But honestly, you can sue anybody for just about anything.

 

[Gunny]

Again, as outlined on that website, there are only a few things that a company can not discriminate against. If they want to say they are a smoke-free work place (and not hire smokers), they can.

Using your sex theory, that could be interpretitive as a religious stand, which might cause them to lose a law-suit.

Anything an employer say you can't do (aside from those things on the website) can and will probably open a company up to a lawsuit if the potential employee chooses to go that route.

But honestly, you can sue anybody for just about anything.

Again, we are talking about a city government, not a private corporation.

I agree that if a company wants a smoke-free workplace that is their right. It is not their right to dictate to employees that they cannot smoke. Only that they cannot smoke in the workplace.

 

[GotZoom]

Again, we are talking about a city government, not a private corporation.

I agree that if a company wants a smoke-free workplace that is their right. It is not their right to dictate to employees that they cannot smoke. Only that they cannot smoke in the workplace.

It might not be their right, but they can certainly do it. Just as they can dictate piercings, tats, no "wild-colored" hair, overall dress code, when are breaks, lunch, vacations, etc.

 

[Gunny]

It might not be their right, but they can certainly do it. Just as they can dictate piercings, tats, no "wild-colored" hair, overall dress code, when are breaks, lunch, vacations, etc.

We're just talking past each other. You're arguing what "is," while I am arguing what is "right." I understand how it "is."

Doesn't mean I have to like it, nor agree with it. I'm painfully aware that discrimination is quite acceptable at the PC level.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

It should be legal for private companies to discriminate for any frivolous reason they want. After all, customers do too. If a company's policy offends you, don't work there and don't shop there.

Governments on the other hand should not discriminate, unless it's something that will affect job performance. Something which takes place in the employee's spare time should be irrelevant. That's because you aren't really a "customer" of the government; you can't choose to quit paying it unfortunately.

 

[Annie]

It should be legal for private companies to discriminate for any frivolous reason they want. After all, customers do too. If a company's policy offends you, don't work there and don't shop there.

Governments on the other hand should not discriminate, unless it's something that will affect job performance. Something which takes place in the employee's spare time should be irrelevant. That's because you aren't really a "customer" of the government; you can't choose to quit paying it unfortunately.

Well I don't think you can discriminate on religion; race; weight, (in most occupations); attractiveness; gender, (see Hooters lawsuits); and any number of reasons. Employers willingly pay for mental health insurance, including substance abuse problems. Why smokers? It's not like they are not paying for their own health care with taxes on cigarettes already. It's just the current acceptable whipping dog.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Well I don't think you can discriminate on religion; race; weight, (in most occupations); attractiveness; gender, (see Hooters lawsuits); and any number of reasons. Employers willingly pay for mental health insurance, including substance abuse problems. Why smokers? It's not like they are not paying for their own health care with taxes on cigarettes already. It's just the current acceptable whipping dog.

When you say "you" I assume you mean businesses?

Customers can already discriminate for any reason they choose, and I think businesses should be able to do the same, since it's private property. Legally, they can't (currently). But it should be their right.

That being said, I think it would be silly for a business to discriminate against someone just because they smoke at home.

 

[Annie]

When you say "you" I assume you mean businesses?

Customers can already discriminate for any reason they choose, and I think businesses should be able to do the same, since it's private property. Legally, they can't (currently). But it should be their right.

That being said, I think it would be silly for a business to discriminate against someone just because they smoke at home.

Yes about 'you' and 'business' and yes I agree with you on the home thing.